Fae 
 write 
 
 te , 
 teafetieicerath 
 eek Srey: 
 meine 
 tse 
 DV Sneii re 
 
 wa 
 - 
 
 fees 
 
 _ 
 
 we 
 a 
 
 ra 
 
 gtk fq 
 guires 
 + enews 
 
 be 
 
 33) 
 
 a Se 
 
 ea 
 
 fe . 
 Wri riately tre leyty po 
 
 May's 
 
 ‘ 
 RRs - 
 year hat Gt: 
 
 + 
 
 4 
 ee 
 
 - ser 
 
 erie : 
 rss Pee 
 FaSyete’ Soke fit 
 Lewd Se) platity Se 
 ate 
 
 Sates 
 SNMP oe: 
 
 (asters : = 
 
 erty: 
 
 sen tee ¥ fi 
 
 > 
 87 
 + 
 
 faye ste Ss eee 
 
 aa ae ee 
 
 t 
 
 é, 
 
 PAY 
 
 + 
 
 te 
 lt 
 
 Bed 2%, 
 
 Ate 
 
 Kid 
 
 +a 
 
 4 
 
 ates 
 
 ee 
 
 ped 
 im 
 +a 
 Ayti 
 
 ie 
 
 
 
= 
 3 
 
 Hivaie ilar 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 raised dl ma'a % 
 
 > @ Fao ds 
 
 Ss 
 
 ve 
 Ny 
 
 SA 
 
 AY 
 N 
 
 tUBE o Mae 
 
 isis 
 
 Part see reer 
 
 Le. ie wu 
 
 Bimuw . 
 Cima 
 
 ‘a Diviia 
 
 er TT Uae 
 Si ies ie 
 
 A ee 
 
 "Gite .o' Fi 
 
 
 
NOTICE: Return or renew ail Library Materiais! The Minimum Fee for 
 each Lost Book is $50.00. 
 
 The person charging this material is responsible for 
 
 its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 
 on or before the Latest Date stamped below. 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- 
 
 nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 L161—O-1096 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
ONE THOUSAND AND FIFTY COPIES OF 
 THIS BOOK HAVE BEEN PRINTED, AND 
 THE TYPE DISTRIBUTED. ONE THOU?’ 
 SAND COPIES ARE OFFERED FOR SALE 
 THIS IS COPY NO... NR 
 
GUY PATIN 
 
TY) 
 eae PE oa 
 
 LM CE Lee Ci a 
 
 oo EL MS . . ae ‘ : | 
 POF . 
 
 4 
 
 (Frontispiece) 
 Paris: JEAN Petit. 
 
 39> 
 
 “LETTRES CHOISIES. 
 
 
 
 Guy PATIN FROM 
 
 1685. 
 
mY PATIN 
 
 AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 
 IN PARIS IN THE XVIZTH CENTURY 
 
 TS 
 FRANCIS R. PACKARD, M.D. 
 
 Author of Life and Times of Ambroise Pare 
 Editor of Annals of Medical History 
 
 WITH SEVENTEEN ILLUSTRATIONS 
 INCLUDING NINE FULL PAGE PLATES 
 
 
 
 PAUL B. HOEBER, Inc. 
 NEW YORK +» MCMXXV 
 
CopyYRIGHT, 1924 
 By PAUL B. HOEBER, Inc. 
 
 Reprinted, with additions, from 
 Annals of Medical History (Volume IV, Nos. 2, 3 and 4) 
 Published December, 1924 
 
 Printed in the United States of America 
 
em qual ¥ a ©. Rourbatum + +2% 
 
 ~, 
 ~ 
 J} 
 - 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 HE formerly so-celebrated corre- 
 spondence of Guy Patin, and even 
 his name have fallen recently 
 into such undeserved oblivion that 
 
 It seems timely to the writer that an 
 attempt should be made to revive interest 
 in this famous old French worthy, whose 
 letters written during a period of over 
 forty years (1630-1672) give us such an 
 invaluable picture of the life of the times, 
 not only from the medical point of view 
 but in all its aspects, military, religious, 
 political and courtly. As the great French 
 critic, Sainte-Beuve, wrote of Patin’s letters: 
 
 One finds in these letters, bon mots, the news 
 of the day, many curious details on the litera- 
 ture and learned men of the time, above all a 
 lucid and natural manner, with free, bold 
 traits, which point to the life, the mind, the 
 genius of the author. It is a conversation 
 without design, without pretention, often spor- 
 tive. They are the confidences of one friend to 
 another, full of crudity, of passion, sometimes 
 of grossness, often of good sense, humor, and 
 
 salt of every kind. 
 
 { vu | 
 
 5967938 
 
4 vil 
 Bayle, in his “Dictionnaire biogra- 
 phique,”’ warns that “it is necessary to read 
 his letters with distrust because most of the 
 political and literary anecdotes m them are 
 false or ill-founded,” and Voltaire says of 
 them: 
 
 His collection of letters has been read with 
 avidity because it contained new anecdotes 
 which everybody loves, and satires which 
 one loves even more. It serves to show how 
 much contemporary authors who write pre- 
 cipitately the news of the day are unfaithful 
 guides for history. Such news ts often false or 
 disfigured by malignity and moreover this 
 multitude of petty details is scarcely of value 
 save to small minds. 
 
 These criticisms may be true as to the 
 historic value of Patin’s letters, neverthe- 
 less, as pictures of the life of the day they are 
 invaluable and it must be remembered 
 Guy did not purpose writing history when 
 he penned them. 
 
 Reveillé-Parise quotes a statement made 
 by Fontenelle, the nephew of Corneille 
 and himself a distinguished litterateur, who 
 was born in 1647, and thus grew up among 
 men who had known Patin personally. In 
 his eulogy of Denis Dodart, Fontenelle 
 says: “‘AIl the circumstances testified to by 
 
“ IX F 
 
 M. Patin are worthy of attention. He was 
 a physician, very learned and passionate 
 for the glory of medicine. He wrote to a 
 friend not only with entire but sometimes 
 with excessive liberty. Eulogies are not 
 very frequent in his Jetters, that which 
 dominates them being a very independent 
 philosophic bile.” 
 
 Guy did not write his letters for publi- 
 cation. The first edition was not published, 
 fortunately for him, until he had been in 
 his grave eleven years, and was conse- 
 quently immune from the vengeance of 
 those whom he so bitterly offended by the 
 freedom of his language. It is to this that, 
 with all due allowance for his individual 
 prejudices, which were violent and doubt- 
 less unreasonable, the great value of the 
 correspondence is due. He wrote of persons 
 and events with a liberty, not to say license, 
 which he would certainly not have dared use 
 had he thought his letters would see the light 
 of day, especially as the chief objects of his 
 attacks were those high in place, such as 
 Richelieu and Mazarin, or powerful organi- 
 zations, such as the Jesuits, or the Apothe- 
 caries. He is equally caustic and personal 
 in his remarks about many of the royal 
 family and the nobility, and this at a time 
 
ix} 
 when such writings, if discovered, would 
 have brought severe punishment on their 
 author. Of his own works which were 
 intended for publication Patin says:! 
 
 Posterity will forego my writings, likewise 
 I have not much desire to leave any of them. 
 There are two sorts of men who write, the wise 
 and the fools, and I know myself to be neither 
 the one nor the other. Furthermore the life 
 that we lead at Paris is too agitated. The 
 practice of our profession takes from us that 
 tranquillity which it is necessary to have when 
 one wishes to write for eternity. 
 
 Elsewhere? he urges Spon to make “un 
 beau sacrifice to Vulcan, to burn his Ietters.”’ 
 
 Patin’s correspondents were chiefly phy- 
 sicians who were like him imterested in 
 literary matters. 
 
 The earliest Ietters we have were ad- 
 dressed to the Belins, father and son, each 
 named Claude, who practiced medicine 
 at Troyes. The two Spons were physicians 
 at Lyons. They Itkewise were father and 
 son. Charles Spon, the elder, was born at 
 Lyons on December 25, 1609, and practiced 
 medicine there until his death on February 
 
 1 Letter to Spon, November 8, 1658. 
 2 Letter of January 8, 1650. 
 
“| xi 
 21, 1684. In spite of his very large practice 
 he was the author of a number of books. 
 Reveillé-Parise says his most important 
 work was an edition of the ‘Aphorisms 
 and Prognostics of Hippocrates” which he 
 dedicated to Patin. 
 
 Jacques Spon, the son of Charles, was 
 born at Lyons in 1647. Although a physi- 
 cian he seems to have been interested 
 chiefly m antiquarian research. In company 
 with an Englishman named Vehler, he 
 traveled extensively through southeastern 
 Furope, Greece and Turkey, and pub- 
 lished a “Relation” of his travels. As he 
 was a Huguenot he retired into Switzerland 
 where he died in extreme poverty in 1685, 
 the year of the Revocation of the Edict 
 of Nantes. 
 
 André Falconet, Patin’s correspondent, 
 was of a distinguished Ime of physicians. 
 His father, Charles Falconet, was physician 
 to Marguerite of Valois, the first wife of 
 Henri 1v. André was born at Lyons, Novem- 
 ber 12, 1612 and died in 1691. He practiced 
 medicine at Lyons with great success. The 
 Letters contain many references to his 
 son, Noél Falconet,* who was sent to Paris 
 to study medicine, and lived there with 
 
 3 November 16, 1644—May 14, 1724. 
 
xii f 
 
 Patin as his house pupil. Noél had a son, 
 Camille Falconet, who after practicing at 
 Lyons moved to Paris where he attained 
 great distinction, not only as a physician, 
 but as a booklover. His history sounds very 
 much as if some of the spirit of his father’s 
 preceptor had been transmitted to him. 
 Camille died at Paris in 1762. 
 
 The formal writings of Guy Patin were 
 not numerous and it must be confessed 
 that their mterest was mostly ephemeral. 
 They will be found listed m an appended 
 bibliography, and if one will take the 
 trouble to read such of them as are avail- 
 able, he will arise from their perusal with 
 the conviction that Patin’s fame must rest 
 on his correspondence and not on such 
 evidences of his erudition or medical skill 
 as are contained in_ his professional 
 writings. 
 
 This is not the sole mstance in which an 
 individual’s posthumous fame has arisen 
 from some other attribute than that to which 
 he personally would have wished the greater 
 importance attached. 
 
 As occurs with all unauthorized or surrep- 
 titious publications the correspondence has 
 undergone many vicissitudes in the various 
 editions in which it has been preserved to 
 
q xii 
 us. Triaire,‘ in the preface to the edition 
 which he undertook to publish in 1907 and 
 which he intended to be complete and 
 definitive, summarily reviews the many 
 defects which appertain to each of them. 
 He says: 
 
 The editors have not contented themselves 
 with throwing aside at their convenience a 
 considerable quantity of unpublished docu- 
 ments, but they have also not hesitated to 
 suppress numerous passages in those which they 
 have published. They have gone further yet 
 and have not recoiled before alterations of the 
 text, before falsification of the ideas of the 
 author. They have altered his manuscript, 
 replacing a strong and exact expression, such as 
 he threw it from his pen, by a dull or insignifi- 
 cant word; modifying at their will entire pas- 
 sages, giving résumés of these passages instead 
 of their complete text: attaching, after cutting 
 out without limit, two or three letters together, 
 or on the other hand dividing one letter into 
 many and forging from the pieces patchworks 
 more or less ingenious to supply the solutions 
 of continuity which result from such actions. 
 All the editions, of which the greater part are 
 based on one another, reproduce the errors of 
 
 ‘lettres de Gui Patin, 1630-1672. Nouvelle 
 édition collectionée sur les manuscrits autographes, 
 etc. Paris, 1907. 
 
‘| xiv 
 their predecessors in adding to them faults of 
 their own, not excepting the last, the only 
 
 modern one, that of 1846, due to M. Reveillé- 
 Parise. 
 
 After this severe arraignment M. Triaire 
 relates the several efforts that have been 
 made to collate the letters with the object 
 of publishing a definitive edition. In 1760 
 M. Formy, perpetual secretary of the 
 Academy of Berlin, concetved the project 
 but for some reason not stated his plan 
 aborted. In 1846 Reveillé-Parise published 
 an edition at Paris in three volumes for 
 which he clarmed completeness and 
 accuracy, but which Triaire following 
 Sainte-Beuve condemns for inaccuracy and 
 incompleteness. 
 
 In 1895 MM. de Montaiglon and Tami- 
 sey de la Roque had gathered together all 
 the available letters with a mass of correla- 
 tive information, notes, etc., when the entire 
 collection was destroyed by fire. 
 
 Finally Triaire himself, undaunted by the 
 failures of his predecessors, undertook the 
 task and gave to the world in 1907 one 
 volume of what he promised to make the 
 long sought for definitive edition. 
 
 Unfortunately Triaire has only published 
 one volume of his edition, and in the corre- 
 
‘| xv 
 
 spondence therein contained there are only 
 the letters written up to March, 1649. He 
 has arranged these letters consecutively, 
 according to date, whereas Reveillé-Parise 
 has collected the letters into groups accord- 
 ing to the person to whom they were writ- 
 ten. Triaire’s arrangement is preferable. 
 In 1911 Pierre Pic published a most 
 delightful collection of selections from the 
 correspondence® with a learned and inter- 
 esting Introduction, in which while admit- 
 ting the great value of the “letters” from 
 the historic and literary pomt of view he 
 deprecates the style m which they are 
 written and says that when Sainte-Beuve 
 wrote his praise of them he seems not to 
 have been struck by the “two principal 
 defects of Patin, the eternal idle talk, and 
 the ferocious scolding for all that which is 
 not his personal opinion.” Pic criticizes 
 Patin’s habit of imterlarding his letters 
 with Latin, which he says he does not do 
 judiciously and correctly after the manner 
 of Montaigne, but im a foolishly pedantic 
 and often inaccurate way. For those who 
 wish to read what is best of Patin and to 
 acquire the real flavor of his “letters” 
 
 5Guy Patin avec 74 portraits ou documents. 
 Paris, G. Stemheil, 1g1t. 
 
«| xvi [ 
 
 there is no better edition of them than Pic’s, 
 which will certainly stimulate the reader to 
 further researches on their author. 
 
 ‘Triaire® states: 
 
 The original letters of Patin to the Belins of 
 Troyes are contained in the manuscript in- 
 scribed at the Bibliothéque Nationale under the 
 number 9,438 (Fonds Francais. Suppl. Frangais, 
 2,034, bis). This manuscript contains 175 letters 
 addressed to Belin pére ei fils—of which one is 
 not in the hand of the author but bears his sig- 
 nature; twenty-eight letters to Spon, of which 
 five have been likewise written by another 
 pen but are signed by Patin; a letter without 
 any address, but manifestly destined to Spon; 
 and one addressed to Charpentier, physician 
 of the Faculty of Paris. An inscription indi- 
 cates that the manuscript came from the sale 
 of M. Gay of Lyons, in 1634. Pic’ states that 
 there is in the Library of the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine in Paris a collection of 459 letters written 
 by Patin to a number of foreign scientists, 
 among whom he mentions Thomas Bartholin 
 of Copenhagen, Meibomius and Van der 
 Linden of Leyden, Scheffer of Frankfort, Gas- 
 pard Bauhin of B&le, and Volckamer of 
 Nuremberg. The letters are written in Latin 
 
 6 | ettres de Gui Patin, Libraire Honoré Champion. 
 Paris, 1907. 
 
 7 Pic, P. Guy Patin, Paris, 1911. 
 
4] xvu 
 and the earliest bears the date March 26, 
 1652, and the latest April 4, 1669. The letters in 
 this collection are not the originals, but copies, 
 some of them by Patin himself, others by his 
 eldest son, Robert, who acted as his secretary. 
 These letters are unpublished. 
 
 Triaire states that there is a manuscript in 
 the Library of Wiesbaden entitled ‘“ Bor- 
 bonia ou singularités remarquables prises 
 des conversations des Messieurs Nic. Bour- 
 bon et Guy Patin.”’ It is accompanied by the 
 following recommendations addressed by 
 Patin to his son, Charles: 
 
 My son, I talk to you as though this was my 
 testament. All these papers which you see here 
 are a farrago, a potpourri thrown in a heap 
 without order, of a quantity of very various 
 things that I have learned or heard spoken 
 of by one person or another; but the greater 
 part comes from a talk which I have con- 
 tinued for many years cum Viro Clarissimo et 
 Doctissimo Nicolao Borbonio in the Oratory at 
 Paris. There are some points very free and 
 delicate as much of religion as of the govern- 
 ment of princes. All that which I have said of 
 the Jesuits, believe as very true but do not 
 repeat unless it be 4 propos. . . . I again 
 repeat and recommend to you, read (these 
 papers) and burn them sooner than lend them 
 to anyone. 
 
xviii |: 
 
 Nicolas Bourbon, a canon of the Oratory 
 in Paris, was a very learned man and a 
 great friend of Patin’s. He was the center 
 of a learned circle which used to meet at 
 the Oratory. Part of the above mentioned 
 manuscript was published with the title 
 ‘‘Borboniana.”’ 
 
 A curious fact is that Pic transcribes a 
 similar reeommendation addressed by Patin 
 to his son which he says precedes the 
 unpublished letters in the Bibliothéque 
 de Ja Faculté de Médecine. The latter 
 collection was deposited at the Ecole de 
 Santé at Paris by Peyrihle in 1794. Triaire 
 says that M. Ricci stated that the Wies- 
 baden collection was there in 1907. 
 
 Is the Wiesbaden collection the original, 
 of which the letters at Paris are the con- 
 temporary copies by Patin and his son? 
 
 FRrANcIS R. PACKARD. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ths 
 
 PeERODUCTION ne eaiiaiie VII 
 I. HisrorrcAL ForEworD.... I 
 Il. Patin’s YoutH AND EDUCATION 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PaRIS . 25 
 
 Family and Education—Medical 
 
 Education in Paris. 
 
 Il]. La Facutté pE M€épEcINE . . 40 
 IV. Home Lire ANpD LITERARY IN- 
 BERESTS 2. ew) wa70 
 
 Home Life—Literary Interests— 
 Religious Belief —Friendship 
 with Naudé. 
 
 V. Patin In RExaTION To His Stvu- 
 DENTS AND His Sons... . . 100 
 Patin’s Domestic Circle—Robert 
 Patin—Charles Patin. 
 
 Niel QPINIONS OF PATIN. . 9 2.5... 136 
 The Pharmacopeia of Paris— 
 -Patin and the Book Trade— 
 Patin’s Health—The Plague and 
 Syphilis—Opposition to Cin- 
 chona—Orvietan—Patin’s Views 
 on Infant Feeding—Venesection 
 in Infancy and Old Age—The 
 
 Use of Animal Remedies. 
 
VII. 
 
 VII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTEs . 
 INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES. .. . 
 
 [xx] 
 
 SOME OF PaATIN’s CONTRIBUTIONS 
 TO LITERATURE. Re 
 Honors Conferred on Patin— 
 Patin’s Opinion of Physicians— 
 Controversy with Renaudot. 
 PaTIN EXPERIENCES OPPOSITION 
 The Physicians of Paris versus 
 Those of Montpellier—Opposi- 
 tion to the Use of Antimony— 
 Moliére and Patin—Bloodletting. 
 Patin’s LATER YEARS. .. . 
 Surgeons and Barber-Surgeons— 
 The Apothecaries—Side Lights 
 on Patin’s Clientele—Richelieu 
 and Mazarinm—Social Life in 
 France in the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury—Abortion—Louis xiv and 
 Medicine—Paris and the Court 
 —Public Executions—Demoniac 
 Possession—Last Days. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 165 
 
 198 
 
 . 239 
 
 - 309 
 gag 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PAGE 
 Guy Patin from ‘Lettres Choisie.” 
 Paris: Jean Petit, 1685 . . .Frontispiece 
 
 Cardinal de Richelieu (1585-1642) Facing 4 
 Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661). . Facing 9 
 
 mmmaror Guy Patine <4 oe. 39 
 
 emery fatin 6242 fh. AQ 
 
 Jean Riolan, the Younger (1 577-1657) 
 Facing 56 
 
 Gabriel Naudé (1600-1653) . . Facing 92 
 Title Page of “De Antiquitate” by 
 Beepeee NAUGC. 10209 60 6%. ek) 94 
 Charles Patin (1633-1693). . . Facing 127 
 Title Page of “Lyceum Patavinum” by 
 ies F atin, 1652. 6.0. FU 134 
 Frontispiece of Philibert Guybert’s “Le 
 Médecin Charitable,” Paris: J. Jost, 
 COT SE AAS RCN a SE 138 
 avy eatin: (1002-1672)... ea 140 
 A Physician Making His Professional 
 Calls in Paris in the Seventeenth 
 BMMEHATEN Sexe rte lek coke py Facing 143 
 View of the Interior of the Hopital de Ia 
 Charité at Paris during the Reign of 
 MES ITT WN Ay aah is OCtne 108 
 
 Xx! 
 
[xx [> 
 
 PAGE 
 Hardouin de Samt-Jacques . .Facing 204 
 
 Francois Guénault (15 -1667) Facing 218 
 Invitation to Patin’s Funeral. . . . . 306 
 
GUY PATIN 
 
 AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION 
 IN PARISIN THE XVIIZH CENTURY 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 HIsTORICAL FOREWORD 
 
 
 
 yo atin’s life covers a most 
 BAT PSs ° ° . ° 
 ‘fies’ Interesting period in the 
 iv ee 
 
 NY history of France. He was 
 
 “<7 born in 1601, and was a 
 
 was assassinated, and he 
 2) died in 1672 when Louis 
 SY badk/oS4 xiv was atthe height of his 
 glory. In order to appreciate his letters and 
 their bearing on current events we must com- 
 prehend somewhat of the great changes which 
 took place in the social and political life of 
 France in that period. 
 
 During the latter half of the sixteenth 
 century France was torn asunder by the 
 religious wars between the Catholics and 
 the Huguenots. After Henri 111 was assassi- 
 nated at Saint Cloud in 1580, there were five 
 years more of bitter warfare before Henri 
 
 [1] 
 
{2} 
 Iv succeeded in winning Paris “by a mass” 
 and entered that city as King of France. 
 At last civil peace was restored and under 
 the wise and conservative government of 
 the new king and his great minister, Sully, 
 the imternal wounds of France _ healed 
 rapidly with the marvelous recuperative 
 power which she has shown on so many 
 different occasions in her history. A new 
 era dawned. Men were at liberty to worship 
 according to the dictates of their conscience, 
 the Edict of Nantes, promulgated by Henri 
 IV in 1598, having granted the Huguenots 
 freedom of worship. With peace came pros- 
 perity, growth of commerce and agricul- 
 ture, with corresponding social and intel- 
 lectual development. The murder of Henr1 
 Iv, by the dagger of the fanatic, Ravaillac, 
 on May 14, 1610, temporarily mterrupted 
 this happy state of affairs. 
 
 Henri Iv was succeeded by his son, 
 Louis x11, a boy of nine years. Until he 
 should reach his majority the affairs of 
 the kingdom were placed in the hands 
 of the Queen Mother, Marie de’ Medici, 
 who was completely controlled by an Ital- 
 ian named Concini and his wife, Leonora 
 Galigai, who had been Marie de’ Medici’s 
 foster-sister. Possessed with rapacity and 
 abmition they not only accumulated vast 
 
| 3 
 
 sums of money from the treasury, but 
 Concini had himself made Marquis of 
 Ancre, and although he had never been on 
 a battlefield, Marshal of France. Sully was 
 ignominiously dismissed from the council 
 and the regulation of the affairs of the 
 kingdom lay entirely in the hands of these 
 unscrupulous Italians. Henri 1v had accu- 
 mulated in the royal treasury vast sums 
 which the Queen Regent squandered in 
 gifts on her favorites and m pensions on 
 the leaders of the French nobility whom 
 she endeavored to reconcile in this manner 
 to the domimation of Concini. Although she 
 gave with a lavish hand it did not suffice 
 to repress their discontent or political am- 
 bitions, and revolts broke out on several 
 occasions which were with difficulty sup- 
 pressed by the Queen Regent’s bestowing 
 enormous sums of money on the leaders, 
 such as Condé, Mayenne, and de Rohan. 
 In 1615, the young King married Anne of 
 Austria. Finally in 1617, when Louis was 
 sixteen years old, resenting the manner 
 in which his mother and Concini excluded 
 him from affairs and mspired by deep 
 personal hatred of the latter, he entered 
 into a conspiracy with his favorite de 
 Luynes, a young man of small ability and 
 little conscience, and Vitry, the Captain of 
 
‘| 4 
 
 his Guards. Concini was seized by Vitry 
 _as he was entering the Louvre and, as he 
 resisted arrest, was instantly killed. His wife 
 was arrested and accused of acquiring influ- 
 ence over the Queen by practicing sorcery. 
 She was found guilty, beheaded and her 
 body burned. Louis declared the regency at 
 an end and placed de Luynes at the head 
 of affairs, but the pride of the old French 
 nobility rebelled agamst the overwhelming 
 insolence and rapacity of this parvenu as 
 much as it did against that of his prede- 
 cessor, and they took arms to overthrow 
 him. De Luynes died of a fever in 1621. 
 After his death the Queen Mother, who had 
 been exiled from the court to Blois, became 
 reconciled with the King and with her 
 return to court, Richelieu, whom she had 
 first introduced into public affairs, came 
 Into power, and until his death in 1642 
 was the predominant influence im the affairs 
 of France. To Patin he was the personifi- 
 cation of all that was evil, and Patin was 
 only one of many who hated the Cardinal 
 and sought in many ways to accomplish 
 his overthrow. Patin’s hatred was partly 
 personal, and as his passions or prejudices 
 were violent in all things so his detesta- 
 tion of Richelieu’s government may be 
 

 
 CHELIEU 
 
 BART 
 
 ARDINAL D 
 (1585-1642) 
 
 fe 
 
THE LIBRARY ny 
 OF THE - Bei 
 
 Hag NS 
 
 yurvensity OF 
 
 ae 2 0s" 
 
 
 
1940 
 
 largely traced to the fact that at the time 
 of the conspiracy of Cing-Mars in 1642, 
 Richelieu had executed as one of the 
 conspirators, de Thou, the son of the his- 
 torian, a great friend of Patin’s. However 
 that may be, Patin lets no opportunity slip 
 for delivering himself of the bitterest dia- 
 tribes against the Cardinal. It is very difh- 
 cult to judge Richelieu with impartiality. 
 Coming mto power at a time when France 
 was fast slipping into the old evil of civil 
 war, the great nobles all heading armed fac- 
 tions, he managed to weather the storms and 
 finally place the real power where it be- 
 longed in the hands of the King. The 
 Huguenots and Catholics maintained a con- 
 dition of armed neutrality, and minor con- 
 flicts occurred from time to time which kept 
 up the smouldering enmity. The internal 
 dissensions of France had weakened her 
 standing with other nations, and her mili- 
 tary strength was at the lowest ebb. In the 
 few years since the death of Henri tv, agri- 
 culture and commerce had been again dis- 
 turbed by civil commotions and the im- 
 provements and reforms: instituted by Sully 
 and his great master were neglected. 
 
 One of his first measures was to abase 
 the growing power of the Huguenots. 
 
16iF 
 By the Edict of Nantes the Huguenots 
 had been granted certain cities, among 
 them La Rochelle. The latter they had. 
 converted into a powerful fortress, sup- 
 ported by a large fleet and army. Richelieu 
 determined to suppress this focus of Protes- 
 tantism. Taking advantage of an uprising 
 of the Huguenots, Richelieu laid siege 
 to La Rochelle, and after a siege of fifteen 
 months he entered the town in triumph, 
 thereby breaking the military power of 
 the Huguenots in France forevermore. Their 
 military power broken Richelieu treated 
 the Protestants with an astonishing I[tb- 
 erality, permitiing them to hold their 
 religious beliefs and services, to practice 
 the liberal professions, and even to hold 
 high offices in the army and navy and in 
 political and crvil life. Richelieu determined 
 from an early day to check the power of 
 the nobility. In 1626 the comte de Chalais 
 having entered into a conspiracy with a 
 number of others to dethrone Louis x11 
 and make his brother, Gaston d’Orléans, 
 king, Richelieu arrested a number of the 
 greatest persons at the Court. The comte 
 de Chalais was beheaded, the duchesse 
 de Chevreuse, the most intimate friend of 
 the Queen, was exiled, some natural sons 
 
5 beri 
 
 of Henri 1v who had entered into the conspir- 
 acy were imprisoned in the Bastille, and 
 the duc d’Orléans forced to make the most 
 abject professions of loyalty. The most 
 stringent edicts had been promulgated 
 against duelling. They were set at defiance 
 by the nobility until m 1627 when Richelieu 
 had two nobles, the comte de Bouteville 
 and the comte de Chapelle, executed at 
 the Place de Ia Gréve for fighting a duel. 
 Even the Queen Mother, to whom Riche- 
 lieu owed his start in power, had to succumb 
 to the terrible Cardinal. In 1630 she 
 persuaded Louis, by working on his fears 
 and jealousy, to disgrace the Cardinal. 
 The latter left the Court and the courtiers 
 all hastened to the apartments of the Queen 
 Mother to congratulate her and to ingratiate 
 themselves. But the King repented m a 
 few hours and Richelieu was recalled. The 
 day was known subsequently as the Day 
 of Dupes, but those who had deceived 
 themselves were bitterly awakened to their 
 error. The Queen Mother was sent away 
 from the Court to Compiégne, whence 
 she fled to Brussels, dying an exile in 1631. 
 The garde des sceaux, Marillac, and _ his 
 brother, who was a Marshal of France, 
 were arrested. The garde des sceaux died 
 
18} 
 in prison and the Marshal was beheaded. 
 Bassompierre, the future Marshal of France, 
 was put in the Bastille for twelve years. 
 Gaston d’Orléans went to Brussels to join 
 the Queen Mother. There they concocted 
 a new rebellion in conjunction with the duc 
 de Montmorency. The royal forces defeated 
 the army of the rebels at Castelnaudary in 
 1632. Gaston ran away, and the duc de 
 Montmorency was executed. 
 
 In 1642 the comte de Cing-Mars at- 
 tempted a conspiracy to overthrow Riche- 
 lieu. It has been suspected, though never 
 proved, that the King was party to the plot. 
 It was discovered and Cing Mars, with the 
 other Ieaders, was executed. Thus Richelieu 
 destroyed the last vestige of feudalism. 
 The Fronde was only a phantom of the 
 former uprisings of the nobility. 
 
 On December 1, 1642, to the savagely 
 expressed joy of Patin, the Cardinal died. 
 
 Richelieu was fond of literature. He 
 founded the Académie Frangaise in 1634, 
 and rebuilt the Sorbonne. He also estab- 
 lished the royal printing press and the ~ 
 Jardin des Plantes, the latter being espe- 
 cially designed as an aid to medical science. 
 Richelieu built and lived in the Palais 
 Royal, then known as the Palais Cardinal. 
 

 
 CARDINAL MAZARIN 
 (1602-1661) 
 
iii ay | 
 OF iE er. 
 UBIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ~~ 
 
 
 
‘19 | 
 
 Louis xu only survived his great minis- 
 ter about six months, dying on May 14, 
 1643. Once more the throne of France was 
 left to an infant, Louis xiv, aged less than 
 five years, with the regency in the hands 
 of a Queen Mother, Anne of Austria, and 
 strange to say with another cardinal, Maz- 
 arin, an Italian by birth, as chief minister. 
 Mazarin had been brought forward by 
 Richelieu and proved a worthy pupil 
 although undoubtedly not as able or great 
 a man as his predecessor. There is much 
 ground for the belief that Mazarin was 
 secretly married to Anne of Austria or at 
 any rate that he was her lover. 
 
 The early years of the new reign were 
 marked by the victories of the great 
 Condé and Turenne, over the Spaniards 
 and Germans in the course of the Thirty 
 Years’ War, which dragged on Its weary 
 way from 1618 until the Peace of West-. 
 phalia m 1648, by which France secured 
 possession of Alsace. The finances of the 
 country were in a terrible condition at this 
 time. The superintendent of finances, Par- 
 ticelli d’Esmery, was a corrupt Italian. His 
 extravagance and venality necessitated the 
 most onerous taxation. Mazarin was much 
 more avaricious than Richelieu, amassing 
 
J 10 I 
 
 enormous wealth for himself and his rela- 
 tives. Places at the court and government 
 positions, as well as in the army and navy, 
 were openly sold, and we can read in Patin’s 
 letters the way in which positions in the 
 medical service of the court were sold to 
 the highest bidder, regardless of merit. 
 Mazarin either got all, or a large part of 
 most of the bargains thus made. The 
 Parlement of Paris had become a center of 
 opposition to the corruption and venality 
 of the court. Mazarin resolved in August, 
 1648, to break the opposition by seizing 
 three of the members who had taken the 
 most active part. They were named de 
 Blancmesnil, Broussel, and Charton. The 
 Jast named ran away, de Blancmesnil was 
 easily taken prisoner, but when some guards 
 had put Broussel in a coach to carry him 
 off, a clamor was raised and the popu- 
 Jation of Paris rose in revolt. The Parlement 
 of Paris marched to the Louvre followed 
 by an immense mob. After a brief show of 
 resistance the Court yielded and the ar- 
 rested magistrates were released. 
 
 This insurrection and that of the Fronde 
 which developed immediately afterwards 
 were fomented largely by the activity of 
 Paul de Gondi, Iater Cardinal de Retz, the 
 
J uf 
 coadjutor to the Archbishop of Paris. He 
 was intelligent, wealthy, unscrupulous, and 
 above all a demagogue. Mazarin and the 
 Queen Mother determined at the first 
 auspicious moment to renew the fight, 
 when they felt themselves in a stronger 
 position. Accordingly, in February, 1649, 
 the Queen Mother, with the King and 
 Mazarin, left Paris and went to Saint- 
 Germain, where the prince de Condé, 
 always known as Ie Grand Condé in French 
 history because of his illustrious military 
 services, took command of the troops which 
 remained loyal, and war was declared on 
 the Parlement of Paris and the rebellious 
 populace. Many of the nobility hastened 
 to Paris to take part with the people, 
 among them the prince de Conti, younger 
 brother of the Great Condé, the duc de 
 Longueville, the duc de Bouillon, and the 
 duc de Beaufort. The latter, a grandson 
 of Henri 1v, had received the nickname 
 of the roi des balles, or king of the markets, 
 because of his popularity with the market 
 women of Paris and the lowest class of the 
 people. He was very handsome, with affable 
 manners but absolutely devoid of capacity. 
 The prince de Conti was chosen commander 
 of the peoples’ army. The coadjutor de 
 
“| 12 
 
 Retz displayed the most feverish activity 
 in stirring up the rebellion and maintaining 
 the spirits of the party. He raised a regi- 
 ment of cavalry which was dubbed in 
 ridicule the regiment of Corinth because 
 de Retz was titular bishop of Corinth. 
 This civil war on a small scale received 
 the name of the Fronde because of a 
 game which was very popular with the 
 children of that epoch in France. It con- 
 sisted of throwing stones at one another by 
 means of an instrument like a slingshot, 
 made of a piece of leather between two 
 strings. The police having forbidden this 
 amusement the boys were in the habit of 
 using their weapons on the officers who chased 
 them. Hence those who were opposed to the 
 authorities recerved the name of Frondeurs. 
 
 The so-called war, as Voltaire says, 
 would have been entirely ridiculous had 
 it not been participated in by a king of 
 France, and the Great Condé, and involved 
 the capital of the kmgdom. The peoples’ 
 troops made many sorties from Paris, | 
 which were uniformly repulsed. On their 
 return they would be hooted and jeered at 
 by their fellow-citizens for whose cause they 
 had gone forth to fight. The Parlement 
 having ordered that each house having a 
 
asets 
 porte-cochére should furnish a man and a 
 horse for the service, the cavalry raised by 
 the city in this way was known as the 
 cavalry of the porte-cochéres. The popular 
 cause suffered because the nobility who had 
 attached themselves to it were not animated 
 by any real desire to further it. but only 
 by selfish ambition and vanity coupled 
 with personal hatred of the Cardinal and 
 Queen Mother. The contemporary revolu- 
 tion in England succeeded because the men 
 who participated In it were united in an 
 earnest resolve to correct abuses. In France 
 though the abuses existed there was a lack 
 of unity among the groups of the peoples’ 
 party which, coupled with the unscrupulous 
 ambition and levity of those who were 
 chosen as its leaders, soon [ed to its disin- 
 tegration. Some of the nobility actually 
 attempted to negotiate with Spain, then 
 at war with France, for aid against the 
 Mazarinists, as they preferred to designate 
 their antagonists. It must be remembered 
 that the Parlement of Paris was not at all 
 similar to the institution bearing the name 
 parliament in England. In France the term 
 “‘parlement” was applied to bodies which 
 existed at Paris, Bordeaux and elsewhere 
 in France, composed of lawyers and promi- 
 
| 14 } 
 nent bourgeois of the several districts in 
 which they were constituted. They were 
 not only legislative but also judicial bodies. 
 The Parlement of Paris awoke to a realiza- 
 tion that their cause was being betrayed 
 by the nobility. Condé had wisely refrained 
 from any serious attack on the city of 
 Paris, contenting himself with merely re- 
 pulsing the irregular militia which sallied 
 from time to time from Its walls. The Parle- 
 ment entered mto negotiations with the 
 King’s party and an agreement was soon 
 signed by which the King granted certain 
 concessions, and Paris opened its gates in 
 April, 1649, for the return of the court. As 
 usual the great nobles who had participated 
 on the popular side were easily brought over 
 to the King by the bestowal of money and 
 places. The reconciliation was of short 
 duration. The Great Condé offended Maza- 
 rin and the Queen Mother by constantly 
 reminding them that they owed their return 
 to power to him, and he alienated the 
 Parlement and bourgeois by the contempt 
 with which he uniformly treated them. In 
 January, 1650, Mazarin arrested Condé, 
 his brother, the prince de Conti and the duc 
 de Longueville and put them im prison at 
 Vincennes. At first this arrest of the leaders 
 
1:15 5 
 of both factions seemed to please the fickle 
 populace, but the arrogance of Mazarin 
 soon reunited the two factions against 
 him, and instigated by Gondi, to whom 
 Mazarin had promised a cardinal’s hat 
 but had not fulfilled his promise, the Fronde 
 rushed into a new revolt. This time they 
 achieved a temporary success, forcing the 
 Queen Mother in February, 16451, to liber- 
 ate Condé, Conti and de Longueville, and to 
 exile Mazarin from France. Mazarin went 
 to Cologne but from that city continued to 
 influence the Queen Regent. Gondi at last 
 secured the long desired cardinal’s hat, 
 but the Great Condé was dissatisfied with 
 the result of the revolt. He was liberated 
 from prison but instead of finding himself 
 at the head of affairs he soon realized that 
 Mazarin yet controlled them from his 
 place of exile, by his power over the Queen 
 Mother. This great soldier then became 
 a traitor. He entered into a treaty with the 
 Spaniards and raised an armed force against 
 the King. Mazarin was hastily summoned 
 back to Paris by Anne of Austria and the 
 famous General Turenne was given command 
 of the royal troops. At first Condé was suc- 
 cessful. The Court fled from Parts. Finally 
 both the royal army under Turenne, and the 
 
‘| 16 | 
 
 rebel army under Condé approached Paris, 
 each demanding that the city open its gates 
 to them. The Parisians refused entrée to 
 both. Gaston, duc d’Orléans, with his 
 daughter the famous Mademoiselle, and the 
 Cardinal de Retz were in the city. The royal 
 troops and the rebels fought a battle m the 
 Faubourg Saint-Antoine, and Mademoiselle 
 ordered the cannon of the Bastille to fire 
 on the royal troops, and the gates of the 
 city to be opened to Condé’s army. The 
 latter entered the city, but finding he could 
 not hold it retired and led his army to join 
 the Spanish troops in Flanders. The party 
 of the King and Mazarin triumphed. The 
 Cardinal was more powerful and arrogant 
 than ever. The duc d’Orléans was exiled 
 to Blois, de Retz was imprisoned, Condé 
 sentenced to death in contumacy, and a 
 royal edict forbade the Parlement hence- 
 forth to attempt any interference in affairs 
 of state or finance. The war with Spain 
 was carried on. Mazarin entered into an 
 alliance with Oliver Cromwell, the Protes- 
 tant ruler who had beheaded the king whose 
 wife was the daughter of Henri tv. Peace 
 was finally made in 1659. As part of its 
 terms Condé was pardoned and Louis xiv. 
 married the Infanta Marie Thérése. 
 
bee 
 
 Mazarin was as bitterly hated by Patin 
 as Richelieu had been. He inveighs against 
 his arrogance, his avarice and the way in 
 which he provided for the welfare of his 
 family at the expense of France. Even 
 the splendid library founded by Mazarin for 
 the use of men of letters, of which Patin’s 
 friend Gabriel Naudé was librarian, and the 
 establishment of the College of the Four 
 Nations at the University of Paris designed 
 to provide for scholars from Spam, Italy, 
 Germany and the Low Countries, could not 
 make Patin see any good in this chaperon 
 rouge. The letters express nothing but 
 hatred and contempt towards him. Mazarin 
 died on March 9, 1661. 
 
 The last decade of Patin’s life corresponds 
 with the first. ten years of the personal 
 reign of Louis xiv. While Mazarin lived 
 he was the dominant power im the kingdom, 
 but after his death Louis could truthfully 
 state: “L’ état, c’est moi.’ One of the earliest 
 manifestations of his desire for absolute 
 control was the disgrace of Fouquet.' 
 
 1 Those who are readers of Dumas will recall the 
 Vicomte de Bragelonne, in which romance the dis- 
 grace of Fouquet forms the principal theme. The 
 Letters of Madame de Sévigné contain much infor- 
 mation about his trial. 
 
J 18 
 Fouquet as minister of finance, though a 
 man of superior ability, had thrown the 
 finances into extreme disorder, by reckless 
 extravagance. He had accumulated an im- 
 mense personal fortune. In 1661 he gave a 
 magnificent féte to the King at his superb 
 chateau de Vaux, the glories of which out- 
 shone those of the royal palaces. The King 
 was angered. at the display, but rt was prob- 
 ably only the culmination of his discontent 
 at the minister against whom Colbert had 
 for some time been arousing the King’s 
 suspicions. A few weeks later m Septem- 
 ber, 1661, Fouquet was arrested. His trial 
 continued for three years. At the end he 
 was found guilty. Nine judges wished him 
 executed, thirteen were for imprisonment 
 for life. Fouquet had been a great pa- 
 tron of letters. La Fontaine, Pellisson, 
 Mademoiselle de Scudéry and Madame 
 de Sévigné all owed much to his patronage 
 and have defended his memory. His place 
 was given to Colbert, under whose able 
 administration was finally grouped not 
 only the finances, but also the direction of 
 the beaux-arts, agriculture, commerce, pub- 
 lic works and the navy. Patin naturally 
 sympathized with Fouquet. He termed 
 Colbert a “man of marble” and could see 
 
‘| 19 | 
 no good in one of the greatest of the great 
 ministers of Louis xiv. 
 
 Another man who contributed much to 
 the glory of the reign of the roi soleil was 
 Louvois, his minister of war. He was the 
 first to ordain a distinctive military uniform 
 for the different units of the army; to mntro- 
 duce the use of the bayonet attached to 
 the musket; to organize magazines for the 
 storage of powder, arms and munitions in 
 different places whence they could be readily 
 distributed in case of need, and he organized 
 the army into special divisions: cavalry, 
 artillery, infantry, and subdivided these 
 again into special bodies trained for their 
 various duties: dragoons, hussards, grena- 
 diers, fusileers, etc. He also established a 
 special corps of engineers and first brought 
 into use portable pontoon bridges, and he 
 was the first to arrange for camps of 
 maneuvre in times of peace. Under Louvois 
 the great military engineer, Vauban, con- 
 structed the fortifications along the frontier 
 which for so many generations held the 
 external enemies of France in check. Vauban 
 was the greatest master of fortification and 
 of the construction of siege works and his 
 ideas and inventions completely changed 
 the methods of making war. 
 
‘| 20 F 
 
 To the military successes of Louis xiv, 
 Colbert contributed greatly by his able 
 administration of the navy. Mazarin had 
 left this: important arm in a deplorable 
 condition. Colbert built up a wonderful 
 merchant marine and used it as a feeder 
 for the establishment of a navy which soon 
 rendered France a formidable power at sea. 
 He brought foreign shipbuilders to work on 
 the construction of new warships, and built 
 huge yards at various ports. Schools of 
 navigation, of hydrography, and of naval 
 warfare were established. Rank in the navy 
 was established in order to attract men of 
 birth and intelligence, and an inscription 
 maritime or naval reserve was organized 
 among the maritime population. In external 
 affairs the glory of France was equally well 
 maintained by an able minister, de Pionne, 
 who died in 1671, the year before Patin’s 
 death. Spain was in a decadence which the 
 ambition of Philip 11 had begun. Italy 
 was constantly at war. Germany was in the 
 same chaotic condition and Austria so 
 weak that she was obliged to appeal for aid 
 to repel the menaces of the Turks. England 
 had just restored the Stuarts. Holland was 
 the richest and actually the most menacing 
 of the rival countries, chiefly because of its 
 
‘| 21 | 
 
 naval power. Louis xiv availed himself 
 skilfully of the weaknesses of her neighbors 
 to agerandize France. Though Patin speaks 
 contemptuously of many of the acts by 
 which Louis supported his policy and 
 achieved his objects. their success was 
 obvious, and until 1685, the year of the 
 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the 
 prosperity of France and the glory of Its 
 King steadily mcreased. 
 
 In 1665 Philip 1v of Spain died, leaving 
 a son, Charles 1, the issue of a second 
 marriage. When Louis xiv was married 
 to Marie Thérése, Philip’s daughter by 
 his first wife, in 1659, 1t had been stipulated 
 that she should renounce her rights of 
 succession to the Spanish crown and in 
 lieu thereof the Spanish government was 
 to give her a dot of 4,000,000 gold écus. 
 Mazarin calculated that Spain would be 
 unable or unwilling to pay this immense 
 sum and that the way would thus be paved 
 ‘for the French to claim the succession. 
 When Philip died in 1665, the dot not 
 having been paid, Louis xiv at once claimed 
 for his wife her rights of succession in 
 the Low Countries, also asserting that as 
 his wife was a minor at the time of her 
 marriage her father had no right to renounce 
 
‘| 22 |e 
 her succession in her name. Upon the refusal 
 of the Spanish government to comply with 
 his demand Louis invaded Flanders in 
 1667. Its conquest was easy. Town after 
 town yielded. Holland alarmed at this 
 success formed an alliance with England 
 and Sweden, and Louis decided not to 
 proceed further in his triumphal career. 
 The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was concluded 
 with Spain in 1668. Louis was bitterly 
 offended by the action of Holland and deter- 
 mined to be avenged on the bourgeois 
 commonwealth. By a large bribe he seduced 
 the Swedes from the alliance. His brother, 
 Philippe d’Orléans, a very worthless indi- 
 vidual, had married Henrietta, the sister 
 of Charles 11, who was known by the official 
 title of Madame. She was chosen to negoti- 
 ate with Charles 11 in 1670 and soon 
 succeeded in persuading and bribing her 
 brother to abandon the Hollanders and 
 enter into an alliance with the French King. 
 On her return to the French court Madame 
 died suddenly. Suspicions of poisoning were 
 at once aroused but they were certainly 
 groundless. Bossuet preached a famous 
 sermon in her honor. The neutrality or aid 
 of the Emperor and the various petty 
 potentates of Germany was secured, and the 
 
‘| 23 | 
 way being thus prepared, in the spring of 
 1672 France declared war on Holland. 
 Although the French won great military 
 successes at its outset, this war was the 
 beginning of the misfortunes which dark- 
 ened the last years of the reign of Louis 
 xiv. Within a few years England and most 
 of his other allies had abandoned him. 
 New alliances were formed to combat his 
 overweening ambition. Against Prince Eu- 
 géne and Marlborough the French armies 
 sustained a series of terrible defeats. The 
 Prince of Orange, his most determined foe, 
 became King of England and the old 
 French King saw the splendor of his reign 
 sink in an obscuring twilight. By the 
 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 
 France lost 500,000 of her best citizens, 
 and much of her commercial prosperity. 
 Patin died in the spring of 1672 just at the 
 dawning of evil times. During his life he 
 had witnessed the gradual emergence of 
 France from the chaos of the Fronde to 
 the firm although despotic government of 
 an absolute monarch. His letters give many 
 illuminating reflections of the stirring events 
 of which he lived in the very center and 
 many of the chief actors whom he knew. 
 It would have been hard for him to write 
 
| 24 | 
 
 without bias, and though the pictures he 
 paints are somewhat lurid, they are cer- 
 tainly honest representations of events as he 
 saw them from day to day. Patin was an 
 ardent student of philosophy and theology 
 and his letters are full of information about 
 the Jansenist controversy and the many 
 other disputes with which the learned of the 
 seventeenth century filled so many volumes 
 now condemned to oblivion. It would seem 
 that in his later days the bitterness of 
 political squabbles had been replaced by the 
 odium theologicum. Although he was a 
 vigorous opponent of the dominant party, 
 hating the Jesuits and denouncing monks 
 on every possible occasion, he nevertheless 
 managed not to make himself conspicuous 
 enough to undergo any persecution for his 
 opinions, and he apparently died in the 
 Roman Catholic faith and was certainly 
 buried according to Its rites. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 PaTIN’s YOUTH AND EDUCATION AT THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF PARIS 
 
 FAMILY AND EDUCATION 
 
 As he signed himself frequently “ Bello- 
 vacensis”’ (of Beauvais) many writers assert 
 that Patin was a native of that city. 
 Reveillé-Parise says he was born at La 
 Place, a small hamlet in the commune of 
 Hodenc-en-Bray in which the Patin family 
 held a fief from time immemorial, and in 
 1898 the municipality of La Place erected 
 a monument to his memory. In a letter to 
 Spon (June 14, 1644) Patin himself says 
 that his natal place was a village three 
 leagues from Beauvais in Picardy, named 
 ‘““Houdan” which was the name borne by 
 Hodenc-en-Bray until 1770, and according 
 to Triaire, Guy Patin was born there at 
 the Ferme des Préaux on Friday, August 
 BILe1OOT. 
 
 His family was typical of the best class 
 of bourgeois. Patin states that he had 
 traced it back for 300 years, during which 
 period some had been notaries at Beauvais, 
 
 [ 25] 
 
‘| 26 [> 
 
 some linen merchants at Paris, some soldiers 
 and others farmers. Patin’s grandfather 
 was a soldier “comme tout ce temps-la 
 fut de guerre.” His father Francois had 
 studied Iaw at Orléans and Bourges and 
 would have practiced his profession at Paris 
 had it not been for the death of Henri 111, 
 and the siege of Paris which followed 
 thereon. He must have been a Huguenot 
 sympathizer because he had been made a 
 prisoner by the Leaguers and had had to pay 
 a large ransom to secure his release. Guy 
 says that his grandmother had to pledge her 
 wedding jewelry and a belt of silver with a 
 goldsmith at Beauvais to raise the money 
 and that many times he had heard her tell 
 about it, “weeping and detesting the mis- 
 fortunes of those times.” 
 
 Patin inherited his parent’s hatred for 
 the Guises. The League had been formed by 
 their adherents and they aimed at procuring 
 for their family the succession to the throne, 
 either by the deposition of Henri 111 or, 
 if not, by successful rebellion in the event 
 of his death, as he had no direct heirs and 
 Henri de Navarre, the nearest in the succes- 
 sion was a Huguenot. Henri 111 forestalled 
 the plans of the Guises and their League 
 by the murder of the duc Henri de Guise 
 
‘| 27 | 
 and his brother, the Cardinal. The duc de 
 Guise was known by the nickname Balafré, 
 the scarred, because of a huge cicatrix 
 which disfigured his face. Patin writes Spon 
 (December 24, 1658): 
 
 M. de Guise-le-Balafré said formerly: 
 
 By war we gain 
 Credit and money 
 He was the duc de Guise, who was chief of 
 
 the League and whom Henri 111, by a wise and 
 generous council, caused to be killed at Blois, 
 in the year 1588 on Christmas Eve. My late 
 father, who hated the League and the Leaguers, 
 said when I was yet young, that this massacre 
 was the best coup that this king made in his 
 life. 
 
 Gaspard D’Auxy, Seigneur de Monceaux 
 and Baron de Houdan, recognizing the 
 honesty and ability of Francois Patin 
 persuaded him to give up his career at the 
 Paris bar and come back to Picardy to 
 manage the business affairs of his family 
 and estate. He made Patin many generous 
 promises which Guy says he did not fulfill. 
 The great man did procure for his man of 
 affairs a virtuous and well-to-do wife of 
 good family, Claude Manessier, having in 
 mind thereby to fix him in the neighborhood 
 
‘| 28 | 
 
 and keep him away from Paris; otherwise 
 Guy says that he was ungrateful and 
 avaricious and ruined what would otherwise 
 have been the very successful career of the 
 elder Patin at Paris. 
 
 Patin in a letter to Falconet (July 15, 
 1661) gives another version of the reason 
 his father left Paris. He writes: “My father 
 and mother were good people, who retired 
 to the country to get away from the evil 
 (malice) of Paris, where they lived ex avito 
 fundulo until they died.”’ 
 
 The Patins had seven children, five 
 daughters and two sons. Guy’s brother 
 settled himself in Holland, and the five 
 daughters all married and established them- 
 selves with the inheritance of their mother’s 
 money. The regret of the father at his own 
 mistaken step, led him to the determination 
 that Guy should fare better. 
 
 For this reason he began his son’s educa- 
 tion at a very early age, one of the steps 
 he took being to cause his son to read 
 Plutarch’s “‘Lives” aloud while he would 
 correct his pronunciation. At the age of 
 nine years he placed him in the Collége at 
 Beauvais, and afterwards sent him to the 
 Collége de Boncourt in Paris, where the 
 boy was for two years a pensionnaire, taking 
 
“| 29 f 
 
 the course in philosophy. An offer of a 
 benefice was made to Patin by some of 
 the nobility. To accept this it was necessary 
 for him to become a priest which he refused 
 to do, thereby greatly angering his mother 
 who did not overcome her resentment for 
 ftve years, although his father approved 
 his course. A friend of his advised him 
 to study medicine and he did so at Paris 
 from 1622 to 1627 when he received his 
 degree, at which, as he tells us, his mother, 
 as well as his father, was well pleased and 
 helped in the purchase of books and other 
 necessary expenses. Bayle states on the 
 authority of Drélincourt that Patin eked 
 out a living in Paris while pursuing his 
 studies by proof-reading. There is a tradi- 
 tion that the anonymous friend who, Patin 
 says, urged him to study medicine was 
 Riolan, the anatomist of Paris. Ruiolan 
 is chiefly remembered for the bitterness with 
 which he fought Harvey’s demonstration 
 of the circulation. Patin does not refer to 
 him in any way in his autobiographical 
 letter to Spon, in which, from its character, 
 one would think he would have mentioned 
 so great an influence in his life. 
 
 _ This statement is also made in “Nau- 
 deana et Patiniana”’: 
 
130% 
 
 By a fatality too common to men of letters 
 he was compelled to become a proof-reader after 
 having received his degree. On seeing some of 
 his corrections, M. Riolan, the celebrated phy- 
 sician, who was regarded among his confréres as 
 the arbiter of reputations, bestowed on him his 
 esteem and friendship, and introduced him to 
 the world. 
 
 MEDICAL EDUCATION IN PARIS 
 
 The “Letters,” as would be expected, 
 are full of references to medical education 
 as It prevailed in the University of Paris. 
 As Muinivielle' emphasizes, the teaching 
 consisted entirely in the exposition of the 
 works of Hippocrates, Galen and the lesser 
 ancients. There was no attempt at clinrcal 
 instruction; and medical learning, as mani- 
 fested by the professors, consisted solely 
 in a display of great erudition in the texts 
 of Greek and Latin authors. In order to 
 enter on the study of medicine in the 
 Faculté de Médecine at the Université de 
 Paris, tt was necessary first to possess the 
 degree of Master of Arts or else to have 
 studied philosophy for at least two years, 
 and then there were three steps to the 
 degree, that of bachelor, licentiate and 
 
 11a médecine au temps d’Henri tv. 
 
{31 | 
 finally doctor. After two years study in 
 medicine, if the scholar was twenty-two 
 years old, he could take his examination 
 for his bachelorship. He had to produce first 
 a certificate of good conduct from three 
 physicians, to declare that he belonged to 
 the Catholic Church, and to swear on the 
 Bible that he would be present at the masses 
 said before the Faculté de Médecine. After 
 these formalities were complied with he 
 was questioned during three days on the 
 studies he had pursued and then had to 
 comment on an aphorism of Hippocrates. 
 If he succeeded in passing this ordeal he 
 took an oath that he would defend the 
 decrees, practices, customs and statutes of 
 the Faculty; that he would show respect 
 and honor to the Dean and all the Masters 
 of the Faculty; that he would defend the 
 Faculty against whosoever would undertake 
 anything against its statutes or honor, 
 and above all against those who practiced 
 medicine illegally; and that he would be 
 present in his robes at all the masses ordered 
 by the Faculty, arriving before the end of 
 the Epistle and remaining until the end of 
 the service, and that he would attend the 
 masses for the dead, and the funerals of 
 the Masters (professors) under penalty of 
 
tSeuk 
 
 a gold crown for failure to do so. Minivielle, 
 whose delightful little book contains the 
 most explicit account of the life of the 
 medical student at Paris in the sixteenth 
 century, states that after having thus been 
 admitted a bachelor in medicine, the stu- 
 dent passed the next two years In sustaining 
 theses, studying, sometimes visiting sick 
 persons with the masters, with an occasional 
 opportunity to witness an anatomical dem- 
 onstration on the human body. 
 
 Such opportunities to witness, not ac- 
 tually perform, dissections on the human 
 body must have been very rare, for Patin 
 writes to Charles Spon (May 7, 1657) about 
 a young man who had proposed to visit 
 Paris to study medicine: “If he had come 
 last winter he would have been able to see 
 dissections very easily, because we have 
 never had so many. Four public dissections 
 were held in our schools, of which two were 
 held on women, and more than six by the 
 surgeons, which he could have witnessed.” 
 
 Saumaise gave an introductory letter to 
 Patin to a young man who wished to study 
 medicine at Paris and Patin writes Spon 
 (December 8, 1649) with what pleasure 
 he would do all he could for the young man 
 because of his admiration for Saumaise: 
 
‘| 33 + 
 
 This is why I have offered him what a certain 
 man promised and offered in Terence, rem, 
 opem, operam et consilium, and also money 
 when he wished it. He asks to see anatomical 
 dissections, surgical operations, the debates in 
 our hospitals. He will have all this and more. 
 I have promised to boot to take him to see some 
 patients with me, and that he may attend some 
 of our consultations where among others he 
 will encounter Messieurs Riolan and Moreau. 
 
 The bachelors in medicine had to sustain 
 certain theses in public, or as we would now 
 term it, undergo public examinations on 
 medical subjects. These were of two kinds, 
 first the thése quodlibétaire, which might be 
 chosen from any subject in medicine or 
 physiology, on which the candidate was 
 questioned from six in the morning until 
 noon, by nine doctors. The examination 
 was conducted entirely mn Latin. Second the 
 thése cardinale, so called after the Cardinal 
 d’Estouteville, who instituted It In 1442, 
 at the time when he was engaged in reform- 
 ing the teaching at the University of Paris. 
 The thése cardinale was sustained by the 
 candidate for license in much the same 
 manner as the other, but its subject had 
 to appertain to hygiene. Minrivielle quotes 
 some of the bizarre and absurd topics uti- 
 
| 34 
 
 lized as subjects for the theses, such as: 
 ““Was the cure of Tobias by the gall of the 
 fish natural?” “Is it salutary to inebriate 
 oneself once a month?” “Are beautiful 
 women more apt to bear children?” 
 “What think you of the saying in vino 
 veritas ?”’ 
 
 The young man who presented a thesis 
 had not only to sustain his argument but 
 the ideas which he expressed had to be in 
 strict conformity with the opinions of the 
 majority of the physicians of the Faculté de 
 Médecine, otherwise the thesis was sure to 
 be rejected, as illustrated by the following 
 episode related by Patin in a letter to 
 Charles Spon (December 24, 1655): 
 
 A young doctor of the antimonial cabal 
 presented a thesis to the Faculté with this 
 conclusion, Ergo plueritidis initio purgatio, 
 which was signed and approved by the Dean 
 et ipso stibiale. The Censor of the Faculty 
 opposed the thesis. The Dean, on the con- 
 trary judged it would injure his dignity to 
 yield (to the opposition) and ordered the 
 Beadle to distribute (the thesis). The Censor 
 went to see M. Riolan, as the ancient of the 
 College, in order that by his authority he 
 would assemble the company (Faculty), and 
 this he ordered. The Dean named de Bourges, 
 
| 35 | 
 
 learned the design of M. Riolan, of the Censor, 
 M. le Compte, and of most of the elders, to 
 hold this assembly, where we had about sixty 
 doctors. Guénault even came in order to sustain 
 the thesis. He and his antimonial cabal were 
 shorn. Forty-five of us voted that the thesis 
 should be condemned and revoked, and we 
 ordered the doctor to write another, which 
 shall be approved by the Dean, distributed to 
 the doctors, disputed in due time and place 
 in the College. Meanwhile there is to be a sus- 
 pension of all acts mn the College. The thesis was 
 condemned not as problematic, but as false and 
 criminal, pernicious to the lives of men and 
 to the public welfare, 
 
 An unconscious testimony of the im- 
 portance attached to learning from books 
 instead of reading in the book of nature is 
 given in the following extract from a 
 letter of Patin?: “The fourth of May the 
 examination in botany was held in our 
 colleges. Bon Dieu, but they put good 
 questions! One could make a good book of 
 them. There was a doctor who proposed 
 beautiful things, et plus quam miribilia, de 
 fungis. It is necessary to have read many 
 books to get from them such a great quan- 
 tity of good things.” 
 
 ? Letter to Charles Spon, June 18, 1658. 
 
| 36 | 
 
 Guy Patin’s first thése quodlibétaire sus- 
 tained December 19, 1624, had for its 
 title ‘“Estne feminae In virum mutatio a 
 adbvros?”” which he wisely decided in the 
 negative. On November 27, 1625, he took 
 the negative side in a thesis having for its 
 proposition ‘“‘An_ praegnanti periculosé 
 laboranti abortus?” 
 
 On March 26, 1626, for his cardinal 
 thesis he chose for his subject “‘Daturne 
 certum graviditatis indicum ex urina?” 
 again taking the negative side. Pierre 
 Pic? remarks that contrary to the usual 
 practice Guy concludes for the negative 
 in each of his three theses and speculates 
 whether this was not an indication of his 
 character, which was already contradictory. 
 
 The first thesis at which Patin presided 
 was that of G. Joudounyn, December 16, 
 1627, entitled ‘“‘Utrum bnvopavia bal- 
 neum?” (Are baths useful in uteromania?). 
 Patin is said to have suggested the subject 
 to Joudouyn because of the case of a young 
 girl whom he had attended and whom it is 
 said her mother wished him to marry.‘ 
 
 At first the theses were written and pre- 
 sented in manuscript to the Dean of the 
 
 3 Guy Patin, Paris, 1911. 
 
 ‘Letter to Falconet, September 19, 1659. 
 
| 37'F 
 Faculté de Médecine, but toward the end 
 of the sixteenth century the students began 
 to have them printed and as we all know 
 the custom of printing the theses for the 
 doctorate has continued to the present 
 time in France. 
 
 After two years passed in this manner, 
 the bachelors presented themselves for 
 examination for the licentiate. Each candi- 
 date had to present himself before the 
 docteurs-régents of the Faculté, at the 
 doctor’s home, where he was privately 
 examined by that worthy. Then the Faculté 
 would hold a meeting at which a secret 
 ballot was cast by its members, as to 
 whether the candidate should be licensed. 
 If successful he did not at once receive the 
 full license but was first admitted to the 
 ranks of the licentiandes. These happy 
 ones formed a procession and preceded by 
 the beadles of the Faculté, rendered a 
 ceremonial visit to the official bodies in 
 Paris, that is to the members of the Parle- 
 ment of Paris, the ministers of state, the 
 provost of the merchants and the aldermen, 
 requesting their presence at the solemn 
 ceremony which marked the actual be- 
 stowal of the license on those who had 
 passed their examinations. This ceremony 
 
1 38 | 
 
 of the “Paranymph” derived its name from 
 the ancient Greek marriage custom in 
 which a young man, the best man of the 
 bridegroom, always conducted the latter 
 to the residence of the newly-wedded pair. 
 In this ceremony of the Faculté, the bride- 
 groom was the licentiate, the bride, the 
 Faculté de Médecine and the paranymph 
 was the Dean who united the licentiate 
 in solemn wedlock to the Faculté de 
 Médecine. Some days later there was 
 another grand ceremony in the hall of the 
 Archbishop’s palace in Paris, at which 
 the Chancellor of the Faculté de Médecine, 
 who was a canon of the Archdiocese of 
 Paris, gave them the benediction of the 
 church, and afterwards all those present 
 assisted at a grand mass of Notre Dame. 
 
 After having become a licentiate, the 
 young man was authorized to practice 
 and teach medicine, but in order to obtain 
 a vote in the deliberations of the Faculté 
 it was necessary for him to go yet further 
 and secure the degree of Doctor of Medicine. 
 This required a further investigation into 
 the learning and morals of the candidate 
 and he had to sustain another thesis, the 
 vesperte. I'wo doctors of the Faculté pro- 
 pounded a question to be discussed by 
 
‘| 39 | | 
 the candidate with them. If he passed this 
 ordeal successfully, the Iast act of his 
 career as a medical student took place in 
 the grand hall of the Ecole de Médecine, 
 when he received the square bonnet worn 
 by the doctors of the Faculté. 
 
 
 
 MES ARMES DE GUY PATIN | 
 
 BSA NR PN ER a Raber nea ed Ration ree | 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 La FAcuLTE DE MEDECINE 
 
 To be a member of the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine de Paris was to Guy the ne plus 
 ultra in human affairs. The jealousy with 
 which he guarded the prerogatives of Its 
 members was manifested from the time 
 when he first was admitted to its ranks. 
 In Patin’s time the question of precedence 
 _ loomed large in daily life and gave rise to 
 innumerable squabbles. He tells Falconet 
 (November 5, 1649) of one in which he was 
 engaged early in his professional career: 
 
 I remember twenty-three years ago, being a 
 young doctor and not yet married, I was asked 
 to carry the canopy (le ciel) in a procession of the 
 Holy Sacrement, the day of the grand-féte, 
 which they celebrate here with all sorts of 
 solemnities. I knew about how much I should be 
 esteemed and also how my colleagues had acted 
 in a like case. Being by them incited to do this I 
 promised them I would on condition that 
 because of my rank of docteur-régent of the 
 Faculté, I should have the first place, not ceding 
 it to any but counsellors of the sovereign court. 
 This was promised me, but when I came to take 
 
 [ 40 ] 
 
41 i 
 
 it, with my scarlet cape, as we are clad when we 
 become doctors (receive the degree), dispute, or 
 preside (at meetings) or when we attend the 
 funeral of one of our colleagues, two men wished 
 to have the first place before me, of which one 
 was conseiller aux monnaies, the other secré- 
 taire du row. I alleged that it was due me. 
 All the notables of the parish who were gathered 
 for the procession, assembled at once, among 
 them old M. Seguin, premier médecin de la 
 reine, who died Dean of our company, January 
 27, 1648, and said in my favor that I was as 
 great a doctor as he im our Faculté and in 
 Paris. There was also a counsellor of the court, 
 some masters of accounts, and an old advocate, 
 who awarded me the precedence. Those who 
 lost against me gave way at once, out of respect, 
 they said, for the procession, but they grumbled 
 that I should precede them.} 
 
 1 Voltaire in “Le siécle de Louis xtv,’’ speaking 
 of the spirit of discord which prevailed in France at 
 the end of the reign of Louis x11, says that it 
 prevailed throughout the kingdom, extending from 
 the court and Paris to the smallest communes and 
 parishes, in which processions fought one another 
 for the honor of their banners. Often the canons of 
 Notre Dame came to actual fisticuffs with those of 
 Sainte-Chapelle. The Parlement of Paris and the 
 Chambre des Comptes fought one another for pre- 
 cedence actually inside the church of Notre Dame 
 the day that Louis x11 placed his kingdom under 
 the protection of the Virgin Mary, August 5, 1638. 
 
| 42 I 
 
 In order to form a just conception of 
 Guy Patin’s life and letters some knowledge 
 of the institution about which his whole 
 bemg centered and which absorbed the 
 greatest part of his energies is absolutely 
 essential. The life interest of Patin was 
 centered in the Faculté de Médecine de 
 Paris. Many men devote their lives to 
 a cause, some to a person and not a few to 
 an institution. The latter was avowedly 
 and definitely the case with Patin. From 
 first to Iast in almost all of the numerous 
 letters which have been preserved to us, 
 he refers to it or to matters connected 
 with it. The preservation of its rights and 
 privileges, the admission of only those whom 
 he considered worthy to its ranks, the expul- 
 sion of those who had proved themselves 
 unworthy of its fellowship, the election of 
 suitable officers to guide its policies, the 
 increase of its authority and wealth and 
 the extension of its usefulness, occupied 
 his mind almost as an obsession. No praise 
 was too fulsome for those who furthered 
 Its cause and no abuse too savage for those 
 who dared to attack it. As many of its 
 peculiar attributes brought the Faculté 
 into relation with public men and matters, 
 a very general interest is attached to the 
 
I 43 | 
 
 life and letters of Patin from the light 
 thrown by them on various political, econo- 
 mic, and social concerns in France during 
 his lifetime. His letters, in addition to their 
 personal characteristics afford a mine of 
 information to the student of French social 
 history during the seventeenth century. 
 The teaching of medicine at Paris was for a 
 long time in the hands of the ecclesiastics, 
 and there was no distinct Faculté or 
 Collége for that purpose at the University 
 of Paris until 1281. From that date the 
 Ecole or Faculté de Médecine forms an en- 
 tity, and had Its own corporate existence in 
 the university body. 
 
 Wickersheimer? in his most interesting 
 book on the history of medicine in France 
 in the sixteenth century writes of the 
 changes of location the college under- 
 went as it grew in Importance with the 
 increase of its students, and gradually 
 eclipsed its ancient rival, the Medical 
 School of Montpellier. At the present time 
 all that remains to recall its former locality 
 to those who search for its traces 1s to be 
 found in the names still retained by some 
 of the small streets remaming on the left 
 
 27a médecine et les médecins en France 4 |’épo- 
 que de la Renaissance, Paris, 1916. 
 
1 44 | 
 
 bank of the Seme, near the Pont St. Michel, 
 the rue de La Bicherie, the rue de Fouarre, 
 etc., the latter so called from the straw on 
 which the students used to sit. Yet the 
 grand buildings of the present Medical 
 School and its adjuncts are in the immediate 
 neighborhood, and in walking through the 
 rue des Ecoles or some of the other new 
 streets, we can realize that for eight hundred 
 years the region has been the home of 
 successive generations of medical teachers 
 and students, and some of the old buildings, 
 such as the church of Saint Severin or the 
 church of Saint Julien-le-Pauvre, though 
 in such a changed environment, remain as 
 monuments of the historic past. In former 
 times religious observances formed a promi- 
 nent part in the life of the medical school 
 at Paris. It was preeminently Catholic, 
 losing no opportunity to express its devo- 
 tion to the Faith, expelling from its ranks 
 thosesuspected of heresy, and during the wars 
 of the League recognizing, under the name of 
 Charles x, the old Cardinal of Bourbon as 
 King of France in opposition to Henri tv. 
 There were many church services which both 
 teachers and students were bound to attend. 
 
 The term, Faculté de Médecine, did not 
 imply a few professors or teachers of 
 
1 45 | 
 
 medicine, but a corporate body of physi- 
 cians under the control of which was 
 placed the medical teaching of the Univer- 
 sity, and the control of the practice of 
 medicine in the city of Paris. There were 
 similar faculties elsewhere in France, at 
 Montpellier, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Orleans, 
 Bourges, and many other cities, all possess- 
 ing locally the same privileges as regarded 
 the exercise of their profession. 
 
 The most aged member of the Faculté, 
 known as the Ancient, became solely by 
 nature of his age, an object of respectful 
 veneration on the part of his colleagues. 
 He recetved double the usual amount of 
 fees or honoraria due to members of the 
 Faculté on the occasion of examinations 
 or other functions, and in case of the inca- 
 pacity of the Dean from any cause, the 
 Ancient had the right to convoke an 
 assembly of the doctors. The executive 
 chief of the Faculté was the Doyen or Dean, 
 elected for a term of two years. This was 
 a busy and important position. Besides 
 presiding at the meetings of the Faculté, 
 he was present at examinations of students 
 for the various degrees and the readings 
 of the theses. The Dean likewise presided 
 at the examination of those who presented 
 
| 46 | 
 
 themselves for the right to practice as 
 surgeons and apothecaries, over both of 
 which bodies the Faculté de Médecine had 
 control. He inspected at intervals the 
 shops of all the apothecaries in Paris to 
 ascertain that they obeyed the laws regu- 
 lating their traffic and that the drugs they 
 kept and sold were pure. He had control of 
 the financial affairs of the Faculté, was the 
 guardian of its seal, and especially of its 
 interests when the Parlement of Paris or 
 any other court or power attempted to 
 infringe upon its rights. As Dean he was one 
 of the governing body of the University 
 and a member of the Parlement of Paris. 
 
 Upon the death of a King of France the 
 Ancient and the Dean were both required 
 to attend the autopsy on the defunct, and 
 Itkewise his funeral, clad in their official 
 robes of scarlet with caps of the same color. 
 
 The title of docteur-régent, which Littré 
 in his dictionary says applied to one who 
 instructed publicly, appertained to all mem- 
 bers of the Faculté, and until 1505 the 
 function of teaching was performed by 
 any member who felt called upon to do so. 
 In 1505 two teaching chairs were estab- 
 lished, and thenceforth many of the doc- 
 teurs-régents never actually taught classes, 
 
‘l 47 | 
 
 although the professors only held the chairs 
 for two years at a time and all members 
 of the Faculté were eligible for election if 
 they desired to become candidates. All 
 the docteurs-régents continued to take part 
 in the examinations and readings of the 
 theses. 
 
 The greatest honor which could befall 
 a physician of the Faculté de Médecine de 
 Paris was to be elected its Dean, and this 
 honor fell to the lot of Patin on two occa- 
 sions, it being practically the invariable 
 custom to re-elect a Dean at the end of 
 his first term. Although Patin, in the years 
 before the choice fell on him, assumes to 
 belittle the position and pretends that it 
 is an honor which he does not desire, it is 
 easy to see from the change in his tone, 
 after elevation to the position, that it had 
 long been an object of ambition for him. 
 
 In a letter to Spon (November 24, 1642) 
 Patin relates how near he came to being 
 chosen. The election of a dean was quite a 
 complicated affair. One was held every 
 two years, on the first Saturday after All 
 Saints’ Day. The Faculté met in solemn 
 conclave. The Dean whose term was ending 
 read a report of the period during which 
 he had held office. The names of all the 
 
| 48 | 
 doctors present were then written on sepa- 
 rate ballots, and those of the junior doctors 
 deposited in one urn, and those of the senior 
 doctors in another. The Dean shook the 
 ballots up and then drew two from among 
 the juniors, and three from among the 
 seniors. [The five doctors thus chosen by lot 
 took an oath to designate the most worthy 
 for the position of Dean. They retired to the 
 Chapel, where they chose three names by a 
 majority vote, two seniors and one junior. 
 Three tickets bearing these names were 
 placed in a hat and the Dean drew one of 
 them from it, and the happy owner of it 
 became Dean for the ensuing two years. 
 Patin tells Spon that his name “danced in 
 the hat”’ with those of Messieurs Perreau 
 and de la Vigne but that “‘the lot 1s always 
 contrary to me,”’ and Monsieur de la Vigne 
 won the election. Writing to Belin, fils,® 
 (November 16, 1652) Patin says that he 
 has sent him the jeton, or medal, struck by 
 order of the Faculté in honor of his decanate. 
 These jetons were always struck to com- 
 
 3 ‘The Belins, with whom Patin corresponded, were 
 a father and son each named Claude who practiced 
 medicine at Troyes, where there were also several 
 other physicians of the same family. Their names 
 are preserved solely in the correspondence of Patin. 
 
‘| 49 | 
 
 memorate the elevation of a Dean of the 
 Faculty. In the ANNats oF Mepicat His- 
 TORY* a number of them including that of 
 Patin, are reproduced from the numismatic 
 collection of the Army Medical Library at 
 Washington, with a most interesting descrip- 
 tion of them by Dr. Albert Alleman. 
 
 
 
 Jeton of Guy Patin 
 
 Patin writes to Falconet (June 28, 1652): 
 
 The custom is to put the arms of the Dean on 
 one side and those of the Faculté on the other. 
 I have retained the latter, but instead of putting 
 those of my family which are gules with a gold 
 chevron, accompanied by two gold stars en 
 chef, and a hand pointing in gold, I have put my 
 portrait. The engraver, skilful as he ts, has not 
 caught the resemblance very well, especially 
 the eye, but there is no remedy. 
 
 Patin’s greatest object in life was the 
 preservation and if possible extension of 
 4New York, 1917. 1, ul, 156,157. 
 
‘| 50 F 
 
 the privileges and authority of the Faculté 
 de Médecine de Paris. Page after page of 
 his correspondence is devoted to this theme 
 and he constantly speaks with pride, in 
 his letters to the Belins at Troyes, to 
 Spon at Lyons, or to other doctors in the 
 provinces, of the glory of the Faculté and 
 of the proofs which it gives from time to 
 time of Its strength in Its various contests 
 with the apothecaries, the surgeons or 
 other enemies who strove to encroach on 
 Its prerogatives. Thus he writes in February, 
 1558, that he has seen in the coffers of the 
 Faculté, a royal decree entitled “‘Nouvelle 
 confirmation de Il’an 1132.” He adds a 
 disquisition on the powers possessed by the 
 Dean, he is “the master of the schools, 
 he has all the keys; fourteen handsome 
 registers, all the records, and all the money, 
 of which he renders an exact account every 
 year, he is vindex disciplinae et custos legum. 
 Our statutes call him caput Facultatis.” 
 
 He consoles himself for his defeat, by 
 the reflection that the honor is accompanied 
 by ‘“‘a very heavy and very difficult respon- 
 sibility.”’ Writing to Falconet (November 
 4, 1650) he says: “I have been an elector 
 many times, I have even been chosen 
 and put in the hat three times, and each 
 
| 51 | 
 
 of the three I have remained at the bottom 
 of the hat, and if ever they put me im it 
 again, I shall not be vexed to remain there.” 
 
 The lot finally proved favorable to Patin 
 and on November 54, 1650, he was elected 
 Dean. Although he affects to speak some- 
 what deprecatingly at times, saying, “I 
 have already enough business without this,” 
 nevertheless much more frequently his 
 pride mn the position pours forth. On 
 December 1, 1650, he gave the customary 
 banquet to the members of the Faculté, 
 and he writes to Falconet the next day that 
 thirty-six of his colleagues had enjoyed his 
 hospitality : 
 
 I never saw so much laughing and drinking by © 
 serious men, and even our ancients; It was the 
 best wine of Bordeaux which I had chosen for 
 the feast. I entertained them in my chamber 
 where over the hangings were displayed the 
 pictures of Erasmus, the two Scaligers, father 
 and son, Casaubon, Muret, Montaigne, Char- 
 ron, Grotius, Heinsius, Saumaise, Fernel, de 
 Thou, and our good friend M. G. Naudé, 
 librarian for Mazarin . . . there were yet 
 three other portraits of excellent men, of the 
 late M. de Sales, bishop of Geneva, M., the 
 bishop de Bellay, my good friend; Justus 
 Lipsius, and finally Francois Rabelais, for which 
 
| 52 } 
 one has offered to give me twenty pistoles. 
 What say you to this assemblage? Were not 
 my guests in good company? 
 
 Writing to Spon (March 6, 1656): 
 
 When I shall receive your picture I will put 
 it in a good place with Fernel, Ellain, Duport, 
 Seguin, Marescot, Nicolas Pietre, the late M. 
 Riolan, André du Laurens, the late M. Gas- 
 sendi, Salmasius, Heinsius, Grotius, Naudaeus, 
 Muret, Buchanan, the two Scaligers, Lipstus, 
 Thuanus (de Thou), Crassot, Passerat, Campa- 
 nella, Fra Paolo Sarpi, Casaubon, the Chancel- 
 lor de Hopital, P. Charron, Michel de Mon- 
 taigne; the French author otherwise named 
 Rabelais, the divine Erasmus, etc.°® 
 
 In the letter quoted above, writing to 
 Belin, fils (January 14, 1651) Patin says: 
 
 I should tell you that our Faculté made me 
 Dean the fifth of last November, a charge to which 
 I had been elected and named four other times; 
 it is difficult and takes much time, but it is 
 honorable. . . . My wife says there is much 
 good fortune for the end of the year, her hus- 
 band, Dean, her eldest son, doctor, and a good 
 house which she greatly wished for. 
 
 > Pic publishes as an addendum to his Guy Patin 
 the pictures of all those who figured in Patin’s 
 gallery. 
 
| 53 | 
 
 Patin’s pride in the Faculté de Médecine 
 is well expressed in a letter® in which he 
 says: 
 
 All individual men die, but associations do not 
 die. The most powerful man in the last one 
 hundred years in Europe without being a 
 crowned head, was the Cardinal Richelieu. He 
 made the whole earth tremble, he caused terror 
 at Rome; he treated rudely and shook the 
 King of Spain, and nevertheless he was not 
 able to make us receive into our company the 
 two sons of the Gazetteer (Renaudot) who 
 were licensed but who will not be doctors for 
 a long time. 
 
 No one could have had a higher idea of 
 the powers of the Dean than Patin and once, 
 at least, he got himself into trouble by an 
 undue exercise of them. Doctor Pic gives 
 the story with some additional information 
 supplied by the researches of his friend, 
 M. Delalain. Jean Chartier, a docteur- 
 régent, published without the approval of 
 the Faculté de Médecine, a book on anti- 
 mony. Patin removed his name from the 
 list of docteurs-régents, and Chartier ap- 
 pealed to Parlement for reinstatement. 
 The court of the Parlement rendered its 
 
 6 Letter to Spon, December 6, 1644. 
 
| 54 } 
 
 judgment, July 15, 1653, in favor of 
 Chartier and ordered that he should be 
 reinstated as docteur-régent; that Patin 
 should pay him 48 livres parisis in amend, 
 all the expenses of his reinstatement, and 
 two-thirds of the costs of the trial, the 
 other one-third to be paid by the other 
 docteurs-régents, Germain Hureau and 
 Daniel Arbinet, who had acted with Patin 
 in the matter; and these three were enjoined 
 from any act or word mimterfering with 
 Chartier in the future enjoyment of the 
 rights and privileges of his position in the 
 Faculté de Médecine. 
 
 He tells Belin he has a copy of all the 
 names and surnames of the licentiates and 
 doctors according to their order of passing 
 at the Ecole de Paris for more than three 
 centuries, with all the memorable events in 
 the Faculté. In a letter to Belin, fils (Jan- 
 uary, 1651) he tells of a book written by 
 M. Moreau, “De antiquitate facultatis 
 medicae Parisiensis,’ which is not yet 
 published and he fears will not be because 
 of the ill health of Moreau, but which 
 would be very curious and beautiful. He 
 tried to secure all the biographical details 
 possible about the lives of those who 
 had been physicians at Paris. He writes 
 
455 | 
 
 to Spon (December 30, 1650): “There 
 is scarcely a bachelor or a licentiate, much 
 less a doctor of our schools for upward of 
 three hundred years of whom I cannot tell 
 something, even if only a Iittle.”’ 
 
 In a letter of the same date (December 
 30, 1650) to Falconet he tells him how he 
 had recovered some of the old registers of 
 the Faculté which had disappeared: 
 
 An honest friend of mine, knowing that I had 
 been elected Dean of our Faculté in the place of 
 M. Jean Pietre, the 5th of last November, has 
 placed in my hands an old register of our 
 Schools, in abridged characters almost Gothic, 
 from the year 1390, in which is noted every two 
 years the number of doctors and of licentiates. 
 
 Those of the doctors are sometimes fifteen, 
 twenty, twenty-five, going even to forty. I lent 
 it to M. Riolan who found in it the mention of 
 an honest man who left by will a manuscript 
 of Galen which he had, de usu partium. This 
 legacy dates from the year 1009, and is of 
 further consequence because it proves against 
 those who would doubt it, that in that year 
 and before it, there was a Faculté de Médecine 
 at Paris. 
 
 A curious feature in the medical life 
 of the seventeenth century can be found in 
 a study of the family relationship which 
 
1 56 | 
 
 prevailed among the great men of the pro- 
 fession, constituting veritable dynasties, 
 in whose hands were held the great prefer- 
 ments and choicest clientele. The Riolans, 
 Pietres, Moreaus, Seguins and many others 
 might be adduced as interesting instances. 
 
 Jean Riolan, the elder, transmitted his 
 fame and position to his son, Jean. The 
 elder Riolan’s wife was Anne Pietre, daughter 
 of the first Stmon Pietre. Charles Bouvard, 
 first physician to Louis x11 and _ super- 
 intendent of the Jardin des Plantes, was 
 a brother-in-law of Riolan, and Bouvard’s 
 daughter married Jacques Cousinot, first 
 physician to Louis xiv. Thus it will be 
 seen that Bouvard, the Riolans and Cousi- 
 not were connected with the Pietres, the 
 most prominent medical family in Paris 
 for a period of many years. The first of the 
 family of Pietre to become prominent in 
 medical affairs was Simon Pietre (14525- 
 1584). He was a Huguenot, and his life 
 was saved during the Massacre of St. 
 Bartholomew by his son-in-law, Riolan, 
 who concealed him im the abbey of St. 
 Victor. In spite of his religion he was made 
 physician to Charles 1x by Catherine de’ 
 Medici. Curiously, Ambroise Paré, also 
 accused of Huguenotism (perhaps secretly 
 

 
 JEAN RIOLAN, THE YOUNGER 
 (1577-1657) 
 
i 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 ge URE 
 UAVERSITY OF (LUNOIS 
 
 -* a 
 
 
 
se 
 
 a Huguenot) was also favored by Catherine 
 and was first surgeon to Charles rx. The 
 first Simon Pietre’s son, also named Simon 
 (1465-1618), married the daughter of the 
 celebrated physician Marescot. He _ suc- 
 ceeded Gourmelen, the infamous enemy 
 of Ambroise Paré, as professor of medicine 
 at the Collége Royal. Another son of old 
 Simon, named Nicolas, was a distinguished 
 physician, and his son Jean had a very large 
 practice and was esteemed a most learned 
 physician. There were five doctors of the 
 same family who figured largely m the med- 
 ical profession at Paris during the seven- 
 teenth century under the name of Akakia, 
 a Greek version of their real family name, 
 Sans-Malice. One of them, Martin Akakia, 
 was a brother-in-law of one of the Seguins 
 and succeeded him as Professeur du Roi at 
 Paris. Patin says that he resigned his chair 
 in 1654, after having held it for many years 
 without daring to give a public lecture. 
 
 There were also three or four Moreaus 
 and equal numbers of Seguins who shared 
 or transmitted their various dignities among 
 one another. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the narrow- 
 ness or ultra-conservatism of the Faculté de 
 Médecine in Patin’s time it should in justice 
 
‘| 58 | 
 
 be conceded that it attempted to place 
 medical education on a higher plane. Patin 
 writes to Belin (July 29, 1654) that in 
 some cities anyone who claimed to have a 
 medical degree could settle and practice 
 medicine, but in Paris and in other places 
 those who wished to practice had to undergo 
 an examination to ascertain their abilities 
 no matter from whence they had graduated, 
 “and this rigor is not without benefit 
 for the purpose of remedymg the abuse 
 which ts heaped upon many of the Irttle 
 universities and even upon the larger ones 
 that sometimes give doctors’ degrees too 
 easily for money.” 
 
 In spite of the fact that Patin never 
 became, in the strict sense of the term, one 
 of the physicians to the court, his letters 
 are full of references to medical matters 
 connected with the court, and of tales of 
 those physicians whom the king delighted 
 to honor. 
 
 From the tone of many of these, one can- 
 not but feel that there was considerable 
 personal animus and chagrin at his exclu- 
 sion from their midst, but it 1s impossible to 
 imagine Guy in the role of a courtier, and in 
 the long run perhaps it was as well for his 
 happiness that he did not achieve court 
 
iN 
 
 distinction. In order that some of the 
 references in his letters may be rendered 
 less obscure, it is as well to pause for a 
 moment to glance at the organization of 
 the court physicians, that we may realize 
 some of the responsibilities and emoluments 
 incumbent on them. 
 
 The medical service at the court of France 
 during the seventeenth century was organ- 
 ized on the same lavish scale as all the other 
 services of the Maison du Rot. Positions 
 In It were eagerly sought after and were 
 frequently sold for very high prices. Thus 
 Patin writes Spon (May 3, 1650) that 
 Seguin who had seven years before paid 
 Guillemeau 40,000 livres for the succession 
 to his place as médecin ordinaire du ro1, had 
 in turn sold the succession to de Ia Chambre 
 for 22,000 écus, and he writes to Falconet 
 (July 5, 1652) of the death of Vautier: 
 
 He (Vautier) was premier médecin du roi and 
 the last of the kmgdom im capacity, and in order 
 that you should know that he is not dead with- 
 out cause, he took antimony thrice, that he 
 might die m his method, by the consent and 
 advice of Guénault. If he had died seven years 
 ago he would have saved the lives of many 
 honest men who have been killed by his anti- 
 mony. At length he is dead himself aged fifty- 
 
«| 60 > 
 
 three years. As he was reported to be very 
 ignorant even at Court he wished to have the 
 reputation of possessing chemical secrets and ~ 
 of excelling in the preparation of antimony. 
 Some courtiers applauded him or seemed to 
 do so. The authority of his charge sustained his 
 credit. He said among other things that the 
 physicians of Paris were right to say that anti- 
 mony was a poison, but that as he prepared it, 
 it was not; nevertheless this good preparation 
 failed him. It is a place vacant for which Cardi- 
 nal Mazarin expects (cherche) three thousand 
 pistoles, there is one of my colleagues who 
 says that they have offered it to Guénault at 
 that price, but that he refused it, but that he 
 believes that Valot will give them. Thus all is 
 for sale, even to the health of the king which ts a 
 very bad example. 
 
 At the head of the medical service there 
 was the premier médecin, the first physician 
 to the king. He was one of the grand 
 officers of the crown, a member of the coun- 
 cil of state, and ennobled by virtue of his 
 position, bearing a coat of arms. He 
 received a large salary and many perquisites, 
 such as we know Fernel, physician to Henri 
 11 received at the birth of each of the chil- 
 dren of his royal master. Of course, in 
 consequence of his office, he was sure of a 
 large clientele among the nobility. He had 
 
J 61 I 
 
 authority over all the physicians, surgeons, 
 apothecaries, dentists, etc., who aided him 
 in guarding the health of the royal person, 
 judging as to their qualifications for their 
 respective appointments, and assuring him- 
 self that they fulfilled their duties properly. 
 He was required to be in attendance each 
 morning when the king arose, and to exer- 
 cise an active supervision over the king’s 
 diet and regimen. If the king was ill the 
 first physician had chief care of the case 
 and direction of its management, presiding 
 at all consultations and carefully observing 
 the results of the medicmes or remedies 
 administered to him. It was his duty to 
 accompany the king on any journey he 
 might make, and he had to take up his 
 residence at whatever chateau or place the 
 court might lodge. 
 
 Associated with him were eight physi- 
 cians in ordinary, or as they were generally 
 termed, physicians by quarter, because 
 of the division of their terms of service in 
 attendance by quarters of the year. Two of 
 them were required to be in attendance at 
 the court for three months in each year. 
 During that time they slept near the king, 
 attended the rising and retirement of the 
 king, and were present at his meals. The 
 
J 62 } 
 
 constant supervision of the meat and drink 
 of the king was necessary not only in order 
 to see that it was properly prepared, but also 
 to guard against the danger of an attempt 
 to poison the monarch. 
 
 There were many instances of the appoint- 
 ment of additional physicians to the king. 
 These received their appointments generally 
 by their successful management of some 
 patient belonging to the royal family, rarely 
 because of any especially distinguished 
 standing in the profession. Undoubtedly — 
 many of the court physicians owed their 
 positions to some lucky chance or to the 
 backing of influential friends, while on the 
 other hand, many were appointed because 
 by their merit they had obtained a reputa- 
 tion for skill. Thus Ambroise Paré’s appoint- 
 ment as chief surgeon was due to the recog- 
 nition of his skill by those whom he had 
 treated in the wars. 
 
 Patin tells Belm (October 28, 1631) that 
 Senelles, one of the king’s physicians, had 
 been tried for casting a horoscope of the 
 king and predicting his death. He and 
 another of the king’s physicians, Duval, 
 who was concerned with him in the matter, 
 were sentenced to the galleys for life and 
 their property confiscated. 
 
| 63 | 
 Again writing to him in 1645, he says 
 that Louis xv is ill at Fontainebleau with 
 a continued fever, he has been bled from the 
 arms and one foot. The fever developed 
 after he had been taken by his physicians 
 to drink the waters at Forges. 
 
 God knows for what reason they should make 
 a young prince of seventeen years drink those 
 lye waters when m as good a state of health as 
 was the king. It has been long that princes 
 have been unfortunate in their physicians. I 
 wish with all my heart that God sends him 
 good health, and that they do not give him 
 antimony. Note that in all the court there is 
 not a good physician. 
 
 Writing again (March 14, 1657) he 
 reiterates his views: 
 
 The great are unfortunate in their physicians. 
 The chief number of the court physicians are 
 ignorant or charlatans, and often both the one 
 and other. 
 
 The premier chirurgien or first surgeon 
 to the king, was assisted by eight surgeons 
 in ordinary, or by quarter. His office was 
 subordinate to that of the premier médecin, 
 and his duties not quite so onerous. 
 
 The court physician had no easy task. 
 Louis xiv would not let Fagon use the 
 
‘| 64 | 
 
 word “‘order’”’ (ordonnance) when prescrib- 
 ing for him, and Louis xv reprimanded his 
 physician when he told him “it was neces- 
 sary” (il faut) that he should do or take 
 something. When Senac was ~ appointed 
 médecin du rot in 1752, he had Fizes 
 appointed to the position of physician to the 
 duc d’Orléans which he had previously held. 
 Senac gave Fizes some advice as to the 
 behavior he should adopt towards his 
 noble patient: 
 
 I told him to approach his patient gravely, to 
 feel his pulse, make him put out his tongue, gaze 
 seriously in the basin (urinal or else bowl in 
 which the blood had been drawn); not to speak, 
 but to shroud himself in his peruke, and remain 
 thus a moment with his eyes closed, then to 
 give his orders, and go away without thinking - 
 to make his reverence. Instead of that, my 
 imbecile jabbered like a magpie; he talked 
 politics and literature, saying, “Your serene 
 highness”” every minute. He only got what he 
 merited, and that 1s what should happen to all 
 those who do not listen to their elders. Fizes 
 was discharged within a month after he had been 
 appointed. 
 
 When Louis xiv came to the throne, 
 Cousinot held the position of first physician. 
 
‘1 65 | 
 Patin writes Charles Spon (December 6, 
 1644) about the intrigues which were on 
 foot to secure the position for Vautier. 
 The latter had been physician to Marie de’ 
 Medici. In 1630 he had been sent to the 
 Bastille where he had remained for twelve 
 years, probably because of participation in 
 the intrigues of the Queen Mother. In 1644 
 he was physician-in-ordinary to Cardinal 
 Mazarin. Patin writes that Cardinal Riche- 
 lieu had never dared put his physician, 
 Citois, in the position of physician to the 
 King, fearing that it would rouse suspicions 
 against him. He thinks that for that reason, 
 if for no other Vautier would never receive 
 the appointment. Also Anne of Austria, the 
 Queen Mother, who was regent for Louis x1v, 
 esteemed Cousinot and did not wish to have 
 him ousted. Vautier ultimately received the 
 appointment of first physician to Louis xiv. 
 Patin writes Spon (May 29, 1648) that 
 Vautier had complained to a friend of his 
 that he was dissatisfied with his income 
 and wished to obtain another benefice. 
 The friend pointed out to Vautier that he 
 should be content as he recetved 25,000 écus 
 from this position, besides what he made 
 from his practice at Court, and the revenue 
 he recetved from an abbey, and that 
 
J 66 } 
 
 having already this benefice he should not 
 seek to obtain further revenues from the 
 Church. Vautier replied that he did not 
 feel his conscience charged nor his soul 
 in danger for the benefice he held and that 
 he would not be damned any quicker for 
 three abbeys than for one. 
 
 Mazarm had had his favorite Valot 
 appointed médecin du roi, when the King 
 was sick with a malarial fever, or possibly ty- 
 phoid. Patin writes Spon (October 19, 1655): 
 
 The Queen has refused Valot permission to 
 bring physicians to Fontainebleau to consult 
 with him, and treat the king. He had named 
 A. Daquin and Veson to her. She answered in 
 anger: “I doubt the choice which you would 
 make. These are fine physicians for the King! 
 I do not agree with you. I wish to have Guénault 
 who treated him once when he had small- 
 pox.’’ Guénault was sent for and is there. One 
 holds that Valot is in danger of being discharged, 
 although he has not yet touched any money 
 since the three years that he payed to enter 
 there; at least he is in great danger of it if the 
 Cardinal does not maintain him and put him 
 back in the good graces of the King and Queen, 
 with whom he stands very badly. 
 
 A few days later Patin writes that he 
 had been at a consultation with Riolan and 
 Moreau, in the course of which they had 
 
| 67 | 
 
 told him that the King had called Valot 
 an ignoramus and charlatan and the Queen 
 had treated him with great rudeness but 
 that Mazarin backed him up. Sometime 
 before the King’s illness a son of Valot’s 
 had died and Valot had asked the King to 
 bestow a benefice which he had held on 
 another of his sons, but the King had 
 refused. The Queen sent for Guénault 
 to come and see the King but Mazarin 
 sent him back to Paris. A little later, in 
 November, Patin tells Spon that Mazarin 
 has abandoned the cause of Valot, in turn 
 calling him an ignoramus and a charlatan 
 and saying that he was the cause of the 
 King’s illness. 
 
 Moliére’s epigram on the death of Henrt- 
 etta Maria, the Queen of England, sister 
 of Louis x11, under the care of Valot might 
 be recalled: 
 
 Le croiriez vous, race future, 
 
 Que la fille du grand Henri 
 
 Eut en mourant méme aventure 
 Que fut son pére et son mari? 
 Tous trois sont morts par assasin, 
 Ravaillac, Cromwell, médecin; 
 Henri, d’un coup de baionette, 
 Charles fini sur son billot, 
 
 Et maintenant meure Henriette, 
 Par l’ignorance de Valot. 
 
{ 68 } 
 
 On March 23, 1663, Patin in a long letter 
 to Falconet sums up a great deal of informa- 
 tion about the court physicians of his time, 
 getting his knowledge from a book which 
 Bouvard had written and proposed to 
 publish. Before doing so he had submitted 
 copies of the manuscript to Moreau and 
 Patin and to his father-in-law, Riolan. 
 The latter advised Moreau not to publish 
 the book as he would incur the enmity not 
 only of Valot and Vautier but also of 
 Cardinal Mazarin. Bouvard thereupon got 
 Moreau and Patin to give him back the 
 manuscripts he had submitted to them. 
 Patin quotes his recollections of what 
 Bouvard had written and of conversations 
 he had had with him on the subject of the 
 court physicians. Bouvard told him that 
 once he had talked to Louis xm1 about 
 Héroard, Guullemeau and Vautier and that 
 the King had said: “I, also, am unfortunate 
 to have been in the hands of so many 
 charlatans.” Héroard was a good courtier 
 with a thirst for riches. He got enmeshed 
 in the troubles of the Queen Mother, 
 Marie de’ Medici, and Richelieu stopped 
 his further progress at the Court. Vautier 
 was a miserable Jew of Avignon, very 
 boastful and ignorant. He was the physician 
 
| 69 | 
 and friend of the Queen Mother and 
 was implicated with the Marillacs in their 
 designs against Richelieu. 
 
 On the famous Journée des Dupes, 
 November 11, 1630, when Richelieu over- 
 threw their conspiracy, Vautier was ar- 
 rested and passed nearly twelve years in the 
 Bastille. When Mazarin came into power 
 during the regency of Anne of Austria, 
 Vautier was appointed first physician to 
 the King. Patin says that this same Vautier 
 was used by Mazarin as a spy at the Court. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 HomE LIFE AND LITERARY INTERESTS 
 HOME LIFE 
 
 Patin soon achieved sufficient practice — 
 to give him a very comfortable position mn 
 life. He speaks with pardonable pride of 
 his possessions. Writing to Belin (May 1, 
 1630) he says: “I have in this city two 
 things of which I can boast, good books and 
 good friends, which are at your service.” 
 And again writing to Belin, fils, m January, 
 1651, he states: 
 
 Furthermore I have purchased a fine house, 
 in which I have dwelt now for three days. It 
 is situated in the Place du Chevalier du Guet, 
 en belle vue, and away from noise. . . . I 
 have a fine, large, vast study in which I hope 
 to place my 10,000 books by adding to it a little 
 chamber which is on the same floor. My friends 
 say I am the best lodged man in Paris. 
 
 He writes to both Spon and Falconet about 
 
 his removal to his new house but dwells 
 
 chiefly on the pleasure it gives him to have 
 
 his books so well lodged. He describes 
 [ 70 | 
 
ZAM g 
 the arrangement of his study in a letter 
 to Falconet (April 24, 1651): 
 
 I assure you it is beautiful. I have put on the 
 mantle of the chimney a beautiful picture of a 
 crucifix which a painter that I had had cut (for 
 stone) had given me in 1627. On either side of 
 the good God are both of us, the master and the 
 mistress; under the crucifix are the portraits of 
 Frasmus and J. Scaliger. . . . Besides the orna- 
 ments which are on my chimney, there is in the 
 middle of my library a large beam, which passes 
 from one end to the other on each side of which 
 there are a dozen pictures of illustrious men, 
 having thus plenty of light from the opposite 
 windows, so that I am in good company with 
 good illumination. 
 
 He writes of his method of moving his 
 books,! “All my folios are moved and 
 arranged in their places, there are already 
 more than sixteen hundred in order. We 
 have commenced to move the quartos 
 after which will follow the octavos, and 
 thus to the end of the procession which will 
 last yet a month.” 
 
 No wonder such a booklover could write 
 his friend Spon (August, 1658) seven 
 years later: “I hold myself more fortunate 
 at home with my books and a little leisure, 
 
 1 Letter to Charles Spon, January, 1651. 
 
| 72 | 
 than Mazarin with all his écus and im- 
 quietudes.”’ 
 
 Patin evidently enjoyed comparing his 
 state with that of the detested Mazarin, 
 for he writes Falconet (February 28, 1640) 
 that he had been told on good authority 
 that Mazarm thought of going mto retire- 
 ment, adding that, however that might be, 
 “TI esteem myself a thousand times happier 
 than he, being enclosed in good company 
 with my silent masters, while I hear the danc- 
 ing and violins at my neighbors who are 
 rejoicing in the carnival and would not 
 believe 1t was caréme if they did not play 
 the fool all these days of feasting.”’ 
 
 Some years later he gives Falconet (No- 
 vember 8, 1658) a pleasant picture of the 
 way he spent his evenings with his two 
 illustrious neighbors, M. Miron, président 
 aux enquétes and M. Charpentier, con- 
 seiller aux requétes: 
 
 Our conversation is always gay. If we talk 
 of religion or of the State it is only historically 
 without dreaming of reformation or sedition. 
 We talk to one another about things as they are. 
 Our principal conversation regards literature, of 
 that which is new, worth consideration and 
 useful. The mind thus refreshed I return to my 
 house, where after some mmtercourse with my 
 
{| 73 | | 
 books, or an urgent consultation, I seek sleep 
 in my bed, which is without falsehood, as said 
 our grand Fernel, according to the tragic 
 Seneca, pars humanae melior. I seldom sup 
 out of my house, only occasionally, with M. de 
 Lamoignon, premier president. 
 
 The book-lover Patin complains to Belin 
 (September, 1646) that it has been necessary 
 for him to make three journeys from Paris, 
 one into Beauce, one to Rouen, and another 
 into Normandy: 
 
 However-so-much I love the sedentary life 
 and not to go away from Paris, because of my 
 - books. If I did not know myself well I would 
 say of myself what an old surgeon of Paris said 
 of himself ‘‘that he was persecuted by too much 
 practice because he was too skilfula man.”. . . 
 These journeys were as displeasing to me as they 
 were necessary for those for whom I made them, 
 and they moreover were extremely incommod- 
 ing to me. 
 
 There is no indication that Patin ever 
 left his beloved Paris for any length of time. 
 He writes to Charles Spon (March 13, 
 1648) about a projected journey on which 
 he proposed to go first to Lyons to visit 
 him, thence to Geneva, from there to Bale, 
 
‘| 74 F 
 
 to visit the famous anatomist Bauhin and 
 the tomb of the great Erasmus. Then he 
 proposed to go to Nuremberg, where Vol- 
 ckamer would introduce him to Gaspard 
 Hoffmann. In returning he would visit his 
 brother at Nimegue and some of the 
 cities of Holland, to wit; the Hague, Leiden, 
 Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Dordrecht. 
 At Rotterdam he would seek out the birth- 
 place of the ““‘mcomparable Erasmus” and 
 at Leiden he wished to visit with devout 
 respect the tomb of the “very great man, 
 Joseph Scaliger.”’ His eldest son, Robert, 
 was to accompany him on the trip. For 
 some reason, probably the uncertain state 
 of the various countries through which 
 he would travel, the plan was given up. 
 In a letter to Spon (June 13, 1644) Patin 
 says that five years after receiving his 
 doctor’s degree he took a wife “from whom 
 I will have in direct succession 20,000 écus, 
 her father and mother yet living but very 
 old, with one collateral (relative) a sister 
 who has no children and ts very rich. God 
 has blessed my alliance with four sons, to wit 
 Robert, Charles, Pierrot and Francois.” 
 Patin- also owned a county house of 
 which he wrote Belin, fils, July 5, 1651: 
 ‘““My wife and children are in the country 
 
175 | 
 
 at three leagues from here, in a handsome 
 house, which I bought for fifteen thousand 
 livres.”’ 
 
 LITERARY INTERESTS 
 
 Patin’s intense interest in the history 
 and literature of his profession is manifest 
 throughout all his life. He begins his 
 correspondence with Belin (in 1630, aged 
 twenty-nine) by telling him that he is 
 trying to make a collection of all the theses 
 read at the medical school in Paris and asks 
 him for copies of those which he could not 
 obtain at Paris and thought Belin might 
 have at Troyes, written by Belin’s contem- 
 poraries at Paris. 
 
 Patin had also the most lively mterest 
 in general literature. In 1637 there was 
 published an edition of the Latin addresses 
 pronounced by Jean Passerat, one of the 
 authors of the “Satire Ménippée” and 
 professor of eloquence and Latin poetry 
 in the Collége Royal, with a preface by 
 Guy Patin. In addition to writing to his 
 friends the news about all the latest medical 
 books and editions, he writes of works on 
 law, theology, philosophy, literature and 
 history, rejoicing in new editions of Vosstus, 
 Lipsius, Casaubon, Scaliger, Grottus, etc. 
 
{76 | 
 
 Patin was a veritable bibliomaniac and 
 occasionally his conscience seems to have 
 smitten him for the constant importunities 
 with which he beset his friends. Thus he 
 writes? to one of them: ‘Pardon me the 
 many importunities which I make to you 
 because of my bibliomania, it is a sickness 
 of which I cannot cure myself this year; 
 perhaps I will amend next year.” 
 
 He also admits that his studious habits 
 injured his health. He says*: “I occupy 
 myself so much with my books, of which 
 I purchase a new one nearly every day, that 
 I pass with them all the day and the night, 
 but these vigils have injured my health so 
 much, that to reestablish it I have had to 
 almost abandon my studies. This is one of 
 the obligations that I owe to medicine, 
 without the succour of which I would 
 undoubtedly have killed myself in my 
 desire to become too learned.”’ 
 
 In 1668 Patin published the “Apologia 
 pro Galeno,” written by Gaspard Hoffmann, 
 who died in 1648. Patin purchased the 
 manuscript after Hoffmann’s death. He 
 dedicated the book to his friend, President 
 Lamoignon. 
 
 2 Letter to Charles Spon, January 11, 1655. 
 3 Letter to Falconet, September 19, 1659. 
 
ide 
 
 Patin not only collected and read books 
 but he was an active factor in stimulating 
 the publication of new works and of new 
 editions of those which were difficult to 
 obtain or which in his opinion were suitable 
 for republication in improved form. With 
 this object In view he was constantly im- 
 porting books from Holland, Germany or 
 Italy, lending rare manuscripts or tomes to 
 publishers, and writing to procure such 
 material from sources where he thought it 
 might be obtamed. And his zeal extended 
 to other fields than those of his profession. 
 Thus we find him writmg (April 1, 1657) 
 to M. de Tournes, a bookseller, offering 
 his aid in publishing various books. Writing 
 to Belin (August 2, 1640): “Ifever you come 
 across the Volume of Epistles by Erasmus 
 in folio, the thickness of three big fingers 
 (because there are others that are smaller), 
 purchase it boldly; it is a book worth its 
 weight in gold.”’ Patin contemplated getting 
 out a work on practice of his own, a ‘‘ Metho- 
 dus” or manual, and wrote to Spon (July 
 13, 1649) about the plan he proposed to 
 follow, but which he never carried out. 
 
 In writing to Belin (November 4, 1631) 
 Patin, speaking of the last edition of 
 Pareé’s works, says: “The Pare of the last 
 
1798 
 
 impression, well bound, costs eight livres, 
 without any rebate. It Is augmented in 
 this last (edition) by a new treatise on 
 fevers, which has been added at the end 
 of the book, and Is written by a physician 
 intus et in cute mihi noto, without having 
 put his name to it, which tis very good.” 
 Triaire believes it very probable that the 
 anonymous physician, whose “name was 
 very good” and whom Patin knew so well, 
 was none other than Guy himself. 
 
 Writing to Spon (June 11, 1649) Patin 
 after stating that Paré had decried the use 
 of unicorn’s horn and other Arabesque 
 remedies, adds: “Do not think of rejecting 
 the opinion of Paré under cover that he 
 was only a surgeon. The author of his book 
 was a learned physician of Paris, named 
 Master Jean Hautin (Altinus),- who died 
 here, one of our ancients, m the year 1614.” 
 This repeats an accusation made by Le 
 Paulmier, Riolan and others that the works 
 appearing under the name of Paré were not 
 really written by the Father of French 
 surgery, but by others. Malgaigne* in the 
 Introduction to his definitive edition of the 
 writings of Paré has proved convincingly 
 the falsity of such statements, and shown 
 
 4Oeuvres complétes d’Ambroise Paré. Paris, 1840. | 
 
‘L 79 | 
 
 beyond cavil that Paré never put forth a 
 line of which he was not the veritable 
 author. Patin possibly was misled by his 
 admiration for Riolan to share the views 
 which the animosity of the latter towards 
 Paré caused him to propagate. 
 
 Patin translated into Latin and published 
 with notes the works of André du Laurens 
 (1538-1609), premier physician to Marie 
 de’ Medici, and after the death of Marescot, 
 to Henri tv. 
 
 RELIGIOUS BELIEF 
 
 Patin was not openly a Huguenot but 
 had strong sympathies with them and he 
 was certainly not a very strict Catholic. 
 He read many Huguenot works on theology. 
 He frequently expresses admiration for 
 Arnauld and other Jansenists. Thus he 
 writes Spon (March 3, 1656): ““The Jansen- 
 ists are badly and iniquitously treated by 
 the Sorbonne which I| mpute to the Injustice 
 of the age and the impiety which prevails, 
 and also to the too great power of the 
 Loyolists who are their powerful enemies.” 
 Writing to Belm (October 28, 1631) he says: 
 “In our Christian religion I believe as we 
 all should believe, many things that we do 
 not see. . . but it is by means of the faith 
 
‘| 80 - 
 
 which obliges us to; . . . but in medicine 
 I believe only that which I see.” 
 
 He admired the writings of Calvin. In a 
 letter to Falconet (May 24, 1650) he says: 
 
 There never was a man as learned as Calvin 
 in ecclesiastical history. At the age of twenty- 
 two he was the most learned man in Europe. 
 I was once at a banquet at one of our gradua- 
 tion exercises where one of our old doctors 
 named Bazin said that Calvin had falsified all 
 the Holy Scriptures. But I took up the good 
 man whom I rendered so ridiculous, that M. 
 Guénault, the younger, who was near me 
 said that I pushed him too much and that I 
 should have pity on his age and debility. Jean 
 de Montluc, bishop of Valence, said that Calvin 
 was the greatest theologian in the world. Have 
 no fear that they say as much in Rome. 
 
 On April 10, 1665 he writes to Falconet 
 that “‘as a good parishioner” he had that 
 morning attended mass at Saint-Germain 
 PAuxerrois where he saw the King who was 
 present in great state. 
 
 Writing to Belin, fils, apropos of the 
 Dutch and their wars he says: “But the . 
 Pope and the Jesuits will never fail to arouse 
 a war against those men, who will not 
 believe in Purgatory, nor purchase from 
 them indulgences, medals, blessed grains 
 
J 81 F 
 and other spiritual bijoux.’’ He writes 
 several times in 1660 that he is anxiously 
 awaiting a book of Huguenot theses which 
 is being published at Genoa. He also refers 
 several times in the same year to a Latin 
 translation of the Bible made in England 
 with notes by Calvin, Beza, and other 
 Huguenots. Yet he tells Belin (February 7, 
 1648) that he belongs to the Parish of 
 Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois and he was in- 
 terred in that church after his death. He 
 refers sympathetically in several places to 
 the Huguenots massacred in Savoy. 
 
 He writes a confession of faith to Belin 
 
 (July 18, 1642): 
 
 I put no credence or belief in possessions, nor 
 in sorcerers, nor miracles that I neither see nor 
 discern. I believe all that is contained in the 
 New Testament, as an article of faith, but I will 
 not give like authority to all the legends of the 
 monks, fabulosis et commentitiis narrationibus 
 Loyolitarum, who in the romances which they 
 send us from the Indies, say things as imperti- 
 nent and as untrue as the fables of AEsop. You 
 would say that these men worked only to in- 
 fatuate the world. It is true that if we were all 
 wise, these master pharisees of Christianity 
 would be in danger of soon dying of hunger, 
 Credo in Deum Christum crucifixum, etc. de 
 
‘| 82 > 
 
 minimis non curat practor. Deception, horrible 
 thing, is altogether unworthy of an honest man, 
 but it Is even worse when it is mixed in and 
 employed in religious affairs, Christus ipse, 
 qui veritas est, non indiget mendacio. I cannot 
 put up with the stinking falsehoods which the 
 monks retail to the world to authorize their 
 cabal, and it astonishes me greatly, imo serio 
 trascor, that they have so much credit. 
 
 A friend of Spon’s who met Patin at Paris 
 thought he was an ecclesiastic. Patin writes 
 to Spon (January 24, 1651): 
 
 I pray you to salute M. Sarrazin on my part 
 and tell him that I am much vexed that he 
 should have taken me for a priest, seeing that 
 I am not and never shall be one, and even that 
 I had not wished to be in spite of the efforts of 
 my mother, and that I have often praised God 
 that he did not make me a woman, a priest, a 
 Turk or a Jew. 
 
 Tallemant des Reaux® relates that Patin, 
 whom he terms a learned physician of the 
 Faculty, pretended that one of his patients 
 when dying had promised to return after 
 his death and tell him if there really was a 
 purgatory. Patin said that the dead man 
 did appear to him one morning, but that 
 
 ‘Les historiettes de Tallemant des Reaux, II, 
 193, Paris, 1840. 
 
‘| 83 | 
 he did not speak, because those who return 
 from the other world never talk. 
 
 Patin was a great admirer of Jansen and 
 of Arnauld. He speaks of their writings in 
 terms of the highest esteem and condemns 
 In unmitigated terms on many occasions 
 the persecution which they suffered at the 
 hands of the ecclesiastical authorities. 
 
 From some of the many references to him 
 in the Letters, it would appear that Patin 
 knew Arnauld, or at any rate had seen him. 
 He describes® him as follows: ““M. Arnauld 
 is a little, dark, ugly man, born at Paris, 
 the son of a learned advocate, who for- 
 merly plead vigorously against the Jesuits 
 
 . He is a doctor of the Sorbonne and 
 very learned, aged forty-six years . . . and 
 one of the most brilliant men of the day.” 
 
 Patin frequently expresses great admira- 
 tion for Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, Abbé 
 of Saint-Cyran, who wrote a book in which 
 he belabored the Jesuits. It was entitled 
 “Petrus Aurelius”’ and was published anon- 
 ymously in 1653. Amongst other hard 
 things he said the Jesuits were “Omnium 
 adulatores et omnium inimicr”’ (The flat- 
 terers and enemies of everybody). This 
 phrase Patin frequently quotes with cordial 
 
 6 Letter to Charles Spon, February 26, 1656 
 
| 84 | 
 
 approval. The book went through several 
 editions and was warmly approved of by 
 many of the clergy. Godeau, the Bishop of 
 Grasse, especially, wrote in praise of the 
 author. The Jesuits, however, finally suc- 
 ceeded in having it suppressed. Saint- 
 Cyran died of apoplexy in October, 1643, 
 and Patin writes’ that he was loved and 
 revered by all worthy men and above all 
 at the Sorbonne. 
 
 Patin was greatly delighted with the 
 “Provincial Letters”? (Lettres Provinciales) 
 of Pascal. They appeared m 1656 and 
 created a great sensation. Their circulation 
 was prohibited, but Guy writes Spon that 
 he will send them to him and tells him what 
 rage and consternation they have created 
 among the Jesuits. Patin writes repeatedly 
 of the massacres of the Protestants of 
 Vaudois, speaking of them as “the poor 
 Huguenots,” and stating several times his 
 joy at hearing that Cromwell had interfered 
 on their behalf. He proposed to demand 
 the punishment of those who had instigated 
 and conducted the massacres. 
 
 He writes to Spon (January 19, 1656): 
 
 The pest is yet very bad at Rome, but it 
 spares the pope and the cardinals. Perhaps it is 
 
 7 Letter to Charles Spon, October 26, 1643. 
 
| 85 | 
 because it thinks they are more evil than it. 
 Nevertheless thirty-six good and wise physicians 
 are dead, and it is they whom I regret. The 
 pope and the cardinals never lack. There are 
 always enough of them. 
 
 Also (November 18, 1659): “If the pest 
 took only monks, generals of orders, and 
 especially the general of the Jesuits, I think 
 Christianity would hardly lose.” 
 
 Patin’s narrative of the so-called “‘Mira- 
 cle of Port Royal” is very amusing. A 
 niece of Pascal’s suffered from a Iachrymal 
 fistula and according to the Port Royalists, 
 was cured by the application of a thorn 
 which had been one of those in the Crown 
 of Thorns. The miraculous cure was certified 
 by four physicians, Bouvard, Hamon, and 
 the two sons of Patin’s old enemy, Renaudot. 
 Patin laughs at the whole affair in a letter 
 to Spon (November 7, 1656) saying It was 
 put forth as counterblast to the many 
 miracles claimed by the Jesuits. He adds: 
 
 Some have asked me my opinion. I answered 
 it was perhaps a miracle that God had per- 
 mitted to Port Royal to console those poor 
 people that one calls Jansenists, who for three 
 years have been persecuted by the pope, the 
 Jesuits, the Sorbonne, and the greater part of 
 the deputies of the clergy, also to lower the 
 
{ 86 } 
 
 pride of the Jesuits, who are very insolent and 
 impudent, because of some credit which they 
 have at Court. 
 
 Writing to de Salins, a physician at 
 Beaume (March 27, 1655), he tells him to 
 make a little hidden library containing 
 among other lesser known books those of 
 Rabelais, Marot, Montaigne and Erasmus: 
 
 Your book by Marot® is not bad. Guard it 
 well and hide it for fear the monks steal it from 
 you and burn it. Put with it M. Francois 
 Rabelais’, the Catholicon of Spain (one of the 
 most popular satires against the League). The 
 Republic of Bodin, the Politiques of Lipsius, 
 the Essays of Montaigne, the Sagesse of Charron, 
 the Doctrine curieuse of Pére Grasse, the 
 Récherche des récherches, these are books 
 which are capable of taking the world by the 
 nose. I would except from them the two last 
 which are good for other reasons. Do not 
 neglect them and make of them a little library 
 which will be a reductis et extra insidias 
 monachorum. 
 
 For the writings of Erasmus, keep them, 
 propter authoris dignitatem. 
 
 8 Clement-Marot wrote a metrical version of the 
 Psalms in French about the middle of the sixteenth 
 century. It was very popular with the Huguenots 
 and equally hated by the Catholics. 
 
| 87 | 
 
 O the excellent man that he was! Drink a 
 little of the good wine of Beaune to his memory, 
 cum novella uxore, and I will give you reason 
 on the first occasion. Read his Colloquies once 
 a year and place them im the library above men- 
 tioned, cum ejusdem authoris lingua et encomio 
 moriae atque institutione principis christinae. 
 
 Patin professes a great admiration for 
 the “Religio Medici” of Sir Thomas 
 Browne. In a letter to Spon (October 21, 
 1644) he writes: 
 
 There has arrived here from Holland a little 
 book, entirely new, entitled Religio Medici, 
 written by an Englishman and translated into 
 Latin by a Dutchman. The book is very pleasant 
 and curious, but very delicate and mystical. 
 You will receive it in the first package or by the 
 first way that I may find. . . . The author 
 does not lack spirit, you will see in it strange 
 and ravishing thoughts. There is yet scarcely 
 a book of this sort. If it be permitted to the 
 wise to write thus freely one would learn much 
 of novelty, there was never a Gazette worth it. 
 The subtlety of the human mind can show 
 itself in this way. 
 
 Again in a letter to Spon on April 16, 
 1645, he writes: 
 
 They make a great deal of the book entitled 
 “‘Religio Medici.”’ Its author has ésprit. There 
 
J 88 } 
 
 are a good many things in the book. He is an 
 agreeable melancholic in his thoughts, but he, 
 in my judgment, searches a master in religion 
 like many others, and perhaps in the end he will 
 not find one. 
 
 It is rather surprising to find Patin writing 
 to Spon (July 26, 1650) in terms implying 
 admiration of the eccentric spagyrite and 
 Rosicrucian, Sir Kenelm Digby (1603- 
 1665), the inventor of the famous “‘sympa- 
 thetic powder,” because if ever there was a 
 believer m occultism, rt was that doughty 
 English knight. Be that as it may, Patin 
 writes: 
 
 M. le chevalier K. Digby, an English gentle- 
 man, a very zealous catholic, learned and 
 curious, has written while journeying, as he has 
 done much for twenty years, chiefly in Italy, a 
 Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul, in 
 English printed today at Paris. It is this same 
 Knight who has written also in English against 
 the author of the book entitled Religio Medici. 
 I ardently wish that that which he wrote of it 
 was also put in Latin, seeing that I have a high 
 opinion of these two minds (ésprits). 
 
 Of another Englishman Patin writes to 
 Belin, fils (October 28, 1659): ““Bacon was 
 a chancellor of England who died in the 
 year 1626, who was a great personage, of 
 
‘| 89 | 
 
 an elevated and curious mind. All that 
 which he has done (written) Is good.” 
 
 When Thomas Hobbes, the English phi- 
 losopher who wrote “Leviathan,” was ill 
 in Paris in 1651, Patin attended him. He 
 writes Falconet (September 22, 1651) that 
 Hobbes suffered from an attack of vomiting, 
 with a greatly distended abdomen, and 
 much pain. Patin, of course, proposed to 
 bleed him but Hobbes refused to allow him 
 to do so, objecting on account of his age, 
 which was sixty-four years. 
 
 The next day, having insinuated myself a 
 little more into his good grace, he permitted me 
 to bleed him, which gave him a great relief. 
 He alleged to excuse himself that he did not 
 think one could take so much bad blood from 
 him at his age. After that we were comrades 
 and great friends. I allowed him to drink all the 
 small beer that he wished. At last after a little 
 purgation he was in good condition. He thanked 
 me very much, and said that he would send me 
 something good from England. May he soon 
 return there gay and joyous, without any further 
 hope of recompense. 
 
 Patin hated bitterly the Jesuits and all 
 other ecclesiastics who mingled in affairs 
 of state. To the Jesuits he frequently 
 
‘1 90 | 
 
 referred as “that Spanish and _ loyolitic 
 vermine” or “‘the black troop of disciples 
 of Pére Ignace,” and the “‘carabins de Pére 
 Ignace.” “The world has been in perpetual 
 trouble since the monks put their nose in 
 its affairs. The philosophic liberty of phy- 
 siclans prevents them from loving much this 
 sort of men.’’® 
 
 In several places he terms the Jesuits 
 “the executioners of Christianity.’ Writing 
 to Spon (November 16, 1643): “These 
 executioners follow a la fin every occupa- 
 tion imaginable, provided there is something 
 to be gained by it.” 
 
 Patin,’® writing of a book by Isaac de la 
 Peyrére in which the author argued for the 
 existence of a race of men on earth before 
 Adam, the pre-Adamites, says there are 
 others who claim that the inhabitants of 
 Australia and America are not descendants 
 of Adam but belong to a totally different 
 creation. ““These are curious men, gazet- 
 teers of another world, very like our 
 preachers, who often let themselves go, 
 tellmg us marvels of a country where they 
 have never been and to which they will 
 never go.” 
 
 ®Letter to Belin, May 20, 1632. 
 10T etter to Spon, September 14, 1643. 
 
‘Lor F 
 
 Patin in a letter to Falconet (June 17, 
 1659) quoting the Greek philosopher who 
 when dying consoled himself with the 
 reflection that in the other world he would 
 be with good men, philosophers, poets, and 
 physicians, adds: “I am of the same mind. 
 If I could meet Cicero, Virgil, Aristotle, 
 Plato, Juvenal, Horace, Galen, Fernel, 
 Simon, and Nicolas Pietre, R. Moreau and 
 Riolan, I would not be in bad company. 
 There will be that to console me. I believe 
 that there are many good men in that coun- 
 try In recompence for this, where they are 
 very rare.” 
 
 FRIENDSHIP WITH NAUDE 
 
 One truly human friendship Patin had, 
 with a most congenial soul, namely, Gabriel 
 Naudé, the famous librarian of Cardinal 
 Mazarin. Naudé was born at Paris in 
 February, 1600. He and Patin were fellow 
 medical students in 1622. He received the 
 degree of Doctor of Medicine from the 
 University of Padua in 1628, but does not 
 seem to have ever practiced medicine, 
 devoting himself entirely to books, first as 
 Itbrarian to President de Mesmes, then as 
 librarian and secretary to Cardinal de 
 
‘| 92 
 
 Bagny, at whose death he served Cardinal 
 Barberini in the same capacity at Rome, and 
 afterwards Richelieu. In 1643 he assumed 
 charge of the wonderful collection which 
 Mazarin was gathering together. This 
 amounted at the latter’s death to 45,000 
 volumes, and owed its great value largely to 
 the judgment and erudition of Naude. In 
 1623 Naudé had published the book by 
 which he is probably best known today, 
 ‘““Apologie pour les grands hommes soup- 
 connez de magie,” which was translated 
 into English by J. Davies m 1657, under 
 the title, ““The History of Magic, by Way 
 of Apology for All the Wise Men Who Have 
 Been Unjustly Reputed Magicians, from the 
 Creation to the Present Age.” In 1627, 
 while still librarian for President de Mesmes 
 he published his “Avis pour dresser une 
 bibliothéque,” which went through a num- 
 ber of editions and was translated into 
 English by John Evelyn, and published in 
 1661, with the title ‘‘ Instructions Concern- 
 ing Erecting of a Library.” 
 
 Many amusing stories were told of Naudé 
 by his contemporaries. He bought books in 
 quantity by weight and measure, instead 
 of by title or volume. Walking into a book- 
 shop he would scan a pile of books, not 
 

 
 GABRIEL Naupf 
 (1600-1653) 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 OFTHE 
 “UAIYERSITY. OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
 
193 
 
 paying any attention to the individual 
 volumes, and then offer the dealer so much 
 per pound or foot for the lot. Taking them 
 home he would sort them out, placng some 
 in the Cardinal’s library, buying some for his 
 own which was very large, and then selling 
 the duplicates. He was im the seventh 
 heaven of happiness in his position with 
 Mazarin. Although the great Cardinal was 
 avaricious to the last degree, he would spend 
 his ill-gotten gains like water for additions to 
 his Itbrary. He sent Naudé all over France, 
 and to Italy, Germany and England in 
 quest of them. He ts first mentioned by 
 Patin in a letter to Belin, dated May 14, 
 1630, stating that he is sending him a small 
 book which is the ‘“Paranymph”’ for the 
 year 1628,” written by a very learned young 
 man named M. Naudé.” Its subject was 
 after Patin’s heart: De antiquitate et dig- 
 nitate scholae medicae Parisiensis panegyris; 
 cum orationibus, encomiasticus ad 1x 1atro- 
 gonistas laurea medica donandos. 
 
 Naudeé figures frequently in Patin’s cor- 
 respondence. On August 27, 1648, he writes 
 to Falconet a most amusing little skit about 
 a projected trip which he, Gassendi and 
 Naudé have planned for the following 
 Sunday. The three are to go out to supper 
 
‘1 94 F 
 
 DE 
 ANTIQVITATE 
 
 ET DItGNIVT Ate 
 
 SCHOLE MEDICA 
 PARISIENSIS 
 
 PANEGYRIS, 
 
 CV M ORATIONIBVS 
 ENCOMIASTICIS AD IX. 
 Latrogonistas laurea Medica 
 donandos. 
 
 Auctore GaBR. NAVD&o, 
 Parif. Phil. 
 
 Dinitijs animofa fuis, 
 
 ee 
 
 LVTETIZ PARISIORVM, 
 Apud Ioannem Moreav,via lacobe4; 
 fub figno Globi Caleftis. 
 
 M. DC, XXVIIL | 
 CYM PRIVILEGIO REGIS, 
 
 TiTLe Pace oF “DE ANTIQUITATE”’ BY GABRIEL NAUDE, 1628. 
 Q 
 
195 F 
 and to spend the night at Naudé’s house 
 at Gentilly: 
 
 There make a debauch, but God knows what 
 debauch. M. Naudé drinks nothing but water, 
 and has never liked wine. M. Gassendi is so 
 delicate that he would not dare to drink it, 
 and imagines that his body would burn up if he 
 had drunk of it . . . for me, I can but throw 
 sand on the writing of these two grand men; 
 I drink very little, and nevertheless it will 
 be a debauch, but philosophic and perhaps 
 something more, for to be all three cured of 
 night wolves (loupgarou) and delivered from 
 the evil of scruples, which is the tyranny of 
 consciences, we will go perhaps until very near 
 the sanctuary. The past year I made this 
 journey to Gentilly, alone with him téte-a-téte, 
 there were no witnesses, also none were missed; 
 we talked freely of everything, without anyone 
 being scandalized by it. 
 
 On November 16, 1652, Patin writes to 
 Belin, fils, that Naudé has gone to Sweden, 
 where he had accepted the position of 
 librarian to the eccentric Queen Christina, 
 but his stay there was short; as in May, 1653, 
 Patin writes that all the French whom the 
 Queen had gathered about her, had been 
 discharged from her service except Naudé, 
 whom she wished to remain, which he 
 
‘1 96 } 
 
 refused to do, preferring to leave with his 
 fellow-countrymen. Naudé lived a short 
 time afterwards; his death occurred at 
 Abbeville in July, 1653, as he was returning 
 to France at the bidding of Cardimal 
 Mazarin who had returned to power. 
 
 The only criticism Patin writes of Naudé 
 is contained in a letter to Spon (March 22, 
 1648) mn which he says that Naudé had been 
 to see him and had complained of the 
 avarice of Mazarin in that he had paid 
 him very little for the services that had 
 been rendered him: 
 
 I think it is the fear of dymg before having 
 amassed wealth to leave to his brothers and 
 nephews of whom there are a great many. And 
 by this example I see easily that the passions 
 enter just as much as ever in the minds of 
 philosophers. I am however very sorry for it 
 seeing that he 1s an honest man and worthy of 
 better treatment by such a master (as the 
 
 Cardinal). 
 
 Naudé was a freethinker. In an undated 
 letter to Falconet, written in 1662 or 1663, 
 Patin expatiates at length on the opmions 
 and character of his deceased friend. He 
 thmks he had been inspired with indiffer- 
 ence about religion during his residence of 
 twelve years at Rome, also that his unbelief 
 
‘1 97 | 
 
 had been fostered by one of his teachers, a 
 professor of rhetoric at the college of 
 Navarre. Of his personal character he 
 speaks most highly. He was prudent, wise, 
 well regulated, with “a certain natural 
 equity”? and a good friend, “‘no swearer, 
 mocker nor drunkard. He drank only water 
 and I never heard him knowingly tell a 
 falsehood. He hated hypocrites, those who 
 had once deceived him, and Itars.’”’ In one 
 of his books he asserted that Jeanne d’ Arc. 
 had not been burned but that an effigy of 
 wood had been consumed instead. Patin 
 refers to a number of authors who have 
 written that she really did suffer at the 
 stake, and adds: 
 
 For myself I am very strongly for this girl 
 who has been an excellent heroine. I believe 
 that all the miracle was political and beautiful 
 finesse painted with the sacred and holy name of 
 religion; which leads the world by the nose. . . 
 I have, moreover, heard it said that she was 
 not burned but returned into her country, 
 where she married and had children. 
 
 Of course such detractions arise concern- 
 ing almost all the great figures of history, 
 but the authenticity of Jeanne d’ Arc’s story 
 has been established beyond question. Not 
 
| 98 | 
 
 to speak of her recent canonization by the 
 Roman Catholic Church, the records of 
 whose heroes and heroines do not always 
 bear too close scrutiny, the investigations 
 of historians have unearthed legal evidence 
 and contemporary statements which amply 
 confirm the historic narration of her murder 
 in the market place at Rouen. As to the 
 miraculous fictions about her mission they 
 merely detract from the grand simplicity 
 of her story. 
 
 Naudé was not a very gallant man. He 
 said: “I could never bring myself to get 
 married. The way is too thorny and difficult 
 for a studious man.”’!! 
 
 During the troubles of the Fronde, after 
 the Court had left Paris the Parlement of 
 Paris, after proscribing Mazarin, ordered 
 that his library should be sold. Patin writes 
 Falconet (January 30, and March 5, 1652) 
 about the sale: 
 
 All Paris goes there as to a procession. I have 
 so little leisure that I cannot go, joined to which 
 the librarian, who had charge of it, is M. Naudé 
 my friend of thirty-five years,who is so dear to 
 me that I cannot bear to see this dissolution and 
 destructon. . . . Sixteen thousand volumes 
 have already gone, there remain but twenty- 
 
 11 Naudeana et Patiniana, Amsterdam, 1703. 
 
| 99 | 
 four thousand. . . . M. Naudé, who is very 
 angry against the Parlement, has bought all 
 the books on medicine for 3,500 livres. 
 
 The King finally intervened and stopped 
 the sale by a letter to Fouquet, the procurer- 
 general, in which he also ordered that the 
 money obtained be refunded and the books 
 restored, as much as possible. In his will 
 Naudé bequeathed the books that he had 
 bought from Mazarin’s library back to 
 the Cardinal and the latter bought the 
 rest of the books in Naudeé’s collection, so 
 that they all became part of the great 
 Mazarin Library in which they still remain. 
 Queen Christina and many others who had 
 purchased books at the sale, followed 
 Naudé’s laudable example so that when, in 
 1660, the Cardinal died leavmg an immense 
 sum of money and his library to form the 
 Collége de Quatre Nations, the greater 
 part of the books that Naudé had collected 
 for him were again brought together. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 PATIN IN RELATION TO His STUDENTS AND 
 His Sons 
 
 The younger son of his friend Belm! came 
 to Paris to study medicine and Patin wel- 
 comed him to his house where, for a time, he 
 came frequently. Then he remained away. 
 Patin examined him at every visit. After a 
 lengthy absence the examination was not 
 satisfactory and Patin advised his father 
 to take him back to Troyes. One can 
 easily divine that the young man’s visits 
 to Patin were not an unmixed pleasure, for 
 Patin thought he was indulging in debauch- 
 ery. Patin’s letters about him to his father 
 are very kindly worded. In 1646 young 
 Belin ran away from Paris and joined the 
 army, owing Patm money and what was 
 worse not having returned some books 
 which Patin had Ient him. Sometime after- 
 wards young Belin wrote to Patin telling 
 
 1 This was not the Belin, fils, with whom Patin cor- 
 responded. His letters were addressed to Claude 
 Belin 11; the lad who studied at Paris was yet another 
 Claude, according to Triaire, who was registered as a 
 physician at Troyes in 1654. 
 
 [ 100 | 
 
‘| 101 
 
 him with whom he had Ieft his books, 
 thereby reconciling himself to him, and 
 later wrote again asking Patin to intercede 
 with his father for him. 
 
 Patin wrote to Belin, fils, on October 17, 
 1642, an interesting letter of advice as to the 
 reading the young physician should pursue: 
 
 Read only Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, 
 Fernel, Hollier, Duret, Sylvius, Riolan, Tagault, 
 Joubert, and very little of others, in quibus 
 Hofmannus ipse dux regit examen. I am having 
 printed here another book by him, of which I 
 will make you a present in about a month as 
 the author himself has sent it to me. Read the 
 good theses of our school. Look at those which 
 you have of them, to the end that I may send 
 you the best if you have them not. While you 
 have a little leisure, read all that Thomas 
 Frastus has written and especially “De occultis 
 pharmacorum estatibus,” and his four volumes 
 “‘Adversus novam medicinam Paracelsi.’’ Read 
 also every day the “Aphorisms,” the “ Prog- 
 nostics,” the ‘ Prorrhetics,”’ the “Epidemics or 
 the Coaques”’ of Hippocrates. On the “ Aphor- 
 isms,’ take of all but three commentators; to 
 wit, Heurnius, Hollier, and Galen. 
 
 Again he tells young Belin, October 24, 
 1646: 
 
 Read every day some good book, and learn by 
 heart, if you do not know them already all the 
 
“| 102 | 
 
 “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates . . . Do not let 
 any day pass without studying at least eight 
 hours. Read carefully the “Pathology” of Fernel 
 and the first four books of his ““General Method”; 
 add to it the practice of J. Hollier, with the 
 ‘“*Enarrations”’ of M. Duret, and the“‘ Aphorisms”’ 
 of Galen, of Hollier, and of Heurnius. The best 
 surgeries? are those of J. Tagault and of 
 Gourmelin. 
 
 There are three treatises by Galen which you 
 should choose and frequently read something in 
 them, to wit: “‘De locis affectis; de morborum 
 et symptomatorum causis et differentiis,” and 
 his books on the “Method.” You will do well 
 to add that which he wrote by way of commen- 
 taries on the “Epidemics” of Hippocrates. If 
 you desire another pharmacy than the “Meth- 
 od”’ of Fernel, read Renodaeus but do not let 
 yourself be carried away in the current of 
 so many promises as do the antidotaries who are 
 destitute of experience. Nevertheless it is nec- 
 essary to know something of compositions for 
 
 2It will be noticed that throughout his corre- 
 spondence Patin never recommends the surgery of 
 Paré, except when he himself added anonymously a 
 treatise on fevers to a posthumous edition of Paré’s 
 works, but even then he does not refer to any 
 excellence on the part of Paré’s own books. 
 Gourmelin was the bitter enemy of Paré and it was 
 in reply to his attacks that Paré wrote his “Apology 
 and Journeys in Divers Places,” 1575. 
 
{103 | 
 
 fear that the apothecaries artis nostrae scan- 
 dala et approbria, can take the bar over 
 you . . . Do not lose your time reading many 
 of the moderns who only make books of our art 
 from lack of practice, and from having too much 
 leisure. Above all flee books on chemistry, in 
 quorum lectione oleum et perdes. 
 
 It should be noted that, in a certain sense, 
 Patin was not a reactionary. He was an 
 upholder of the Old Greek medicine, that of 
 Hippocrates and Galen, against the pseudo- 
 Greek medicine of the so-called Arabian 
 school. For many centuries the Arabians 
 had captured the preemimence in medical 
 teaching and belief. The works of Avicenna, 
 Avenzoar, Rhazes, and their fellows were 
 the guides on which the medical profession 
 of Europe founded their faith until well mto 
 the sixteenth century, and the Arabic 
 traditions died hard, lingering imto the 
 seventeenth century. The new school com- 
 prised those who had taken up the new rem- 
 edies imtroduced by Basil Valentine, 
 Paracelsus, Van Helmont, de Mayerne, and 
 many others. As these chemists compounded 
 many formulae and believed implicitly in 
 the efficacy of their various preparations 
 against diseases, Patin could not see any 
 good in their teachings. He only saw in 
 
[| 104 F 
 them a new set of therapeutists who, like the 
 Arabs, disregarded the teachings of the 
 Greeks, as to the supreme importance of 
 observation and diagnosis, and the mx 
 medicatrix natura, in their desire to invent 
 new remedies, and panacea. Other wiser but 
 less prejudiced physicians than Patin, felt 
 as he did that the salvation of medical 
 practice lay in a return to the Greek tradI- 
 tion. Two men especially did much to 
 promote this end. René Chartier, to whom 
 Guy manifested such bitter enmity, pub- 
 lished the works of Hippocrates and Galen 
 in Greek and Latin with annotations, and 
 Foestus published his magnificent Hippoc- 
 rates in Latin, thus placing the works of the 
 great master within reach of the many 
 physicians who knew Latin but not Greek. 
 There was a great division in Patin’s time 
 between the tatromathematical school, rep- 
 resented by Borelli and Sanctortus, and the 
 iatrochemical school whose foremost rep- 
 resentatives were Van Helmont, Franciscus 
 de Ie Boé, or Sylvius, and Willis of England. 
 The former held that all bodily actions and 
 functions could be explained by the laws 
 of physics. The tatrochemists held they 
 were due to chemical activities mn the organs 
 and tissues. Patin’s inclinations were evI- 
 
| 105 
 
 dently with the  iatromathematicians, 
 though he shows but little interest in the 
 many great advances in anatomy which 
 were made during his lifetime. He mentions 
 the writings of men like Steno, Sanctorius, 
 de Ile Boé, but chiefly praises or dispraises 
 them for their typography or binding. He 
 lauds highly those authors who adhere to 
 the Hippocratic tradition and condemns 
 virulently those who show any tendency to 
 use the much detested “‘chemical”’ remedies, 
 such as antimony. I have referred elsewhere 
 to his views about Van Helmont. Harvey’s 
 book, the greatest contribution to medical 
 science of his age, or for that matter any 
 other age, the “De motu cordis”’ published 
 in 1628, is only referred to m connection 
 with the publication of books attacking his 
 demonstration of the circulation of the 
 blood by Patin’s friend, Riolan, or by Prime- 
 rose of Bordeaux. 
 
 Another young medical student for whom 
 Patin acted as mentor at Paris was Noél 
 Falconet, the son of Patin’s correspondent, 
 André Falconet. Their family contamed 
 many distinguished physicians. Charles Fal- 
 conet was physician to Marguerite de 
 Valois, the first wife of Henri 1v. His son 
 André, Guy’s correspondent, was born in 
 
‘| 106 | 
 
 1612, and died in 1691. He practiced medi- 
 cine at Lyons. When his son Noél came to 
 Paris to pursue his studies Patin mani- 
 fested the same fatherly mterest in him that 
 he had shown in young Belm. Young 
 Falconet came to Paris m 1658. When 
 Falconet wrote to Patin that he intended to 
 send him there the latter replied (September 
 24, 1658), advising him to keep him at 
 home rather than send him to Paris: 
 
 Here the youth are marvelously debauched. 
 You would make him a physician? He could 
 study his philosophy at Lyons and later you could 
 send him here for one or two years to study 
 medicine. If your son remains near you, you will 
 be more his master, his health will fortify itself, 
 and he will be more capable of believing me in a 
 year, if I am yet here. When he shall have 
 studied here sometime, it will be necessary to 
 make him pass doctor (get his degree) in a short 
 time, and afterwards retire him near you, when 
 he will follow you to your patients, and learn 
 more in three months than in four years at Mont- 
 pellier, where I hear that the young men are 
 very debauched. I have many examples of it but 
 take little interest in them. Being at Lyons near 
 you, he can render you a good account of his 
 leisure and at his ease and to his great profit 
 he will read Hippocrates, Galen, Fernel, and 
 Duret . . . If you retain your son at Lyons to 
 
{ 107 
 
 study his philosophy, try to make him study 
 Greek as well so that he will know his grammar, 
 the New Testament, Lucian, Galen, and Aris- 
 totle. In two years he will be more robust and 
 better able to stand his first winter at Paris, 
 which is extraordinarily severe for newcomers 
 and to the young, and even then he should be 
 sent here in the month of August so that he may 
 pass the autumn here and become accustomed 
 (acclimated) before the winter comes. 
 
 Falconet did not take this sage advice but 
 sent his son to Paris in the autumn of 1658. 
 Falconet asked Patin to take him to live 
 with him as a house-pupil. Patin writes 
 
 (October 29, 1658): 
 
 I have never wished to take anyone en pen- 
 sion, although I have been asked to many times, 
 but I can refuse you nothing. You talk to me of 
 the price of board and lodging. I do not know 
 what it is, I demand nothing of you. Tell me 
 only if you wish him to study philosophy and 
 what wine you wish that he should drink. For 
 the rest he shall be nourished in our ordinary 
 fashion, which will suffice a student. 
 
 Patin writing to Falconet (January 3, 
 1659) gives a pleasant picture of his home 
 life and of the hospitality with which he 
 treated his son. He tells him how the 
 
‘| 108 | 
 
 boy has enjoyed seeing the beautiful 
 churches of Paris, and of some theological 
 questions which they had discussed to- 
 gether, and how Noél goes frequently to see 
 his son, Charles, at his house in the rue 
 Saint-Antoine, “where he always sees some- 
 thing beautiful.” Charles, being a numis- 
 matist, had many beautiful pictures and 
 medals. 
 
 Often after supper warming ourselves about 
 the fire, I talk to him of the great events of our 
 history, of the deaths of the three kings, Henri 
 u, Henri 111, and Henri rv, of the deaths of the 
 two Guises at Blois in 1588, of the Maréchal de 
 Biron, of the Marquis d’Ancre, which I make 
 him read near me in our historians. He says that 
 Jacques Clément and Ravaillac, who killed 
 Henri 11 and Henri tv (who I tell him were very 
 good kings) were wicked rascals . . . Hehasa 
 great wish to go there (to Cormeilles) at Easter 
 with my wife, and see all our trees in blos- 
 som. We have there five hundred little pear trees 
 without counting the prunes, peaches, apricots, 
 mulberries, and fig trees, and will return from 
 there to Saint-Jean where he will see two hun- © 
 dred cherry trees charged with ripe cherries. For 
 three years I have had a great wish to take you 
 there, but you have (when here) too much busi- 
 ness; he will view them in your place. Our house 
 Is near the mountain on which we have a wind- 
 
‘L 109 | 
 mill from the top of which onesees the great spire 
 of our church at Beauvais. We will show him 
 that and teach him the topography of all the 
 environs and suburbs of Paris. 
 
 When Chereau sought Patin’s country 
 house at Cormeilles he found only the 
 cellars remaining, a new mansion having 
 been built. There still existed vestiges of the 
 windmill, and many cherry trees flourished 
 on the grounds. 
 
 Guy’s second and favorite son, Charles, 
 “‘mon Carolus,” was evidently a great 
 friend of the young student. Patin writes 
 Falconet somewhat later in the same month 
 that Charles has promised to take Noél on 
 the anxiously desired country trip at Easter. 
 
 In August, 1659, Guy tells of taking 
 him walking and showing him the Latin 
 motto on the great clock of the Palais de 
 Justice, advising him to copy It as a good 
 sentiment. Then they went to Cormeilles 
 together, and on their return Patin took him 
 to see the execution “of a thief who was 
 broken on the wheel. They gave us a cham- 
 ber from the window of which he saw all the 
 ceremony of this mystery of destroying men 
 for their crimes.”’ This was done to inculcate 
 a moral lesson, as Patin adds: “It was not 
 
| 110 & 
 without expatiating to him on the unhappt- 
 ness of the wicked who resolve to steal and 
 kill to have money for debauchery and 
 gambling.’’ Robert Patin was attending the 
 wife of one of Mazarin’s household who was 
 ill at Vincennes, and he took his mother 
 and young Noél Falconet in the carrosse 
 with him when he went there one day in 
 order to show them the chateau. Patin 
 (October 6, 1659) telling the father about 
 this little excursion, adds, “he promises 
 marvels, God give him grace to do well.” 
 Patin (April 6, 1660) writes Falconet: 
 
 Since you do not wish your son to go to Lyons 
 for his vacation I am well content. He will eat 
 of our good cherries and mulberries at Cor- 
 meilles, afterwards he will return here to learn 
 the “Compendium” of Riolan, the father, and 
 the “Enchiridium” of Riolan, the son. After 
 that the winter will come, our public acts 
 (demonstrations) and frequent dissertations will 
 occupy him; you know these are the fundamen- 
 tals of our profession. Finally he will study the 
 pathology and general method of Fernel, with 
 the “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates and the 
 “Commentaries” of Hollier. I will make him 
 write on paper the good things and practices. I 
 will also take him to see patients where he will 
 learn the modus agendi. All this can be done in 
 thirteen_or fourteen months and afterwards he 
 
‘| III - 
 can return to Lyons to see you and report to you 
 on his studies. 
 
 Possibly young Falconet was aware of 
 Patin’s weakness and flattered him some- 
 what because Guy writes to his father (July 
 2, 1660): 
 
 Noél Falconet acquires every day some degree 
 of wisdom, and will answer well. He greatly 
 loves to be near me and hear me talk. Day 
 before yesterday after dinner, as we were talking 
 together, there came an honest man, with whom 
 I talked about a half-hour, and then took him 
 into my office to give him a prescription. This 
 man, an officer of the king’s, looked at him much 
 and when we were alone he said, “that young 
 man there listens to you attentively and wishes 
 to learn. Ah! but if I was in his place I would 
 profit by your presence.” 
 
 Patin adopted the usual method of 
 Instruction, making his pupil learn from 
 books and notes. He writes (August 10, 
 1660) that he Is going to make Noél “learn 
 by heart the first chapters of the ‘Com- 
 pendium’ of M. Riolan, the father, and 
 afterwards his commentaries on the physi- 
 ology of Fernel, with the ‘Enchiriditum’ of 
 the son. It is the way I taught my two sons, 
 and it succeeded there very well.” 
 
‘| 112 
 
 Apparently young Falconet only stayed 
 temporarily at Patin’s house because Guy 
 writes his father (September 21, 1660): 
 
 Noél Falconet studies and often asks me good 
 questions. I [ent him some books to study but he 
 wished to have his own, so I took him to the rue 
 Saint-Jacques* and bought for him im his pres- 
 ence the works of Riolan, the father, in two vol- 
 umes in octavo, and the “Enchiridium ana- 
 tomicum et pathologicum”’ of the son. I have 
 also promised him a “ Perdulcis,”’ and have lent 
 him a Fernel in folio which he likes. He wishes 
 
 3 The rue Saint-Jacques was the great bookshop 
 center of Paris at that time. Patin’s correspondence, 
 as would be expected, is full of reterences to this 
 famous thoroughfare. He writes to Belin on August 
 17, 1652 of a book which Belin had demanded, 
 “TI will have it tomorrow if ic is to be found in the 
 rue Saint-Jacques,”’ and he writes jokingly to Charles 
 Spon on November 16, 1645, that if the Pope ever 
 comes to Paris he will go to see his entry and “await 
 him in the rue Saint-Jacques in a booksellers, read- 
 ing some book.” In this connection we also find 
 Patin applying the term Latm to that part of 
 Paris lying on the left bank of the Seine which is 
 still known as the Latin quarter. In a Ietter to Spon 
 (May 24, 1650) he says: “I went yesterday au 
 pays Latin, where the University Is, to a consulta- 
 tion to which I had been called by one of my col- 
 leagues for the son of a councilor of Rouen. I went 
 by way of the rue’ Saint-Jacques. All our book- 
 sellers are marvelously dry and ruined.” 
 
| 113 | 
 also the “Anthropographia”’ of M. Riolan, and 
 Hollier in “Aphorismos Hippocrates, quia con- 
 ciliavit doctrinam veterum cum nostra metho- 
 do Parisieni,” which is better than that of the 
 Italians. 
 
 PATINS DOMESTIC CIRCLE 
 
 On October 10, 1628, Patin married 
 Jeanne de Jeanson, the daughter of a rich 
 wine merchant of Paris, whose mother was 
 a daughter of the celebrated Miron, the 
 provost of the merchants of Paris. Ten 
 children were born of the union, four of 
 whom attained adult age, namely, Robert, 
 the physician; Charles, the physician and 
 antiquary; Pierre, of' whom we only know 
 that he became a Master of Arts in 1649, 
 and that he signed the certificate of decease of 
 his father in 1672, and Francois, who became 
 a soldier and was killed in a duel by one of 
 his comrades at Plessis-Bouchard, October 
 9g, 1658. He was buried in the church at 
 Cormeilles the next day. Chereau* was 
 shown by the curé at Cormeilles-en-Parisis 
 an old parochial register containmng the 
 following entry: 
 
 Ce mesme jour, 10 Octobre, 1658, Francois 
 agé d’environ dix-neuf ans, fils d’honorable 
 
 4 Union Médicale, 1864, 2d series, xxill, 401, 449. 
 
1 114 F 
 homme Mr. Guy Patin, docteur régent en la 
 Faculté de médecine de Paris, a esté inhumé en 
 Ia chapelle, Nostre Dame: Iequel Francois 
 Patin a esté tué le jour précédent, par un sien 
 camarade de guerre, entre Francomille et le 
 
 Plessis-Bouchard. 
 
 As there is no reference to the career or 
 the loss of this son in Patin’s letters, it may 
 be presumed that there was an estrangement 
 between the father and son. 
 
 To judge by the frequent references to 
 his children in the Letters, Patin was a 
 devoted father. He writes to Charles Spon 
 (March 24, 1648): “‘I love children. I have 
 six of them and it seems to me that I have 
 not yet enough. I would be very glad to 
 have another Iittle girl. We have but one, 
 who Is so sweet and so agreeable that we 
 love her nearly as much as our five boys.” 
 
 Guy writes to Spon (May 25, 1648) with 
 curious candor about his wife’s relatives: 
 
 For eight whole days I have been detained 
 near my mother-in-law, who has been very ill 
 with a pleurisy of which she, Dieu merci, was 
 quit, by means of four bleedings which she has 
 borne very well, in as much as she is nearly 
 eighty years old. The good man is scarcely less, 
 and they are on the eve of leaving me for my 
 
| 115 | 
 
 part an inheritance of 20,000 crowns, et vir 
 sapiens non abborrebit. 
 
 Patin’s father-mn-law showed no inclina- 
 tion to hasten the fulfilment of his hopes. 
 Two years later (February 4, 1650) Patin 
 writes Spon: 
 
 My father-in-law has again obtained some 
 respite from the park (cemetery). In this last 
 attack he was bled eight times from the arms, 
 and each time I made them take nine ounces 
 from him, although he ts eighty years old. He is 
 a fat and full-blooded man. He had an inflam- 
 mation of the Iungs with delirium, and, in addi- 
 tion, stone in the kidneys and bladder. After the 
 bleeding I had him well purged four times with 
 senna and syrup of pale roses, by which he has 
 been so marvelously relieved that it is miracu- 
 lous, and he seems rejuvenated. Many people 
 would not have believed it and would believe 
 rather some fable of a julep cordial. He shows 
 me much contentment but although he is very 
 rich he gives no more than a statue. Old age and 
 avarice are always in good intelligence with one 
 another. Such men resemble pigs which leave 
 all in dying, but are only good for anything after 
 they are dead because they are good for nothing 
 during their life. It is necessary to have patience, 
 I will not neglect to take good care of him. God 
 has given me the means to do without the wealth 
 
| 116 & 
 
 of others, and live content till now without ever 
 thinking evil. 
 
 ‘| 
 aL. 
 
 Patin’s mother-in-law died on July 8, 
 1650, and he wrote to Spon on July 26, 
 1650, and again on August 8, 16450, describ- 
 ing her Jast illness, an apoplexy, and render- 
 ing her a somewhat piquant last tribute. 
 She was eighty-two years old. Patin was at 
 Paris but hastened to her country place at 
 Cormeilles where she was taken ill. 
 
 I found the good woman in extremity . . . 
 She had been bled and cupped in awaiting my 
 coming by the surgeon of the place, in such sort 
 that there remained nothing for me to pre- 
 scribe . . . Finally she died in the evening and 
 was buried in the church there the next day 
 with much ceremony, very useless and super- 
 fluous . . . Webrought back the good man her 
 husband the next day, who is more de- 
 crepit than she was although several years 
 younger . . . There is hope that after his 
 death we will have a great inheritance . . 
 She was an excellent woman in the care of her 
 household and in the pains which she took 
 
 with it . . . I can not give myself the pain of 
 weeping much for her seeing she was too old and 
 too often ill . . . Do not weep much for the 
 
 death of my mother-in-law, she was not worth 
 it. She was a good woman, very rich and avari- 
 cious, who feared nothing so much as death 
 
| 117 f 
 
 which nevertheless seized her quite suddenly 
 at the end, at her beautiful country house at 
 Cormeilles. She has gone before where we will go 
 after. Let us try at least to go there with 
 tranquillity and (better) reputation, and that 
 our children may be thankful to us as good 
 fathers, in meriting from them veritable grati- 
 tude. 
 
 Patin only refers to his wife in a very 
 casual way throughout the correspondence. 
 He speaks once of her pride in their good 
 fortune as we have seen, but she seems not 
 to have entered much mto his thoughts or 
 affairs. He hints at her rather disparagingly 
 in a letter to Spon (October 5, 1657). The 
 Iatter’s wife had visited Patin at Paris and 
 the latter writes: 
 
 Mon Dieu, but she is a worthy woman. Ah! 
 but you are fortunate to have one.so good, so 
 perfect, and of such good humor. Mine has many 
 very good qualities, but she is sometimes cross 
 and cruel to valets and maids, which are 
 characteristics I hold for nought, but she has 
 them Jure gentilitio. Her deceased mother who 
 lived eighty-four years was of the same humor. 
 You have been more fortunate than others. Is it 
 that God mixes in your affairs? 
 
 In a letter to Falconet (June 3, 1661) 
 Patin makes the followmg ungallant_ re- 
 
118 
 
 marks: “The late M. de Villeroi, grand 
 secretary of state, who had a bad wife 
 (he was not alone im that and the race is not 
 extinct) said that in Latin woman was 
 mulier, that is to say mule bier, mule 
 demain, mule toujours.” 
 
 ROBERT PATIN 
 
 As already stated, the Patins had four 
 children who attained adult age. Robert, 
 born in 1629, 1s frequently mentioned in the 
 course of his father’s correspondence. Some 
 of Guy’s letters are written in his hand, he 
 evidently having acted as his father’s sec- 
 retary. Patin wrote to Spon in May, 1648, 
 telling him of his joy that Robert had 
 received his degree of Bachelor of Medicine 
 at the age of nineteen, the youngest of his 
 class. They quarreled on occasions and there 
 was a serious breach between them at the 
 end of Guy’s life. In a letter to Spon m 
 1649, Guy wrote that Robert could do very 
 well 1f he wished, but that he did not like 
 to study and was volatile and flighty. He 
 married Catherme Barré in 1660. Writing to 
 Belin, fils, June 2, 1660, he says that two 
 days before, he had married his eldest son 
 to a beautiful girl, who comes of honest 
 people, to whom he had been the physician 
 
{| 119 F 
 for twenty-five years. “She ts beautiful, she 
 is rich.” 
 Patin gave up his chair of Professeur du rot 
 to Robert in 1667. He wrote to Falconet 
 (August 12, 1667): 
 
 Yesterday my eldest son, Robert Patin, took 
 possession of the charge of professeur royal, for 
 which I had obtained for him the succession. 
 It has come with a good augury, because he 
 celebrated by his harangue his natal day, having 
 been born the eleventh day of August, 1629. I 
 pray God that he may enjoy it a long time. I 
 have raised my children with great care and 
 great expense. I hope they will reap agreeable 
 fruits from it. 
 
 Robert died of phthisis on June 1, 1670. 
 Chereau’ gives the following entry from the 
 register of the church at Cormeilles: 
 
 Le deuxieme jour de juin mil six cent soixante 
 et dix a este inhumé dans l’église a Ia chapelle de 
 la Vierge, Mr. Robert Patin, docteur en la Faculté 
 de médecine de Paris, demeurant a la paroisse 
 de Saint-Germain-de [’Auxerrois 4 Paris; en 
 presence de Mr. Guy Patin, aussi docteur et 
 professeur du roi, son pére, et de Pierre Patin, 
 son frére qui sont signé. 
 
 Although Charles was undoubtedly his 
 favorite son, and Robert seems at times to 
 5 Union Médicale, 1864, 2d series, xxill, 401, 449. 
 
4] 120 > 
 
 have caused his father some vexation, never- 
 theless Patin was sincerely grieved when 
 Robert died at the age of forty-one, but a 
 few years after succeeding to Guy’s pro- 
 fessorial chair at the Collége Royal. In May, 
 1670, he refers on several occasions in his 
 correspondence to Robert’s illness, which 
 seems to have made a rapid progress 
 towards its end. He sent him, accompanied 
 by his wife and his mother-in-law, out to his 
 country place at Cormeilles mn the hope that 
 the change of air would help him. The 
 bereaved father wrote Falconet (June 4, 
 1670): 
 
 At length, Monsieur, I am desolate, O me 
 miserum! my eldest son died, the first of June. 
 God wished to have his soul! he died a good 
 Christian with great regret for his faults, et cum 
 maxima in Christum fiducia. I pray God with a 
 good heart that he will preserve you and those 
 who belong to you. It is not necessary to go so 
 soon, one dies soon enough . . . He died at 
 Cormeilles, where he had been taken to have an 
 air more pure than that at Paris. He was buried 
 near his maternal grandmother and his brother 
 Francois in the chapel of Notre Dame, near to 
 the choir. Requiescat in pace. I am so broken 
 down with sorrow at his death, and so fatigued 
 by the journeys which his illness caused me to 
 
‘| 121 
 
 make, that I am capable of nothing. I pray you 
 to witness my sorrow to M. Spon to whom I 
 have not written of this misfortune because I am 
 so much afflicted, and from whom I do not even 
 ask consolation. It is necessary that I weep all 
 my life for a son so learned . . . He leaves 
 three boys and a little girl, of whom the eldest is 
 nine.years, and from whom I hope for some con- 
 solation, because he has much ésprit, learns well, 
 and is very gentle. We will do that which pleases 
 God, who holds in his hand the good and bad 
 
 fortune of men. 
 
 In 1669, Robert according to Sue had 
 gotten his father’s signature to a document 
 which enabled his wife to interfere m the 
 disposition (affaires) of Patin’s estate after 
 his death, so that it was necessary to sell 
 Guy’s library of upwards of 10,000 volumes 
 after his death, in order to satisfy her 
 claims. The old man wrote to Falconet in 
 July, 1671, a few months before his death, 
 “that the diversity of the studies of his son 
 Charles consoled him in some sort for his 
 absence, but that the maliciousness of 
 Robert confounds him.” “This mgrate has 
 deceived me wickedly, even while dying. 
 I would never have thought that of an older 
 son in whom I had trusted entirely.” 
 
‘| 122 
 
 CHARLES PATIN 
 
 Charles Patin was born on February 23, 
 1633, studied Iaw and became an advocate 
 at Paris mn 1648, but in 1654 gave up his 
 legal career and took up that of medicine. 
 Patin tells Belin that at the age of fourteen 
 years he has been examined publicly in 
 Latin and Greek philosophy, before a large 
 audience and got his degree of Master of 
 Arts. “I am going to put him back ‘at his 
 humanities for another year and then make 
 him study law, so that some day he can 
 defend me if the apothecaries undertake to 
 attack me again.” Writing to Garnier, a 
 physician of Lyons, November 2, 16409, 
 Patin says: ““My Charles is studying law, 
 but I would like it better if he would employ 
 his time at medicine for which I find him 
 much better suited. I talk to him of it often 
 and he knows more of it than his elder 
 brother; finally, I would prefer that he 
 should be a physician rather than a law- 
 maker, I would teach him many fine 
 observations.” In a letter to Spon in 1649, 
 Guy says he is better poised and loves to. 
 study more than his brother Robert, and 
 that he is very learned in “‘Greek philos- 
 
 ®Letter, August 18, 1647. 
 
yl eet Ma 
 ophy, geography and law.” His portrait 
 depicts a bright intelligent countenance of 
 much physical charm. Writing to Spon 
 (December 10, 1658) Patin tells him: 
 
 It is very cold but we have wood to heat us, 
 added to which it is warm in my study, and we 
 study all the evening téte-d-téte until the hour 
 for supper, and after that we talk around the fire 
 of some agreeable matter, physics, history, or 
 politics. Our Carolus always relates to us some- 
 thing curious. He loves ancient times and talks 
 gaily of them to us, so much so that we often go 
 to bed an hour Jater than we had resolved to. 
 
 He was apparently on the high road to 
 success. He seems to have been a popular 
 lecturer on anatomy, for Patin (December 
 16, 1659) writes to Falconet: 
 
 My son, Charles, is teaching anatomy in our 
 school on the cadaver of awoman. There isso great 
 a number of auditors that besides the theater the 
 court yard was filled. He begins well at twenty-six 
 years, I hope he will finish better. He has many 
 friends who love him. Through his studies he 
 has acquired many and through his courtesy 
 yet more. 
 
 On November 24, 1667, Guy wrote to 
 Falconet describing with what éclat Charles 
 had participated in a discussion on the 
 
| 124 F 
 
 relative merits of Homer and Virgil, and 
 that Lamoignon, the President of the Parle- 
 ment of Paris and one of the chief men in the 
 city, had shown him marked favor, yet a 
 few months later, in February, 1668, Charles 
 had fled from France and was sentenced to 
 the galleys in contumacy. Patin writes of it 
 to Falconet (March 7, 1668) as follows: 
 
 I write lastly to you about the affair of my son 
 in which I[ had expected that the knowledge of 
 the truth and the succor of my good friends 
 would have remedied it, but hope, according to 
 the sentiment of Seneca, is the dream of a man 
 who ages. Nevertheless, since it is a virtue, I 
 would not abandon it whatever should arise, for 
 it Is permitted even to the most wretched to 
 dream and to deceive themselves. Everybody 
 pities him, no one accuses him, and with the 
 exception of some publishers he is loved by 
 everybody. Meanwhile he is absent and we are 
 obliged to resign ourselves in spite of his 
 stoicism. He had always hoped that the justice 
 of the King would be extended to him but our 
 enemies had too much credit. Meanwhile, to 
 soothe our wound, they say, (1) that his process 
 had been made in contumacy, as a man absent, 
 who could not defend himself; (2) that it was by 
 royal and special commission and without right 
 of appeal which is extraordinary and shows more 
 than ever the design they had to condemn him; 
 
| 125 | 
 
 (3) that most of his judges had received lettres de 
 cachet and the recommendation that it was nec- 
 essary to make an example. But to what could 
 this example serve? Is it that while the Hol- 
 landers and others print books of history, and 
 chiefly of our country, of which the authors live 
 in Paris, one can take from individuals the desire 
 -and curiosity to read them? (4) They allege it 
 was a man of great standing who was our secret 
 adversary who moved the wheels and intrigued 
 against us, because they found among his books 
 some volumes in defense of M. Fouquet, and of 
 the enterprise of Gigeri.? Why do they not 
 punish the authors of these books? Why do they 
 not prevent their publication in Holland, or 
 their importation into France? All these books, 
 and others like them, have been sold at Paris by 
 the booksellers at the Palais and in the rue 
 Saint Jacques. It excites the desire to see these 
 books that one would suppress and hide with so 
 much rigor . . . They have named three 
 books, to wit, one full of impiety, a Huguenot 
 book entitled, “L’Anatomie de la Messe,’”’ by 
 Pierre Dumoulin, minister of Charenton; as if 
 the Inquisition was in France! It was sold for six 
 sous. Paris is full of such books, and there is 
 scarcely a library where one cannot find them, 
 
 7 Patin evidently hints at Colbert in these remarks. 
 It is well known with what animosity Colbert pur- 
 sued all those who sought to uphold the cause of his 
 predecessor. 
 
| 126 
 
 even with the monks. There ts liberty of con- 
 science in France and the booksellers sell them 
 every day. It is even permitted to a man to 
 change his religion and become a Huguenot, if he 
 wishes; and it will not be allowed a studious man 
 to have a book of this sort; also he had only a 
 single copy. The second was a book, which they 
 said was contrary to the service of the King. It 
 was the “Bouclier d’état,” which is sold pub- 
 licly at the Palais, and to which they are print- 
 ing here two answers. The third is “L’histoire 
 galante de Ia cour,’ which consists of little 
 libels more worthy of contempt than anger. I 
 think these three books are only a pretext, and 
 that there is some secret enemy who is angry at 
 
 my son, and the cause of our misfortune. I hope 
 that God, time, and philosophy will deliver us 
 and put us at rest, and in waiting, Lord God, 
 give us patience. It Is necessary in this world to 
 be either the anvil or the hammer. I have never 
 had great care, but here it is all of a sudden, 
 when I am sixty-seven years old. It is necessary 
 to bear patiently that for which there is no 
 remedy. Finally God wills it thus. 
 
 Patin apparently did not think that Col- 
 bert was responsible for the persecution of 
 his son, for when Colbert was ill a few years 
 later, Patin writes Falconet (June 2, 1671): 
 
 For me I have a particular interest in his 
 recovery, besides that he has often spoken well 
 

 
 CHARLES PATIN 
 
 (1633-1693) 
 
¥ 
 i 
 ‘ 
 * —* +<@ 
 ¢ ; ' 
 ~s 
 ~~ 
 i 
 \ 
 ' 
 \ 
 a \ 
 t = 
 yobs 
 " 
 =, 
 ‘ 
 . 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILUMatS 
 
 
 
| 127 | 
 
 of me, and that he has raised my salary as royal 
 professor, it is that I expect from it the liberty of 
 my son, Carolus, for although many persons have 
 believed that it was he who had him persecuted, 
 he has said several times, even of his own will 
 (méme de son propre mouvement), that it was not 
 he. Thus we are reduced to knowing neither 
 the accusation nor the accuser. But, as I have 
 told you, I have good hope that this great minis- 
 ter will contribute to our happiness, in spite of 
 the solicitations of our enemies. 
 
 On August 14, 1668, confirming a decree 
 of the Chatelet previously issued March 25, 
 1668, Charles had been summoned before a 
 special commission for trial without right 
 of appeal. The only charge formulated 
 against him was that certain prohibited 
 books had been found in his possession: 
 *‘L’anatomie de la messe’”; the ““Memoire”’ 
 published by Fouquet im his defense; and 
 Bussy-Rabutin’s “Histoire galante de la 
 cour,’ books which as his father says, 
 were sold publicly by the booksellers of 
 Paris. Guy Patin writes: “I thmk these 
 three books are only a pretext and that there 
 is some hidden party who Is angry with my 
 son and who is the cause of his misfortune.” 
 Bayle,* after quoting Guy Patin’s explana- 
 tions of his son’s disgrace, says that they do 
 
 8 Dictionnaire historique et critique. 
 
‘| 128 > 
 
 not touch on the cause which was rumored 
 about Paris as the true reason for his exile. 
 It was said that Charles had been sent to 
 Holland to buy up all the copies of a 
 scandalous book, “Les amours du palais 
 royal,” and burn them at once, not sparing 
 a single copy. He was given this commission 
 by a “Grand Prince,’”’ who promised to 
 recompense him. Charles was said to have 
 purchased the books but mstead of destroy- 
 ing them he was accused of bringing them 
 into France where they would, of course, be 
 in great demand. Pic conjectures, without 
 giving any very valid reasons, that he may 
 have become mvolved in a love affair with 
 some lady upon whom the King had 
 bestowed his affections. He bases his sup- 
 position on the facts that Colbert, the 
 all powerful minister, had taken an active, 
 though secret part in his conviction, the 
 majority of the judges having received 
 lettres de cachet, ordering them to find him 
 guilty; that Charles Patin never attempted 
 even while living m security in foreign parts, 
 to justify himself, and that in 1681 he was 
 offered a full pardon by Louis x1v. Charles 
 refused the proffered amnesty, saying “of 
 what pardon would they speak to me? I did 
 not know my crime.” 
 
‘| 129 | 
 
 Pic recalls that Colbert had interested 
 himself mn the King’s love affairs before, and 
 that the trial of Charles Patin coincided 
 in date with the advent to power over the 
 King’s affections of Madame de Montespan 
 (1669), and that the pardon had been 
 offered to him, without solicitation at the 
 epoch of her displacement by Madame de 
 Maintenon (1681). He thus accounts for the 
 personal interest taken by Colbert and his 
 royal master in the affair. 
 
 There does not seem much to support the 
 idea that the exile of Charles Patin may 
 have been due to a love affair. His wife 
 followed him in his exile and apparently 
 they lived with one another until parted by 
 death, in perfect accord. There is another 
 explanation for his persecution which seems 
 more probable. In 1665, Denis de Sallo 
 founded the Journal des Savants. Patin 
 writes to Falconet (March 20, 1665): 
 
 I do not know if you have received a certain 
 kind of gazette, which they call the Journal des 
 Savants, in which an author who complained 
 against a little article of my son, Charles, on the 
 deal which was made here last year for the Swiss, 
 is answered by him. I have sent you his answer, 
 which is wise and modest. The new Gazette 
 replied ignorantly and extravagantly, to which 
 
‘| 130 F 
 
 there had not lacked a strong and sharp response 
 with good reasons, if they had not prayed 
 Charles to suspend his reply, and menaced him 
 with a lettre de cachet. The truth is that M. Col- 
 bert takes under his protection the authors of 
 this journal, which is attributed to M. de 
 Sallo, counselor in Parlement, to M., the Abbe 
 de Bourze, to M. de Comberville, to M. Chape- 
 lain, etc., insomuch that Carolus is advised to 
 delay his response, and even, by the advice of 
 the premier president, who has also requested it 
 (they say for a particular reason, to wit, that he 
 does not stand well with M. Colbert since the 
 process of M. Fouquet) . . . The republic of let- 
 ters Is for us, but M. Colbert is against, and if my 
 son defends himself, they say they will send him 
 to the Bastille. It would be better not to write. 
 
 This was not the only time that Charles 
 Patin had been in trouble with the police 
 for having im his possession contraband 
 books. Pic’s friend, M. Paul Delalain, dis- 
 covered in the Bibliothéque Nationale the 
 dossier of Charles Patin containing his 
 sentence in 1668. Attached to it was the 
 report of the arrest of both Charles and his 
 father for an attempt to smuggle contraband 
 books into Paris. They were bringing them 
 into the city from Bourges, when their 
 carriage was stopped and the two doctors 
 apprehended and taken to the douane. 
 
yee tl 
 
 Among the books were ninety-two copies of 
 Rabelais, the “Lettres provinciales,” the 
 Journal des Savants, ‘‘L’ histoire des amours 
 d Henri tv,” “Rome pleurante,”’ ‘Le 
 Roman comique de Scarron,” and _ fifty 
 copies of “‘L’ histoire amoureuse des Gaules.”’ 
 The latter Guy Patin attempted to dispose 
 of by throwing them down a Iatrine, but he 
 was caught by the customs officers, and the 
 books recovered by scavengers. There is no 
 record of any punishment meted out for this 
 offence beyond confiscation of the books. 
 
 In 1666, Guy and Charles Patin were 
 arrested for having m their possession 
 contraband books. 
 
 Again in 1667, the elder Patin was in 
 trouble for the same cause. Fifty copies of 
 the works of Hoffmann (Hoffmann’s “‘Opera 
 omnia’”’) were found in his possession, and 
 confiscated. ‘“They were destined, not for 
 presents, as he claims, but to be sold, accord- 
 ing to his custom.” After escaping from 
 France, Charles Patin traveled and lived in 
 England, Germany, Holland, Switzerland 
 and Italy. He held several professional 
 chairs at Padua, among them those of sur- 
 gery and practice. 
 
 Patin was cheered by letters from Charles, 
 showing that he had been well recetved in his 
 
|] 132 
 
 wanderings, and was not greatly depressed 
 by his banishment. Thus Patin writes to 
 Falconet (September 13, 1668): 
 
 I have had good letters from Germany. By 
 them I learn that my dear son, Charles, diverts 
 himself there i traveling, and visiting worthy 
 men. He has lately been at Frankfort, where our 
 good friend, M. Scheffer, recetved him very well, 
 also M. Lotichius, M. Horstius, and other men of 
 letters. He writes me that he studies, and that 
 he does not afflict himself too much at quitting 
 his country. Securus sine crimine vivit. The 
 Elector Palatine wished him well, and invited 
 him to dinner twice a week, and asked him to all 
 the amusements of the Court. He has even 
 offered to write to the King on his behalf, but 
 Charles is a Stoic, who says he does not wish to 
 owe his return to anyone but the King. He says 
 he is a wise Prince. They have persecuted him in 
 his name, but that he will cause him to return 
 when he wishes. If that does not happen, I will 
 say with Cayas and others, O ingrata patria, non 
 babebis ossa mea! I have more wish to see him 
 than he has to return. My God, when shall it be? 
 
 Patin writes Falconet (April 26, 1669): 
 
 My Carolus has left Heidelberg and has gone 
 to see the Duke of Wurtemberg, who has de- 
 manded his medical aid. He has already made 
 another journey there, with which he was well 
 
{ 133 } 
 
 content, as the Prince was also with him, send- 
 ing him away with handsome presents, and 
 charging him to return soon to see him. He 
 writes me that if he loved money he would have 
 the occasion to be satisfied, and that besides his 
 profession in which they honor him much (you 
 know that which is the honorarium of physicians 
 and lawyers), these princes love greatly to play 
 at. tric-trac with him and they willingly lose. 
 He says they are the honestest players and best 
 men in the world. 
 
 Charles published a little book of travels? 
 which contains nothing indicativeofany great 
 erudition on the part of the author, reading 
 more like the jottings of an idle dilettante 
 than a work written by a Iearned antiquary. 
 
 In 1682, Charles Patin published a 
 volume of “The Lives and Pictures of the 
 Professors at the University of Padua,’’?° 
 mcluding his own life and portrait as pro- 
 fessor of surgery among them. This* auto- 
 biographic sketch, however, is disappoint- 
 ing in that it throws no light on the reason 
 for his exile. He relates with complacency 
 
 ® Relations historique et curieuses de voyages en 
 Allemagne, Angleterre, Hollande, Bohéme, Suisse, 
 par Charles Patin, Docteur en Médecin de Ia Faculté 
 de Paris. Amsterdam, 1695. 
 
 10]. yceum Patavinum. Sive icones et vitae pro- 
 fessori. Patavil, MDCLXxx1I. Publice Docentium. 
 
‘] 134 | 
 
 LY CE Via 
 PAT A V-I NEYeSe 
 
 Siue 
 ICONES ET VITA 
 PROFESSORVM, 
 PATAVIIs MDCLXXXII. PVBLICE DOCENTIYVM.: 
 
 PARS PRIOR, 
 Theologos , Philofophos & Medicos complecens. 
 PER | 
 CAROLVM PATINVM:;> EQ. D. M. 
 DOCTOREM MEDICYM PARISIENSEM, 
 Primarium Chirurgie Profeflorem, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PATAVII, MDCLXXXIL 
 
 eae 
 
 Typis Petri Marie Frambotti, Superiorum permiffu . 
 
 
 
 
 
 TitLe Pace oF ‘‘ LycEuM PATAVINUM” By CHARLES PATIN, 
 1682 
 
| 135 F 
 
 the many honors he has received since leav- 
 ing his native and, and expresses the happi- 
 ness which filled his life at the time he 
 wrote. He refers with affectionate respect 
 to his father. 
 
 Patin writes Falconet (June 19, 1663) of 
 Charles Patin’s marriage, speaking as 
 though he were doubtful of its success: 
 
 I have married my son, Carolus, aged thirty 
 years, to the daughter of my colleague, M. P. 
 Mommets. Her name is Madelon, and she is 
 nineteen years less four months old. A beautiful 
 girl, well born and well brought up by a good 
 father and a wise mother, Utinam omnia fauste 
 succedant. It is a bargain of which I am doubtful 
 as to the success; uxort atque viro est fatalis. 
 
 His wife and daughters were very learned 
 and all published books on various subjects. 
 Charles died at Padua on October 2, 1692. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 OPINIONS OF PATIN 
 THE PHARMACOPEIA OF PARIS 
 
 In a letter to Belm (January 18, 1633) 
 Guy writes of the ‘“Dispensatory”” which 
 the Parlement of Paris had ordered to be 
 compiled by the Faculty in 1590. There was 
 no official pharmacopeta or dispensatory 
 (Guy elsewhere refers to it as an antido- 
 taire, guidon des apothicaires, etc.) in 
 France. The first one in Europe was that of 
 Valerius Cordus published by order of the 
 senate of Nuremberg in 1544, entitled “ Dis- 
 pensatorium pharmacorum omnium quae 
 In usa potissimum sunt.”? Patin says the 
 French apothecaries used as textbooks the 
 “‘Antidotaire” of Nicholas Praepositus of 
 Salerno, first printed m 1471; and the 
 “Dispensatorium Galenochemicum” of 
 Renou (Renodaeus, 1608). The order says 
 It was to be made by twelve members of the 
 Faculty. The original members having died, 
 those who replaced them allowed the work 
 
 1 Triaire: Lettres de Guy Patin, 1630-1672, Paris, 
 1907. 
 
 [ 136 ] 
 
L378 
 
 to lapse, saying that such a publication 
 would only serve to maintain the rascality 
 of the Arabs to the profit of the apothe- 
 caries, and Guy” quotes the Pietres i sup- 
 port of this view adding that three grains 
 of senna in a glass of water purge as well or 
 more surely than a heap of arabesque com- 
 positions. He says the apothecaries do not 
 like him for his practice but that the people 
 are so tired of their barbaresque tyranny 
 and bezoardesque cheating that It Is easy to 
 escape from their, the apothecaries’, hands. 
 According to Guy there is no better phar- 
 macopeia than ‘“ “Le médecin charitable’ 
 reinseignant la maniére de faire et préparer 
 a la maison, avec facilité et peu de frais les 
 remeédes propres a4 toutes les maladies selon 
 Padvis du médecin ordinaire,” written by 
 Philibert or Philippe Guybert, which was 
 immensely popular. Guy wrote a “‘traité de 
 Ia conservation de la santé” which was 
 added to the book in its seventeenth 
 edition. 
 
 The Pharmacopeia of Paris was finally 
 published in 1628, and entitled “Codex medi- 
 camentarius seu phar-nacopoeia Parisienst.”’ 
 
 Years afterwards (July 20, 1656) we find 
 him again writing Belin, that there Is no 
 
 *Letter to Belin, 1643. 
 
Guybert perces cferite malgré les enuteux 
 Conferue la Jante des Jeunes, ct des Vicux. 
 
 
 
 FRONTISPIECE OF PHILIBERT GUYBERT’S “LE MEDECIN CHaRI- 
 TABLE.” Paris: J. Jost. 1633. 
 
| 139 F 
 better way to defeat the apothecaries than 
 to introduce into families “‘Le médecin 
 charitable” along with a syringe, bouil- 
 lons and ptisans, made with senna and 
 other emollient herbs. 
 
 PATIN AND THE BOOK TRADE 
 
 From the above it may be seen that Guy 
 Patin though holding his head so high as a 
 docteur-régent, was also a dealer in books to a 
 very considerable extent. These commercial 
 doings crop out with great frequency in his 
 lectures. Whether he dealt m books to 
 mcerease his income ts doubtful. It would 
 appear more probable that he was so intense 
 a bibliophile that he could not refrain from 
 handling them, whether in his library or in 
 buying or sellmg. He seems to have enjoyed 
 peculiar facilities for importing them and his 
 activity in bringing foreign books imto 
 France was beneficent. He writes to Spon 
 (September 17, 1649) about the efforts 
 made by a syndicate of publishers to close 
 the bookshops on the Pont Neuf. There | 
 were more than fifty of them, the privilege 
 of opening them being sold by footmen of 
 the King. Patin says they bought books 
 stolen by children and servants and were 
 a great annoyance to the regular trade. 
 
‘| 140 | 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 doctor méedicus parisiensis 
 
 0 Latin 
 
 , 
 
 70 « 
 
 ro 
 
 “Ge 
 
 nr. Masson ad viussmn ping. et foul. 6 
 NU, 
 
 . 
 
 JUS 
 
 meouis et professor 
 
 1602—1 672) 
 
 ( 
 
4 141 & 
 
 In 1661, Patin besought the good offices 
 of Falconet to secure the release of some 
 books consigned to him, which had been 
 seized by the customs officers at Lyons. 
 A former student of Patin practiced medi- 
 cme in Frankfort and when the great fairs 
 were held in that city he used to buy books 
 which he thought would mterest his old 
 teacher and send them to him. Patin was 
 greatly concerned when he was informed 
 that the package had been seized at the 
 douane, on the complaint of the syndicate 
 of the booksellers of Lyons. He writes that 
 the only reason he can tmmagine for such 
 action was that some of the books might 
 be Huguenot, but he justifies the importa- 
 tion of such writings by the statements that 
 Huguenot books are publicly brought into 
 Paris and sold openly without any action 
 against such trading on the part of the 
 authorities. 
 
 When the elder Moreau died he left a 
 very valuable collection of manuscripts and 
 printed books to his son. The latter con- 
 sulted Patin as to the best method of dis- 
 posing of them. Four booksellers finally 
 purchased the collection and arranged to 
 dispose of them at public sale but Patin 
 writes Charles Spon (February 16, 1657) 
 
{ 142 F 
 
 that Fouquet, the celebrated procurer- 
 general, stepped in and purchased all the 
 medical books. Just why Fouquet should 
 desire a medical library is not known. 
 
 Patin in a letter to Charles Spon (May 8, 
 1657) sounds a note about the publishers 
 of Paris which resembles very much the 
 complamts of the real lovers of good Iitera- 
 ture of the present time: “As to our pub- 
 lishers of Paris I can hope of nothing from 
 them. They print nothing at their own 
 expense but novela utrisque sexus (sex 
 novels), I mean love stories or miserable 
 books of the new piety, visions of the 
 dreams of monks, of miracles and revela- 
 tions, of cards of Saint Francis or girdles of 
 Saint Margaret.” 
 
 One of the chief publishers went into 
 bankruptcy mn February, 1658, and Patin 
 writes to Charles Spon about it: 
 
 M. Cramoisy, who is king among the pub- 
 lishers of the rue Saint Jacques, has failed for 
 more than three hundred thousand livres. 
 This news surprises and marvelously astonishes 
 me so much that I do not know who to trust 
 any more among these dealers. I do not know 
 how it could have happened, but I suspect 
 that this man, who has printed so many books 
 at the suggestion of the Jesuits, has warehouses 
 

 
 ris 
 
 * 
 
 Py ays, se pesto es a 
 tial Meageeme LH sles 
 *> VLEs, eee 
 
 +s CM ts ar esebt 
 
 a oe. 
 Fey, . PPR Sys g Pei 
 OCR oS 
 z 
 < ~ 
 
 #86 oy 
 
 
 
 if Medical patew 
 
 cele nif 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 eee 
 
 
 
 
 
 A PuysiciAN MAKING HIS PROFESSIONAL CALLS IN PARIS 
 
 et 
 
 IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 
 
— 
 
 rye UBRARY 
 OF THE 
 meoyensnty GE HLLNCIS 
 
 
 
143 | 
 
 full of miserable merchandise that he cannot 
 sell. This is a great misfortune for the book- 
 trade, nevertheless I do not think that the 
 carabins of Pére Ignace will trouble themselves 
 much about it, because these men, whatever 
 money they may have care only for themselves, 
 and practice craftily the old proverb, primo 
 mibi, secundo Michaud. All the publishers of 
 the rue Saint Jacques are greatly depressed 
 but this stroke will mortify them yet more and 
 diminish the little credit which they have. 
 
 ‘There were two brothers Cramoisy. The 
 younger fled but the elder who Patin says 
 was a very honest man remained at Paris 
 protected by powerful political and eccle- 
 siastical influence. 
 
 Undoubtedly one of the “‘best sellers” of 
 the time in France was the “Grand Cyrus” 
 of Scudéry. Patin mentions in a letter to 
 Charles Spon in January, 1654: 
 
 Sieur Scudéry who is an illustrious writer 
 has finished his ““Grand Cyrus, or Artaméne,’’? 
 which is a very well received romance. He has 
 written the “History of Alaric, King of the 
 Goths,” which they commence to print in a 
 
 3 This was a mistake of Patin’s as ‘“‘Artaméne ou 
 Ie grand Cyrus” was written by Madeleme de 
 Scudéry and “Alaric’” by George de Scudeéry. 
 Patin had no use for the Scudérys, so was not 
 particular as to detail. 
 
1 144 f 
 folio, which will have many tazlles-douces. Books 
 such as these sell very well here to the courtiers, 
 to the partisans and their wives, as well as the 
 books of devotion, especially when it is some 
 Jesuit or other monk of reputation who has 
 written them. 
 
 On several occasions Patin refers with 
 commendation to the books of Primerose, a 
 physician of Scotch extraction, who prac- 
 ticed at Bordeaux. His two chief books were 
 ““Exercitationes et animadversiones in librum 
 de motu cordis et circulatione sanguinis, 
 adversus Guilielmum Harveum”’ (1630), 
 and “De vulgi m medicina erroribus.” 
 Primerose was one of the most virulent and 
 obstinate opponents of Harvey. 
 
 Gaspard, or Caspar Hoffmann of Nurem- 
 burg, another bitter opponent of Harvey’s 
 demonstration, was greatly admired by 
 Patin, who published an edition of some of 
 his works. Patin refers to him very fre- 
 quently m terms of extravagant praise. 
 When Harvey was traveling in Germany as 
 physician to the Duke of Arundel he visited 
 Hoffmann at Nuremburg for the purpose of 
 demonstrating to him the correctness of his 
 views. Vesling, whom Patin also mentions 
 with much admiration was yet another 
 opponent of Harvey, basing his objections 
 
| 145 | 
 on the different color of the blood in the 
 arteries from that in the veins. 
 
 It Is curious to witness such an obsession 
 on the part of a man whose intellect was 
 as keen as that of Patin. As a professor of 
 anatomy, we know that he performed dis- 
 sections, or at least lectured on bodies which 
 had been dissected by his prosector for him. 
 He was not however an original worker, 
 probably contenting himself with reading 
 anatomy to his students either from Galen 
 or some contemporary whom he admired, 
 such as Riolan, and not troubling himself 
 to follow up on the body any of the wonder- 
 ful anatomical discoveries of men like 
 Harvey, Pecquet or Bartholin, to ascertain 
 whether they were true or not. 
 
 PATIN S HEALTH 
 
 Guy possessed good health. The physi- 
 cians of his time made their professional 
 visits on a mule or on horseback. Patin 
 apparently did the latter; at least he writes 
 to Spon (January 8, 1650) “‘that he had 
 been out every day on horseback,” and 
 there is no mention im his correspondence of 
 his ever having suffered any very serious 
 illness during the seventy-two years of his 
 life. The only indispositions he mentions are 
 
‘| 146 | 
 
 the following: Writing to Spon (March 10, 
 1648) he tells him that he has been ill with a 
 bad cold that fmally required him to take to 
 his bed and undergo seven bloodlettings; 
 in another letter (March 7, 1651) he tells 
 him that some years before, after drmking 
 polluted water, he had passed blood and pus 
 in his urme but that it had soon cleared up. 
 
 He writes Belin (May 10, 1643) telling 
 him that he had always been a very moder- 
 ate drinker and ascribes to this the fact that 
 he does not yet need glasses, “notwith- 
 standing my age and my vigils.” 
 
 Patin was consistent in applying his 
 therapeutic views to himself when he fell 
 
 ill. He tells Falconet (June, 1661): 
 
 I had a bad toothache yesterday, which 
 obliged me to have myself bled from the same 
 side (as the pain). The pain stopped all at once, 
 as by a kind of enchantment, and I slept all 
 night. This morning the pain began a little 
 again. I had the other arm bled and was cured 
 right away. I am, thank God, without pain. I 
 think that these two bleedings will serve to 
 enable me to purge myself surely, which I shall 
 do next week, if I have the leisure for it. 
 
 Although he followed the ancient Greek 
 and Latin medical authorities with blind 
 faith, it is interesting to note Patin’s 
 
| 147 | 
 freedom from belief in some of the tradi- 
 tional remedies of his day. 
 
 Thus he writes to Belin, fils (October 18, 
 1631), at a time when a pestilential disease 
 prevailed in Paris, that he does not believe 
 that theriaca, mithridates, alkermes, hya- 
 cinth, bezoar, or the unicorn’s horn are of 
 any use, because he does not think they 
 possess any of the occult properties attrib- 
 uted to them.? 
 
 4'Theriaca, or treacle as his English contem- 
 poraries termed it, was regarded as a universal 
 panacea against the bite of any venomous animal. 
 It contained some sixty odd ingredients, among them 
 bitumen, turpentine, saffron and vipers. It was 
 invented by Andromachus, one of Nero’s physicians, 
 and was in great vogue even as late as the eighteenth 
 century. Evelyn in 1646 records in his “Diary”’ that 
 when in Venice he went to see Its preparation, “‘the 
 making an extraordinary ceremony whereof I had 
 been curious to observe, for it is extremely pompous 
 and worth seeing.’”’ In both France and Italy its 
 manufacture was a long process attended with much 
 ceremonial and many curious observances. The 
 London Pharmacopeia for 1746 still retained it as 
 official, as it also did mithridatum, a_ universal 
 antidote supposed to have been invented by Mith- 
 ridates, King of Pontus, and made of nearly as many 
 ingredients as theriaca. Alkermes or kermes was, as 
 its name would indicate, a product of Arabic phar- 
 macy. It was made originally from cocoons which 
 were found on a species of oak tree. It was especially 
 
{148 | 
 Patin writes to Spon (February 4, 1640): 
 
 The reputation of theriaca is without effect 
 and without foundation, it comes only from the 
 apothecaries who do all they can to persuade 
 people to use compositions and would take 
 from them if they could the knowledge and use 
 of simple remedies which are more useful. If I 
 were bitten by a venomous animal I would 
 not trust in theriaca, nor in any cardiac, external 
 or internal, of the shops. I would scarify the 
 wound deeply, and apply to it powerful attrac- 
 tives, and only have myself bled for the pain, 
 fever, or plethora. But by good fortune there are 
 scarcely any venomous animals in France. In 
 recompense we have Italian favorites, partisans, 
 many charlatans, and much antimony. 
 
 famous in the form of the confection of alkermes. 
 Hyacinth was not made of the plant of similar name, 
 but from precious stones, especially amethysts. The 
 confection of hyacinth contained many other ingre- 
 dients, such as other stones, musk, myrrh, cam- 
 phor and various herbs. Bezoar stones were concre- 
 tions found in the gastrointestinal tracts of various 
 animals, especially goats, Ilamas, and antelopes. Its 
 use came from the Arabs and it was supposed to be a 
 universal antidote for all poisons. Unicorn’s horn was 
 generally made from the tusks of elephants or nar- 
 whals, although supposed to be derived from the 
 fabulous unicorn. Paré had fully exposed the useless- 
 ness of bezoar and unicorn’s horn, though Patin 
 never refers to his memorable treatise. 
 
[149 | 
 THE PLAGUE AND SYPHILIS 
 
 The pest of which Patin writes in the 
 letter above quoted was the bubonic plague, 
 as he says of It: 
 
 There have been here since Easter a great 
 quantity of malignant fevers, which have been 
 as many hidden plagues, but one only names it 
 the pest when one has seen buboes or charbons 
 supervene, yet these diseases are not less con- 
 tagious than the plague. 
 
 He complains that although there are two 
 hospitals, Saint Louts and Saint Marceau, 
 in Paris, to which the plague-stricken were 
 sent, there is no physician attached to 
 either hospital to Iook after the patients. 
 Patin says that he had seen more than sixty 
 cases of plague himself, and that there was 
 not a physician of the Faculté who could 
 say that since the month of July he had not 
 ‘seen, found or discovered nearly every day 
 someone who was not a victim of it, because 
 it has been very common here.” 
 
 He tells Belin (October 2, 1631) of the 
 heroic action of a physician named Mal- 
 medy who im the plague visitation in 1482 
 and 1583 voluntarily shut himself in the 
 plague hospital without pay. Patin adds 
 somewhat spitefully, that nevertheless he 
 
ghoetod 
 made a great deal of money im the hospital 
 and lived to enjoy his gains for twenty years 
 after, when he died of “pure old age.” 
 
 Patin in a letter to Spon (January 8, 1650) 
 makes a statement which goes far towards 
 confirming the views of those who hold that 
 syphilis was not imported into Europe from 
 America, but that it existed in the Old 
 World, but was regarded as a form of lep- 
 rosy. During the medieval period and down 
 to the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 leprosy was so prevalent throughout Europe 
 that most communities of any size had leper 
 hospitals to provide for its victims. At the 
 present time leprosy is practically extinct 
 in Europe, but syphilis ts universally preva- 
 Ient. Patin writes: “The late Simon Pietre, 
 older brother of Nicolas Pietre, two incom- 
 parable men, said that before Charles vir 
 in France, the syphilitics were confounded 
 with the lepers, of which today our hospitals 
 are for the most part empty.” 
 
 Patin refers again to this confusion in the 
 diagnosis between syphilis and leprosy in 
 writing to Spon (May 11, 1645): 
 
 It is not long since I was shown a patient, an 
 Auvergnat, who was suspected of leprosy, per- 
 haps because his family had the reputation to 
 have had it among them, because there was no 
 
| 151 F 
 
 mark on his person. This made me think of some 
 lepers here. In other times there was a hospital 
 here dedicated to receive them in the Faubourg 
 Saint-Denis, which is today occupied by the 
 priests of the mission of Father Vincent (Saint 
 Vincent de Paul). One sees them neither in 
 Normandy, Picardy, nor Champagne, although 
 in all these provinces there are leper hospitals 
 which have been converted into pest hospitals, 
 Propterraritatem elepbanticorum. In other times 
 they took syphilitics for lepers, qui per inscitiam 
 medicorum et saecult barbariem, nec distin- 
 guebantum ab elephanticis, nec sanobantur. 
 Nevertheless there are still lepers in Provence, 
 Languedoc, and Poitou. Francois Valleriola and 
 Guilbert Ader assert it. Are there any in the 
 Lyonnais? Have you seen any or recognized any 
 as such? Have you in your city of Lyons a hos- 
 pital for them? Have you seen them at Mont- 
 pellier, or im any other places in Languedoc 
 when you have been there? 
 
 Patin presents to Falconet (September 
 22, 1653) the historical and Iiterary evi- 
 dences of the antiquity of syphilis: 
 
 Bolduc, a Capuchin and Pineda, a Spanish 
 Jesuit, have written that Job had syphilis. I 
 am willing to believe that David and Solomon 
 had it likewise. . . . In Hippocrates . . . and 
 in Galen you can read about buboes, venereal 
 ulcers, and gonorrhea. Morbus campanus, in 
 
5 ee 
 Horace, is syphilis. It is found in Catullus, 
 Juvenal and Apulius, and they even say in 
 Herodotus and Xenophon. M. Gassendi said 
 to me that the leprosy of the Bible was syphilis. 
 A libertine said that the serpent in Genesis 
 was a young devil who gave Eve syphilis, and 
 that was the original sin of the monks, so said 
 M. de Malherbe.® At least it is certain that 
 syphilis was well known in Europe before 
 Charles vir went to the conquest of the king- 
 dom of Naples. . . . The late MM. Pietre, 
 
 Riolan and Moreau were of the same opinion. 
 
 The introduction of the preparations of 
 opium into practice undoubtedly led to con- 
 siderable abuse of it at the hands of the 
 Incautious or unscrupulous. Its beneficent 
 properties caused it to be hailed by many 
 as the long sought panacea. The followers of 
 Paracelsus were especially active in prescrib- 
 ing It often m harmfully large doses. It 
 should be stated that the preparation which 
 Paracelsus himself termed laudanum and 
 recommended so highly, was not the tinc- 
 ture of optum to which we give that name 
 today. The “Jaudanum”’ of Paracelsus was 
 a gum or balsam called “lJadanon,” which 
 was given in pill form. Patin, along with 
 many of his contemporaries and those who 
 
 5 Malherbe was the famous French grammarian 
 and poet. 
 
[ 153 F 
 
 came later, confused the terms and thought 
 the Paracelsan remedy was an_ opiate. 
 Patin, with his usual combmation of con- 
 servatism and prejudice, condemned Iauda- 
 num and all other preparations of opium 
 with the utmost vehemence. Thus Michel 
 Potier, in his works published in 1645, 
 having commended opium and some of the 
 “chemical remedies,’ Patin attacks him bit- 
 terly in a letter to Spon (January 20, 1645): 
 
 I have heard said by M. Moreau, who was an 
 Angevin like this Potier, that he was a great 
 charlatan and a great rascal, who mixed in our 
 profession, only showing himself on the stage to 
 sell his wares better. He left the kingdom and 
 made his way to Italy. Likewise he made himself 
 in his book the Aristarch and censor of physi- 
 cians. To hear him talk, it was he only that had 
 knowledge and understanding. That which 
 makes me suspect all he does is that he talks too 
 often of his diaphoretic gold, of his opium or 
 laudanum, and condemns too much the other 
 remedies from which the people every day 
 derive solace. His book is a continual censure 
 of ordinary medical practice. Nevertheless there 
 will always be fools who will admire him, and 
 honest men will not gain any profit from him. 
 This book will become ridiculous, or else it will 
 render ridiculous all the profession of which we 
 are part, you and I. 
 
| 154 F 
 OPPOSITION TO CINCHONA 
 
 Patin does not condemn quinine, which 
 had been introduced into France under the 
 name of Jesuits’ bark, as bitterly as he does 
 antimony and opium, but, being a novelty, 
 he cannot approve it. He writes to Spon 
 (January 30, 1654) that he had dined with 
 Gassendi and had met at his table a M. 
 Montmor, maitre des requétes. This gentle- 
 man was a great collector of books and 
 Patin was greatly delighted with him, 
 especially when he intimated that he 
 intended to employ him as his physician, 
 but he adds that he has his doubts as to 
 their according well together: 
 
 M. Montmor has always loved chemistry and 
 Is not yet undeceived as regards antimony, and 
 his wife also leans to these heresies; she is also 
 for the Jesuits’ powder, of which I have never 
 seen any good effect in Paris. 
 
 On March to, 1654, he writes Spon that 
 the wife of de Gorris, one of his colleagues, 
 had been found dead in her bed. She was 
 sixty years old: “‘ All winter she had suffered 
 from a triple quartan fever, to cure which 
 she had taken cinchona by which she 
 thought she was cured. I thmk that this 
 
| 155 F 
 loyolitic powder (poudre loyolitique) short- 
 ened her days.” 
 
 Imagine Patin thnking well of anything 
 emanating from the Jesuits; could aught 
 good come out of Nazareth? Patin writes to 
 Falconet (December 30, 1653): 
 
 This powder of cinchona has not any credit 
 here. Fools run after it because it is sold at a 
 very high price, but having proved ineffective 
 it is mocked at now. I had treated a girl for a 
 quartan fever so successfully that the access of 
 fever was reduced to two hours only. Her 
 mother, impatient, having heard the rumor 
 made by this Jesuits’ powder, purchased one 
 dose for forty francs in which she had great hope 
 because of the high price. The first access after 
 this dose lasted seventeen hours, and was much 
 more violent than any which she had had before. 
 Today the mother has great fear of the fever of 
 her daughter and much regret for her money. 
 
 The enlargement of the spleen, so fre- 
 quently associated with malarial fevers, was 
 recognized by Patin and his contemporaries, 
 but the following extract from a letter to 
 Falconet (September 21, 1661) will serve to 
 ilustrate the errors into which they fell 
 because of the humoristic doctrine which 
 dominated their views: 
 
| 156 | 
 
 But apropos of quinquina, it performs no 
 miracle here. When the body is well cleaned out 
 by bleedings and purgatives, it is able by its 
 (own) heat to absolve or absorb the remainder 
 of the morbific matter, at least for that purpose 
 it is only necessary to heat it. Even those in 
 whom the fever has ceased are not entirely 
 well, because it returns unless they are well 
 purged. The obstinacy and duration of these 
 quartan fevers comes from the bad, almost car- 
 cinomatous condition of the spleen, which 
 occupies Its very substance. I have never given 
 cinchona. I have seen those who have trusted 
 to It too much hydropic. I would not purge at 
 the access of a quartan fever, but I purge often 
 at the end of an access, with much success. Even 
 in great fever, I sometimes make them swallow 
 four great glasses of laxative ptisan, containing 
 senna. That makes the bowels open well, carries 
 off a portion of the conjoined cause, and pre- 
 vents the annoyance of the great sweats, of 
 which they complain so often. As to bleeding at 
 the commencement of the access, I never do it. 
 It would be both mprudent and temerarious to 
 do so. 
 
 ORVIETAN 
 
 Orvietan was a quack remedy much in 
 vogue in Patin’s time. 
 
 Patin writes Falconet (January 6, 1654) 
 of a curious episode in the Faculte de 
 
{157 F 
 
 Médecine in regard to it. He begins with a 
 denunciation of de Gorris, a physician with 
 a very large practice in Paris: 
 
 All his life he has been of the evil party of the 
 chemists, the charlatans, the Gazetteer, the 
 foreigners, the men with secrets against gout, 
 epilepsy and quartan fever; a very unfortunate 
 practitioner who has killed many with the 
 experiments he would make. He knew truly 
 much Greek and Latin, but applied his knowl- 
 edge badly, and never had the courage to 
 resist the temptation of gold for any rascality 
 or corruption of his profession. In 1647, a mer- 
 chant of Orvieto, to sell his drug better, ad- 
 dressed himself to a man of honor, then Dean 
 of our Faculté, M. Perreau, to obtain through 
 him by means of a good sum of money which he 
 offered him, the approbation of the Faculté for 
 his opiate. He refused it with much dignity. The 
 charlatan then addressed himself to de Gorris, 
 who received from him a considerable present 
 and promised him to get some doctors to sign 
 an approbation of his medicament which he sold 
 on the Pont Neuf, which he caused to be done 
 by a dozen of others who were hungry for 
 money. [hese were the two Chartiers, Guénault, 
 Ie Soubs, Rainssant, Beaurains, Piart, du 
 Clédat, des Fougerais, Renaudot, and Mauvi- 
 lain. The Italian impostor, not content with such 
 signatures, sought to have the approbation of 
 
‘| 158 | 
 
 the entire Faculté, and pressed the new Dean, 
 who was M. Pietre, my predecessor, to make 
 him give it to him, in the hope which he had to 
 make a better sale of his drug if he should 
 obtain that which he desired. The new Dean 
 learned from the charlatan’s own mouth all that 
 de Gorris had done for him, and when he had 
 assembled the whole Faculté, and recited the 
 affair against these twelve Messieurs, hav- 
 ing acknowledged their weakness and _ bad 
 action, they were expelled from the Faculté by a 
 solemn decree. However they were reestablished 
 on certain conditions, notably that of demand- 
 ing pardon from the company in full assembly. 
 No matter what they have been able to do since, 
 the stain remains on them. 
 
 PATIN S VIEWS ON INFANT FEEDING 
 
 Patin was a great believer in the nourish- 
 ment of children by the maternal milk 
 instead of on pap, which, as compounded in 
 France at that time, was a mixture of wheat 
 and flour, called bouillie. He thought that 
 hand-fed babies were more subject to 
 smallpox even im [ater life, and attributed 
 his own exemption from that disease to the 
 fact that he had been a breast-fed baby. 
 He also thought that whooping- cough, 
 which seems to have been as prevalent in 
 France in his time as it is In our own, was 
 
| 1590 
 
 predisposed to or aggravated by the arti- 
 ficial feeding of children. He describes 
 whooping-cough in one of his own children, 
 a little boy of three months, who had been 
 taken out in very cold weather by his nurse. 
 The illness lasted five weeks with paroxysms 
 of cough lasting from a half-hour to three- 
 quarters, during which time Guy thought 
 him in danger of suffocation. ““Iwo blood- 
 lettings, enemata, good breast milk, absti- 
 nence from pap, and keeping warm are the 
 great remedies.” 
 
 Patin’s particular objection to the use of 
 pap was that It was “a coarse food which 
 causes much stickiness and obstination in the 
 stomach and abdomen, and which pre- 
 disposes to illness of a putrid nature.” He 
 
 adds: 
 
 ‘I hold pap a bad food, as much because of the 
 flour which is not often sufficiently good, as 
 because of the milk of the cow, which is far 
 from the goodness of that of the breasts, which 
 is taken entirely fresh and new, hot and spir- 
 ituous by the child, whereas that of the cow is 
 extremely weak in comparison, joined to which | 
 It Is a gross, viscous food which makes a sticki- 
 ness in the stomach of the child, and much 
 obstination in its belly.® 
 
 6 Letter to Spon, January, 1644. 
 
‘| 160 & 
 
 He also says that smallpox was unknown 
 to the ancient Greeks, and that children 
 got no pap in their time. 
 
 In Patin’s time human milk was much 
 esteemed not only as a diet for children but 
 also under certain circumstances for adults. 
 Patin (April 1, 1650) writes to Spon that 
 d’Esmery,’ the Superintendent of the Fi- 
 nances Is very ill, and that Valot his physt- 
 cian has put him on a purely milk diet. 
 “In the morning he drinks ass’s milk, at 
 midday cow’s milk, m the evening goat’s 
 milk, and in between the milk of a woman.” 
 The Duke of Alva, one of the greatest and 
 cruelest generals of his time, in his old age 
 had two wet nurses by whom he was 
 nourished, and Dr. John Caius, the famous 
 English physician who founded Gonville 
 and Carus College at Oxford, was, when 
 senile, fed in the same manner. Shakespeare 
 hints at this m the “Merry Wives of 
 Windsor,” when the Dr. Caius of the play 
 has as his nurse, Dame Quickly. 
 
 Patin advocated the drinking of ass’s 
 milk, a measure much in vogue in his time, 
 in cases of debility or prolonged conva- 
 
 7A creature of Mazarin’s, his real name was 
 Particelli. He was finally disgraced and replaced by 
 Fouquet. 
 
‘| 161 
 
 [escence. When Falconet’s wife was recover- 
 ing from a serious illness, Patin writes 
 (April 8, 1664) urging him to make her 
 drink it. He quotes mstances to show Fal- 
 conet that drinking ass’s milk is conducive 
 to longevity: 
 
 My mother-in-law, who died aged eighty-four 
 years of an apoplexy, had drunk it for sixty 
 years. The mother of M. du Laurens, the coun- 
 cilor, died last year, aged eighty-seven years, 
 having used it ever since she was twenty-two 
 years of age. Her sister-in-law, the widow of 
 André du Laurens, the anatomist, had done the 
 same and lived eighty-five years. It works 
 marvels here, particularly in the spring and 
 autumn, notably when taken with precaution. 
 I only give it when the mtestines are clean and 
 prepared by good and gentle purgations. 
 
 VENESECTION IN INFANCY AND OLD AGE 
 
 It is hardly to be believed, but Patmin 
 asserts to Spon (August 17, 1648): 
 
 We also bleed very fortunately children of 
 two or three months, without any incon- 
 venience. I can show more than two hundred of 
 them bled at this early age. There is not a 
 woman in Paris who does not think well of 
 bleeding and that her child should be bled in the 
 
 fever of smallpox, scarlet fever (rougeole) or 
 
‘| 162 |e 
 
 teething, or in convulsions, so much have they 
 seen of it by experience when they had them. 
 
 Patin writes Falconet (January 19, 1663): 
 
 I bled another time an infant of three days for 
 an erysipelas of the throat. He is still living, 
 aged thirty-five years, a captain at Dunkirk, the 
 son of Mademoiselle Choart.® I bled the son of 
 M. Lambert de Thorigny the sixty-second day 
 of his life, who is today ten years old. The 
 application of great remedies at so tender an age 
 demands much judgment. 
 
 The aged were also suitable subjects for 
 profuse bleeding. Patin writes to Falconet 
 (May 27, 1659): 
 
 Our good M. Baralis has been bled eleven 
 times in six days, which has prevented suffoca- 
 tion . . . But he is in great danger of not 
 being able to escape it. A continued fever, a bad 
 lung besieged with an inflammation, eighty-four 
 years, are all signs which leave me with a 
 gloomy suspicion. Oh! but it is a pity. He knows 
 well his Hippocrates and Galen, and practiced 
 medicine as a man of honor all his life. 
 
 THE USE OF ANIMAL REMEDIES 
 
 It is odd that Patin neither recommends 
 nor condemns a class of medicines much in 
 
 8 It was quite customary at that time to designate 
 a married woman as mademoiselle. 
 
| 163 } 
 
 vogue in his time, namely those composed of 
 animals or their secretions or excretions. 
 Dr. Minivielle® gives the followmg list of 
 those which the apothecary should keep in 
 his shop, according to the ““ Pharmacopoeia” 
 of Jean de Renou, published first in 1608 
 and again in 1637. 
 
 One uses many entire animals, such as can- 
 tharides, centipedes, worms, lizards, ants, vipers, 
 scorpions, frogs, crayfish, leeches and many 
 small birds. As to the parts (of animals) our 
 physicians hold assuredly and truly that they 
 are endowed with many and admirable virtues, 
 among which parts we can put the skull or 
 the head of a man dead but not yet buried; the 
 bone which is in the heart of a deer, the brain 
 of antelopes, swallows and hares; the teeth 
 (tusks) of the boar and the elephant, the heart 
 of the frog; the lung of the fox, the liver of the 
 goat, the intestines of the wolf; the genitalia of 
 the deer; the skin and the slough of the snake. 
 Item: fat of man, of the pig, of the goose, of 
 sheep, of the duck, the rabbit, the kid, the eel, 
 and the snake; the marrow of the deer, the calf 
 and the goat; human blood, the blood of the 
 pigeon, and of the goat; all sorts of milk and 
 that which is made from it, as butter and cheese; 
 the horns of the deer, and antelope and the 
 unicorn; the toe nails of the eland, the goat and 
 
 ® La médecine au temps d’Henri tv. 
 
J 164 
 
 the buffalo; the shells of oysters and the pearls 
 from within them, and the scales of many fish. 
 Finally, since the excrements of the said animals 
 have also their particular virtues, It Is not 
 unfitting for the pharmacist to keep them in his 
 shop, especially the dung of the goat, dog, swan, 
 peacock, pigeon, muskrat, civet, and the hair 
 of certain animals. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 SOME OF PaTIN’s CONTRIBUTIONS 
 TO LITERATURE; PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE 
 
 Patin edited a collection of discourses or 
 harangues by Jean Passerat, professor of 
 eloquence and Latin poetry in the Collége 
 Royal, published in 1637, with a dedica- 
 tion to: Charles Guillemeau, written by 
 Patin. The edition of Fernel’s “Pathology” 
 (Fernelli Pathologiae), published at Paris 
 _ In 1638, was prefaced by a dedication three 
 pages long by Patin. Patin sometimes 
 exhausts even his hyperboles in praise of 
 Fernel. As a sample he writes to Falconet 
 
 (March 29, 1656): 
 
 I am ravished that you should so greatly love 
 our Fernel. That man is one of my saints, with 
 Galen and the late M. Pietre. I told Madame de 
 Riaut, the mother of your beautiful nun, that I 
 would hold it a greater glory to be descended 
 from Fernel than to be King of Scotland, or 
 related to the Emperor of Constantinople. 
 Fernel was good, wise and learned . . . never 
 any prince did so much good to the world as 
 Fernel has done. 
 
 [ 165 | 
 
‘| 166 | 
 
 Fernel, physician to Henri 11, was a truly 
 great man. He was interested in astronomy, 
 and in 1427, he tried to measure the earth’s 
 size by observing the. height of the pole at 
 Paris; then proceeding northward until 
 Its elevation was increased exactly one 
 degree, and ascertaining the distance be- 
 tween the stations by the revolutions of the 
 wheels of his carriage, he made it 24,480 
 Italian miles mn circumference. 
 
 About the middle of the seventeenth 
 century a physician of Paris, L. Martin, 
 published a translation of “The Regimen 
 Sanitatis Salernitanum”’ in burlesque verse, 
 dedicated to Scarron. Some bibliographers 
 have advanced the theory that the real 
 translator was Patin, but Reveillé-Parise 
 thinks there is no proof of the assertion. A 
 later edition of this translation, published by 
 Henault at Paris in 1651, is dedicated to 
 Patin. Patin frequently refers to this trans- 
 lation, and in a letter to Spon (October 1g, 
 1649) tells him that Martin, the translator, 
 has shown him some of the pages of the 
 proposed work and intends to dedicate it to 
 him. 
 
 Writing to Charles Spon (December 3, 
 1649) concerning a dedicatory epistle which 
 Spon was going to address to Patin as a 
 
‘| 167 | 
 
 preface to the works of Sennertus, Patin 
 gives him a few hints as to what might be 
 said about him, such as references to his 
 books, his library, his patients, his good 
 method of practice, his worthy inclination 
 to do right in all things, to serve the public, 
 to be neither charlatan nor chemist and 
 to have good friends, both in France and in 
 foreign countries. 
 
 Patin contributed considerably to various 
 editions of the works of Jean Riolan, fils, 
 adding tables and aiding in their correction 
 for the press, and Triaire thinks it probable 
 that he retouched his famous “Curieuses 
 recherches sur les écoles en médecine de 
 Paris et de Montpellier,” published at 
 Paris in 1651. Riolan states himself his 
 indebtedness to Patin for his aid in his “‘ En- 
 chiridium anatomicum et pathologicum,” 
 1648, which he dedicated to Patin. 
 
 Jean Riolan, the elder, who died in 1606, 
 was Dean of the Faculté de Médecine from 
 1558 to 1559. His son, Jean Riolan, the 
 younger (1577-1657), was professor of anat- 
 omy and botany at the Collége Royal, and 
 physician to Marie de’Medici whose con- 
 fidence he betrayed by spying on _ her 
 actions for Richelieu. Although he denied 
 the circulation of the blood and the existence 
 
‘| 168 > 
 
 of Iacteal vessels and the lymphatic circula- 
 tion, he made some advances, describing 
 the fat appendices of the colon, naming the 
 hepatic duct, and observing that the 
 common bile-duct had but one membrane 
 which served as a valve. 
 
 Jean Pecquet announced his discovery of 
 the thoracic duct and receptaculum chyli 
 m his book ‘Experimenta nova ana- 
 tomica,” published in 1651. Riolan, of 
 course, combated his views, and Patin 
 writes to Belin, fils on October 8, 1653: 
 “There is an entirely new book by the 
 goodman, M. Riolan, ‘Adversus Pecquetum 
 et Pecquetianos,’ which is much approved 
 and well received. All those who have read it 
 wish well to M. Riolan, and mock the others, 
 who are treated in a strange fashion.” 
 
 Elsewhere Patin writes to Spon (March 
 26, 1655) and shows his pronounced leaning 
 towards empiricism as contrasted with 
 scientific research. He says: 
 
 For the new opinion of Pecquet, I do not yet 
 make much of it, inasmuch as I can see no 
 certain proof of it nor grand utility or nforma- 
 tion, ad bene medendum. He who discovered for 
 us senna, cassia, and syrup of pale roses, has 
 given us much more pleasure and has insulted 
 no one, as these others have done M. Riolan 
 
(wnasnwu jajpaDULDY) aq) fo U014997/09 aq} Ut surapisua uD 4ayfy) 
 IIIX SINO'T AO NOIAY AHL ONTNNG SUV LV FLIMVH) WI Ad TVLIdO}]{ AHL AO MOIMALN] AHL AO MAIA 
 
 
 
 me Et @ 
 ; 
 
 iy 
 
 ied Hager 
 omen 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERE 
 
 OF THE. aa 
 (TY OF (kwon 
 
 
 
 \ a 
 re 
 
‘| 169 | 
 and even our profession, against which the letter 
 of M. Sorbiére is full of atrocious insults. 
 
 Patin knew Pecquet personally and re- 
 cords several interviews which he had had 
 with him. 
 
 Triaire quotes from Tallemant des Reaux 
 an amusing anecdote about Riolan. He 
 was cut for stone in the bladder but some 
 time afterwards had a recurrence, for 
 which he refused to be cut again. His wife 
 concealed Colot, the famous lithotomist, in 
 the house. One day Riolan said he felt much 
 better and thought he could stand the 
 operation, and that he believed he would 
 have himself cut if Colot were at hand. 
 Thereupon, Colot appeared, and Riolan 
 exclaimed that he could not have the opera- 
 tion; that he was not ready as he had not 
 confessed. “‘AII will fall on us,”’ said Colot, 
 “we will be damned for you, but you will 
 be cut.”’ He tied him up and cut him and 
 then said, ‘““Confess now, if you wish to.” 
 ““No,” said Riolan, “‘I am too well for that.” 
 
 Patin often speaks with great admiration 
 of the skill of the famous family of Colot. 
 There were three of them who attained 
 great fame as lithotomists. Patin, writing 
 to Falconet (May 13, 1659), speaks of 
 Javot, also a lithotomist of note, but not in 
 
‘| 170 | 
 
 Patin’s good books, who had had the mis- 
 fortune to lose three patients on whom he 
 had operated. “The little Colot has cut 
 many others who have recovered. I hope he 
 will become as good and successful an oper- 
 ator as his father.” 
 
 Patin writes Charles Spon (December 5, 
 1656): 
 
 We had here two cousins who were very 
 expert men at cutting for stone in the bladder, 
 the younger named Gyrault died, aged fifty 
 years last July, at Evreux, where he had gone 
 to cut a gentleman. He had formerly cut the 
 present Pope at Cologne. The other named 
 Ph. Colot, aged about fifty-eight years, was a 
 peritissimus artifex. He has gone to cut a man 
 near la Rochelle, fell ill with dysentery, and 
 died at Lusson. Voila today A. Ruffin formerly 
 surgeon at la Charité the foremost lithotomist 
 of Paris. There are yet others who run after 
 this lucrative reputation, as Javot, surgeon 
 to la Charité, Govin, of the Hétel-Dieu, and 
 another Colot, a cousin of the deceased, who 
 was at Bordeaux, but has come here to search 
 his fortune. 
 
 Stone m the kidneys or bladder seems to 
 have been an exceedingly common com- 
 plaint throughout Europe in the seven- 
 teenth century. Luther died of it, jestingly 
 
{| 177 | 
 
 remarking that he was dying the death of 
 Saint Stephen. Cutting for vesical calculus 
 was a very common operation almost 
 exclusively in the hands of a class of special 
 operators known as incisors, among whom 
 the most illustrious were the Colot family of 
 whom Patin so often speaks. His own 
 therapeutics in such cases was quite simple. 
 In 1649 he writes Falconet, who was a 
 sufferer, to refrain from wine, drink plenty 
 of water, and be bled six times a year, and as 
 often take a purge of cassia and senna with 
 syrup of white roses. He tells him it is a dis- 
 ease of literary men, litteratorum carnifex. 
 
 Some charlatans pretended to cure stone 
 in the bladder by secret remedies or methods, 
 without the use of the knife. Patin! tells 
 of one named Metiries, who claimed to 
 dissolve the stone in the bladder by the 
 injection of a certain medicament. He 
 extorted enormous fees from his patients, 
 claiming that his remedy was extremely 
 expensive to make. 
 
 HONORS CONFERRED ON PATIN 
 
 When Riolan oppressed with old age and 
 sickness, resigned his chair as professor in the 
 Collége Royal, 1654, mn favor of Patin, the 
 
 1Letter to Charles Spon, July 13, 1667. 
 
1172} 
 latter writes Falconet (October 9, 1654) with 
 pardonable pride and joy to tell him the 
 good news. He is to teach botany, phar- 
 macy, and anatomy. 
 
 I will direct all my care to make good scholars 
 who should be far from the Arabs and the 
 impostures of chemists, who are the ordinary 
 persons by whom young physicians are today 
 empoisoned, 
 
 I must make you the sharer in some good 
 news with which you will not be vexed, that is 
 if you do not pity me as one does sometimes 
 those one loves, seeing that that which I shall 
 tell you of will cause me much labor. It is that 
 the goodman, M. Riolan, feeling that he had 
 become old and nearly overwhelmed by a 
 burden as heavy as Mount Etna, considered 
 me above all others worthy to have his place 
 as professor royal, and it has been fortunately 
 accomplished. M. Amory, bishop of Coutances 
 and grand Vicar to M. le Cardinal Antoine, 
 grand aumonier de France, received and agreed 
 to my nomination by M. Riolan. From them 
 we went to M. de la Vrilliére, secretary of state, 
 who signed our letters; finally we carried them 
 to the gardes des sceaux. M. Riolan alleged his 
 reasons to which the former replied that he 
 knew M. Riolan very well and his merit, and 
 that he knew me also, that he would have them 
 sealed next Monday, that we should be present, 
 
L073, 9 
 and he would gladly expedite us. Thus there 
 only remain a few ceremonies to observe and 
 to take the oath of fidelity at the hands of M. 
 the bishop of Coutances. 
 
 Patin writes to Charles Spon (March 2, 
 1655) that he began his lectures with the 
 following announcement “Guido Patin, doc- 
 tor medicus et professor regius rel ana- 
 tomicae et pharmaceuticae, clarissimi vir! 
 D. Jean Riolani, antecessoris sui, enchi- 
 ridium anatomicum et pathologicum expli- 
 cabit, ac alequot animadversionibus illus- 
 trabit. Initium faciet, die Junae 8 marti 
 1645, hora tertia pomeridiana in auditorio 
 regio.” 
 
 He describes (March 2, 1655) his intro- 
 ductory address: 
 
 It lasted a whole hour but it was not tiresome 
 because it was a continuous history of the 
 Collége Royal since the year 1529, when it was 
 founded by Francois 1, by whose successors the 
 institution has been maintained, and governed 
 by the grand aumoniers of France. Then I 
 talked of the former professors who had ren- 
 dered the Collége illustrious, such as Danesius, 
 Turnebus, Carpentarius, the Durets, the grand 
 Simon Pietre, and those who are yet living, as 
 M. Riolan, to whom I testified my gratitude for 
 having chosen me as his successor. I saw there 
 
| 174 | 
 
 some white monks and even four children of the 
 fortunate Pére Ignace, I know not how they 
 came there without being invited. One of our 
 physicians just told me he had returned from 
 the College of Cambrai yesterday with one of 
 our antimonial companions, from whom he 
 demanded what he thought of my harangue. 
 The doctor answered that the Latin of it was 
 good, but that there was too much idle talk in it, 
 that I had deceived him as he had expected that 
 I would talk against antimony, but that I had 
 said nothing about it. 
 
 Patin gave a sort of postgraduate course 
 to his former scholars. He writes Charles 
 Spon (September 16, 1650): 
 
 For my conferences for which I employ two 
 hours one afternoon a week, they are good 
 and can sometimes profit by some words on a 
 question or controversy in medicine, but he 
 (M. Sorbiére) lost his time when he attended 
 them. I am under an obligation to him, as well 
 as to the goodness of M. Duprat who did me 
 the honor of bringing me such an auditor. If 
 I had discovered or seen you there, you would 
 have rendered me unable to speak as happened 
 to Guillaume Bude before Emperor Charles v. 
 They are little light interviews that I take 
 pleasure in giving to my old scholars, to fortify 
 them in the right method (of practice). 
 
| 175 F 
 
 Writing (October 8, 1655) to Belin, fils, 
 Patin tells him that during the week he had 
 made a public dissection of the body of a 
 woman who had been executed and that 
 his demonstrations had been attended by a 
 very large number of students. 
 
 In 1655 Patin was offered a professorship 
 at Bologna, with a salary of 2,000 écus, and 
 the opportunity of acquiring a large practice 
 in that city. He declined, and writes 
 Falconet (September 21, 1655): 
 
 Neither ambition nor the desire to become rich 
 shall make me quit Paris. Five years ago I 
 declined to go to Sweden with much better con- 
 ditions. I am cured of the perigrinomanie and the 
 philargyrie, or rather I have never been sick 
 with them. 
 
 In 1658 the Ambassador of Venice asked 
 Patin to go to Venice promising him a 
 salary of 6,000 francs a year from the 
 Senate of the Republic, and the prospect 
 of acquiring a large practice. Patin says 
 that his name was suggested to the Ambas- 
 sador by de Gorris, one of his pet aversions. 
 He declined the offer on the ground of his 
 health and his desire not to leave Paris. 
 The Ambassador then offered to give the 
 appointment to his son, Robert Patin, but 
 
{176 | 
 
 Guy would not hear of his accepting it, 
 stating that it was necessary for his son to 
 study five or six years more with him before 
 he would be qualified to fill the position. 
 He writes Falconet: “Italy is a country of 
 syphilis, poisonings, and atheism, of Jews, 
 renegades, and the greatest rascals in 
 Christendom, all there is monkery and 
 hypocrisy.” | 
 
 Patin received an invitation to go to Den- 
 mark. He writes Falconet (May 4, 1663): 
 
 M., the Prince of Denmark and M., his 
 Ambassador, wish to take me from here, and 
 bring me to that cold country. They have 
 written to their King, and he has charged them 
 to take me. They have made me beautiful offers, 
 
 but I do not wish it. I am neither to be sold nor ~ 
 
 bought. I wish to be buried at Paris near my 
 good friends. 
 
 The premier president of the court of the 
 Parlement of Paris, Lamoignon, was a great 
 personage, and Patin writes Falconet (May 
 20, 1659) with evident pride: 
 
 I supped last Saturday with M. le Premier 
 Président, where he made great cheer. One 
 eats quickly with him and talks little during the 
 repast. He wished however, that I should 
 drink his health twice in Spanish wine, which 
 
HEE 
 
 was extraordinarily good. Afterwards I talked 
 with him a good hour and a half on various 
 things in which he took great delight. He told 
 me he was in difficulty how we should manage 
 in the approaching summer, that he had wished 
 to have leisure to talk with me once a week, an 
 entire aprés-diner, and that he feared, for lack of 
 leisure, he would forget the little he had learned. 
 Two mattres des requétes, who had come there to 
 sup because of me, brought me away in their 
 carrosse. He told me in parting that he had a 
 design to make at his house a little academy, at 
 least once a week, but he did not wish we should 
 be more than six. Hesignified that I should be one 
 and I believe my son, Carolus, will be of it also, 
 because M. le Premier Président wishes as much 
 good to him as to me. 
 
 It has been asserted, but without proof 
 that the premier president used to have a 
 louis placed under Guy’s napkin each time 
 that he was his guest. Patin, naturally, 
 makes no mention of it, and the story 
 seems to have been mere gossip. 
 
 Patin writes to Falconet (February 109, 
 
 1659): 
 
 M. le Premier Président sends for me some- 
 times to sup with him. He gives me great cheer, 
 but his good welcome I value more than all the 
 rest. I have promised to sup with him every 
 
| 178 F 
 
 Sunday in Lent, and later we will take other 
 measures, according to the season. There is 
 much pleasure with him, because he is the wisest 
 man of the long robe (lawyer) in France. He is 
 very sage and very civil and says, smiling, that it 
 is needless to speak evil of the Jesuits and the 
 monks, nevertheless he 1s ravished when some 
 bon mot against them escapes me. 
 
 Patin seems to have been a popular Iec- 
 turer; at least his lectures were well 
 attended. He writes Spon (April 21, 1655): 
 
 I gave my first lecture today in the great hall 
 of Cambrai. I had fifty-two scholars who took 
 notes, and some (other) auditors . . . The 
 same day when I gave my second lecture at 
 Cambrai I had by actual count sixty-two 
 auditors. As I saw that they enjoyed listening to 
 me, I made my exposition last an entire hour, 
 and went forth amidst great applause. 
 
 In 1657 he writes Spon that his first lecture 
 was attended by ninety persons and his 
 second, by one hundred and fifty. 
 
 Patin was on terms of intimate friendship 
 with Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) whom he 
 terms ‘“‘an abridgment of all the moral 
 virtues and of all the great sciences.”’ He 
 also calls him one of the most honest and 
 learned men of the day in France. Gassendi 
 was a priest and was chiefly distinguished 
 
‘| 179 | 
 as a philosopher and mathematician though 
 he was also a good anatomist. 
 
 PATIN S OPINION OF PHYSICIANS 
 
 Charles Saumaise (Salmasius) was a great 
 source of admiration to Patin, who terms 
 him that “excellent and comparable per- 
 sonage’’ in a letter to Spon (October 26, 
 1643). Saumaise was born in 1488, and died 
 in 1658. He was not a physician but a 
 philosopher and theologian. Like most of the 
 savants of his time he dabbled occasionally 
 in medical matters. To English readers he is 
 most familiar as the antagonist of John 
 Milton in a pamphlet war, mn which Sau- 
 maise supported the Stuart cause. He was a 
 Huguenot, but nevertheless Richelieu sought 
 to attach him to his services. 
 
 Patin was greatly wrought up by hearing 
 the statement made that Saumaise had 
 spoken ill of physicians, so he writes to 
 Spon? that he has searched the writings 
 of Saumaise to discover the place where he 
 did so. He discovered that in writing of 
 Attic and Roman law, Saumaise had re- 
 ferred to physicians as being mercenary. 
 Patin says he is wrong to do so because 
 on an occasion when Saumaise had been 
 
 2 September 12, 1645. 
 
‘| 180 | 
 
 ill in Paris, he had been attended by physi- 
 cians who, after saving him from the hands 
 of a charlatan into which he had fallen, had 
 declined to accept any pay for their services 
 to him. He attributes the statement made 
 by Saumaise to the fact that he had lost 
 three children in one year, of smallpox, 
 while living in Holland, due, thinks Patin, 
 to the “rude and gross” methods of practice 
 among the physicians of that country. 
 
 He is astonished that Saumaise should 
 have expressed such an opimion. He adds 
 that he only augments the number of those 
 who have done so, of whom Pliny is chief. 
 
 As to Michel de Montaigne, of whom I make 
 great case, he has honored doctors personally by 
 his approbation, and has only attacked their 
 profession; and nevertheless he has been 
 too hasty; if he had lived ninety or one hundred 
 years before condemning medicine, he would 
 have had some color of reason, but having been 
 sickly from early youth, and having lived only 
 seventy years® It Is necessary to acknowledge 
 that he paid the debt too soon; wise travelers 
 only mock the dogs of the village after they are 
 got to a distance, and when they cannot be 
 bitten. 
 
 ’ Montaigne died when only fifty-nine. He was 
 born in 1533 and died in 1592. 
 
4] 181 
 
 Patin’s own cynicism about members of 
 his profession is shown in the following 
 passage: 
 
 I will say, to the shame of my art if doc- 
 tors were only paid for the good that they 
 actually do, they would not gain so much, but 
 we profit from the foolishness of women, from 
 the weakness of sick men, and from the credulity 
 of everybody. , 
 
 Yet he writes Falconet (November 4, 1650): 
 
 I will never speak insultingly of a doctor of 
 medicine, because of the honor I bear to the 
 profession, but I avow to you that all the 
 chemists (Van Helmont, Guénault, etc.) that I 
 have known until now have been poor vaga- 
 bonds, boasters, braggarts, and liars, or very 
 Ignorant impostors. 
 
 Patin refers again to those who have 
 written against physicians in a letter to 
 Spon (October 19, 1649), mentioning that 
 among those who had done so were the 
 elder Pliny, Montaigne, and Agrippa. He 
 says that in the month of February, 1617, 
 the cold was so intense that his father and 
 mother took him home from College, as 
 they feared he would not be as warm there 
 as by their fireside. 
 
| 182 | 
 
 I remember that this little vacation was very 
 agreeable to me, and being near a great fire 
 much to my comfort, where the wood cost 
 nothing, I read nearly all of a folio among the 
 books of my late father, which was the “Com- 
 mentaries’’ of Blaisede Montluc . . . He writes 
 of pests and plagues, and declaims therein very 
 rudely against the great number of physicians, 
 advocates, and procurers, whom he calls the 
 vermin of the palace . . . A gentleman named 
 Rampole made here an academic discourse in 
 which he extended himself greatly against the 
 inutility of a very great number of men of 
 letters in a state, wherein he spared neither 
 physicians nor others. I avow veritably that 
 there are in France too many priests, monks and 
 ministers of chemistry, I mean procurers and 
 lawyers of all kinds. I do not even doubt that in 
 the country and in the small towns there are too 
 many physicians, and that many of them are 
 very ignorant. In Amiens, which is a small city 
 desolated by wars and the passage of armies, 
 there are today twenty physicians. But those of 
 whom there are undoubtedly too many in 
 France are the monks and the apothecaries, who 
 cut miserably the purse and throat of many 
 poor people. In recompense there are very few 
 good and wise physicians who have been well 
 educated and taught. I see them even here, gut 
 malunt errare quam doceri, although they have 
 good means to amend themselves. As to the 
 
[| 183 | 
 
 country, it is overrun with miserable physicians, 
 qui de se nihil nisi magnifice sentiunt, because 
 they have dipped their noses in Perdulcis, of 
 whom they only understand half the terms, or 
 they have heard tell of diamargaritum, of 
 apozemes, of cordial juleps, and of vin émé- 
 tique. The principal cause of this misfortune is 
 the too great ease with which the little uni- 
 versities make doctors. They give parchments 
 too easily for money at Angers, Caen, Valence, 
 Aix, Toulouse, and Avignon. It is an abuse 
 which merits punishment since it redounds to 
 the detriment of the public, but by misfortune 
 we are not in a state of amendment . . . But 
 perhaps God will finally have pity on us, and 
 will change these things. 
 
 Patin was himself the object of several 
 literary attacks. He describes to Charles 
 Spon (January 6, 1654) a Iittle book 
 entitled “‘ Bibliotheca Patinici,” which was 
 written in 1630 by Victor Pallu, a physician 
 of Tours, in which he says he got off lightly 
 but that some of the other physicians 
 of Paris, notably Nicolas Pietre, Merlet and 
 Moreau were very badly treated. The 
 book was probably privately printed as 
 Patin says that it was very rare. It was 
 anonymous and Pallu’s authorship was only 
 discovered by the efforts of Moreau, who 
 
| 184 | 
 
 pardoned him at the intercession of his 
 friends, though many other physicians bore 
 him much ill will for his malicious attack. 
 Pallu got into trouble also with his col- 
 leagues in Tours, so he left that city and 
 went to Sedan, where he became physician 
 to the Comte de Soissons. After the death 
 of the latter in 1641, Pallu came to Paris 
 where Patin says he dined with him twice. 
 Patin speaks as though they were on per- 
 fectly good terms, though he says “the 
 public lost nothing when he died,” m 
 1647. 
 
 Patin in a letter to Charles Spon (Septem- 
 ber 17, 1649) mentions that he had heard 
 that a physician of Montpellier, named 
 Arnauld, was about to publish a book 
 against him entitled “‘Patinus fustigatus.” 
 He says that this news neither astounds him 
 nor surprises him, but that while he is 
 obliged to wait for its appearance he would 
 like to know something about its author, 
 his quality, his age, and his object in writing, 
 if he writes in defence of the chemists or 
 the apothecaries or to refute Patin’s thesis, 
 or against his person and manners: “If 
 he insults me I will let him alone and pardon 
 him; if he says what ts true and right so that 
 I can learn something I will thank him; if he 
 
‘| 185 | 
 merits an answer I promise him one, 
 provided that I have the leisure.” Of 
 course it should be remembered that none 
 of Patin’s letters had been published at this 
 time. 
 
 On October 16, 1650 he agam writes to 
 Charles Spon that he hears that the book 
 against him ts to be a large quarto. “Each 
 page is headed Patinus verberatus, a title 
 manifestly satiric, sulting, scandalous and 
 defamatory. I wish you would tell them that 
 I believe that it is necessary to act against 
 him and the printer, nomine injuriam, this 
 title bemg purely defamatory. I am curious 
 to know why this man Is angry at me, and 
 what wrong I ever did to him or his.” 
 
 CONTROVERSY WITH RENAUDOT 
 
 Among the most interesting controversies 
 in which Patin engaged was the famous one 
 between Théophraste Renaudot, “the 
 gazetteer,’ and the Faculte de Médecine. 
 Renaudot presents an interesting character 
 study as a quack whose intelligence led him 
 to institute really big things, though it is 
 very open to question, whether he himself 
 realized their utility, and he certainly could 
 not have anticipated their subsequent devel- 
 
‘| 186 > 
 
 opments. Born at Loudun about 1586, he 
 received the degree of Doctor of Medicine at 
 Montpellier in 1606. He became acquainted 
 with the famous Joseph Francois Leclerc, 
 Marquis de Tremblay, more generally 
 known as Pére Joseph, a Capuchin monk, 
 who was Cardinal Richelieu’ s right hand 
 man and the only human being in whom he 
 seems to have had implicit confidence. Renau- 
 dot went to live at Paris in 1612, with the 
 strongest recommendations from Pére Jo- 
 seph to Richelieu. These led to the latter 
 procuring for him the appointment of 
 physician-in-ordinary to the King, Louis 
 xu. He became a favorite of Louis, and 
 speedily procured the royal authority, 
 backed by a decree of the Parlement of 
 Paris, to establish a bureau d’addresses, or 
 sort of employment agency, to which he 
 added a pawnshop, or Mont-de-Piété, where 
 money was advanced on the salaries of the 
 borrowers, and also a free dispensary, or 
 consultations charitables, all of which estab- 
 lishments are fully described in a pamphlet 
 entitled “‘Inventaire de bureau de rencontre 
 ou chacun peut donner ou recevoir avis de 
 toutes les nécessités et commodités de la vie 
 et société humaine,” published at Paris in 
 1620. The following year he began the pub- 
 
[| 187 | 
 lication of a newspaper, The Gazette, the first 
 French newspaper. 
 
 Readers of Cyrano de Bergerac will recall 
 the scene in the second act in the restaurant 
 of Ragueneau, when the crowd is over- 
 whelming Cyrano with congratulations on 
 his victory over his hundred assailants at 
 the porte de Vesle. He is approached by a 
 “man of letters” with a writing case, who 
 asks him if he can have the details of the 
 contest. Cyrano repulses him, whereupon 
 his friend, Le Bret, tells him: ‘‘He is Théo- 
 phraste Renaudot! the mventor of The 
 Gazette.”’ 
 
 Cette feuille ou I’on fait tant de chose tenir! 
 On dit que cette idée a beaucoup d’avenir! 
 
 Those of us who are interested in Guy 
 Patin can only express our regret that 
 the great French poet did not see fit to 
 make him likewise a figurant with his 
 antagonist. 
 
 He shortly afterwards ran foul of the 
 Faculte de Médecine by attempting to 
 establish, with the connivance and assist- 
 ance of the doctors of Montpellier and the 
 apothecaries, a rival school of medicine. 
 The attempt was fraught with danger to the 
 eminence of the Faculté, and they at once 
 
{ 188 } 
 
 entered upon a fierce struggle with the 
 audacious Renaudot, who, backed by the 
 formidable friendship and favor of the King 
 and Cardinal, put up a good fight. The 
 death of Richelieu on December 4, 1642, was 
 fatal to. Renaudot’s chances. In March, — 
 1643, Patin wrote to Spon that “‘he had 
 folded his baggage” since the death of his 
 chief support. In the same letter he refers 
 contemptuously to a recent publication of 
 Renaudot’s “‘La présence des absents, ou 
 facile moyen de rendre présent au médecin 
 "état d’un malade absent. Dressé par le 
 docteur consultant charitablement 4 Paris, 
 pour les pauvres malades” in which he dis- 
 courses on a method of treatment by corre- 
 spondence which he had organized and 
 which as Triaire remarks has certainly 
 not been equaled by contemporary charla- 
 tans, nor, we might add, by the Christian 
 Scientists. 
 
 Before his death, Richelieu had accorded 
 to Renaudot a large amount of Jand in the 
 faubourg St. Antoine, ostensibly for the 
 consultations charitables, but Triaire states 
 that the ground was really intended for the 
 purposes of the school of medicine which 
 Renaudot proposed to found in opposition 
 to the Faculté de Médecine. The Cardinal 
 
‘| 189 F 
 hated the University of Paris because it 
 possessed certain rights and privileges which 
 were In opposition to the royal power,‘ 
 by means of which its professors and stu- 
 dents were often not amenable to the des- 
 potic power Richelieu wished to wield, Triaire 
 thinks that the Cardinal backed Renaudot 
 in his scheme with the deliberate purpose of 
 destroying or, at least, lessening the power 
 of the Faculté de Médecine. This explains 
 the extreme animosity of the physicians 
 toward Renaudot and the ardor with which 
 they pursued the fight agamst him. The 
 contest was not just with a successful char- 
 latan, but against the despotism of the 
 all powerful Minister, and it ts little wonder 
 that we find Patin breathing a sigh of relief 
 
 4 Among other privileges claimed by the Faculté 
 de Médecine of Paris, was that of exemption from 
 military service. In 1634, the Spanish and German 
 armies invaded France and succeeded in capturing 
 Corbie, only thirty-three leagues from Paris. The 
 country rallied patriotically. All the great bodies of 
 the state subscribed to the fund raised by Paris, 
 which also raised 28,000 men. The Faculté gave 
 1,000 écus. Patin writes to Belin, August 29, 1636, 
 that the Faculté de Médecine claimed its exemption 
 from military service on account of exemptions often 
 confirmed in its registers. He adds that he himself has 
 subscribed 12 écus to the fund raised by the Faculté. 
 
4 190 f 
 at Richelieu’s death, “il est en plomb, 
 ?éminent personnage.””® 
 In a letter to Spon (March, 1643) Patin 
 
 again joyfully refers to the great man’s 
 decease. “The Gazetteer is living with 
 Guillot Ie Songeur since the death of his 
 inspirer (protocale) who held him up against 
 us. But, God be thanked, he has folded his 
 baggage.” 
 
 II est en plomb, I’excellent personnage 
 
 Qui a nos maux a ri plus de vingt ans. 
 
 Patin writes to Spon® some details of the 
 last illness and autopsy of Richelieu. The 
 Cardinal died on December 4, 1642, after 
 
 5 This is a quotation from a rondeau written by 
 Miron which Triaire gives: 
 
 “TI est passé, il a plié bagage, 
 Ce Cardinal, dont c’est moult grand dommage, 
 Pour sa maison. C’est comme je I’entends; 
 Car pour autrui, maint hommes sont content; 
 En bonne foi, et n’en voie que I’image, 
 Sous sa faveur il enrichit son linguage, 
 Par dons, par vols, par fraude et mariage, 
 Mais aujourd’hui, il n’est plus le temps, 
 II est passe. 
 Or, parlerons sans crainte d’étre en cage. 
 II est en plomb, I’éminent personnage 
 Qui de nos maux a ri plus de vingt ans.” 
 
 6 December, 1642. 
 
{ 191 | 
 
 only six days of acute illness, though he had 
 been very feeble and in poor health for a 
 long time. During the preceding summer he 
 had been in the south of France busied in 
 suppressing the insurrection of Cinq-Mars. 
 He returned to Paris in a litter on October 
 17th. While absent he had been operated 
 upon for an abscess of the rectum. Patin 
 says that a few days before Richelieu’s 
 death, in desperation he had submitted to 
 the ministrations of a female empiric, who 
 had given him horses’ dung m white wine, 
 and that another charlatan had given him a 
 pull containing opium, because he did not 
 think that the treatment by his regular 
 physicians had been after the most approved 
 manner. Triaire’ quotes from a contem- 
 porary account of Richelieu’s last days: 
 
 November 28th the Cardinal was taken with 
 a violent chill and pain in the side. Bouvard 
 summoned, bled him twice in the night of 
 Sunday or Monday, but the patient spat blood 
 and his fever increased. From Monday to 
 Tuesday the pain having augmented, they prac- 
 ticed two new bleedings. Tuesday, December 
 2nd, a consultation was held at which it was 
 decided to make a new emission of blood, and to 
 have recourse to purgatives. The fever having 
 
 7 Lettres de Gui Patin, Paris, 1907, footnote, 1, 145. 
 
| 192 | 
 redoubled in the evening they made two more 
 bleedings. On Wednesday, December 3rd, an 
 empiric of Troyes named Lefevre, was called in 
 and administered a pilule which seemed to give 
 a little relief. Finally, Thursday, December 
 4th, the seventh day of the illness, the Cardinal 
 was seized with cold sweats, and died at noon. 
 
 At the autopsy the brain was found to be of 
 unusual size. 
 
 It is curious how frequently autopsies 
 were performed at that time. Patin’s letters 
 describe many of them. Pic® conjectures it 
 was because of the frequency with which the 
 deaths of prominent personages were as- 
 cribed to poisoning, but this seems doubtful 
 as they were performed in many instances 
 in cases where no such suspicion could have 
 been entertained. This may have been the 
 reason that the bodies of the Kings of 
 France were always subjected to an official 
 post-mortem examination, but would hardly 
 suffice to explain the frequency of the exam- 
 ination of the bodies of private individuals. 
 
 Richelieu was a dangerous antagonist. 
 The war was conducted chiefly through the 
 medium of virulent pamphlets. As Patin 
 writes to Belin n May, 1641, if “the Gazet- 
 teer,’ as be terms Renaudot, had not been 
 
 § Guy Patin, Paris, 1o1t. 
 
‘| 193 | 
 
 sustained by his Eminence, the Faculté 
 would have instituted a criminal process 
 against him, but it would have been doomed 
 to failure against such influence. Michel 
 de Ia Vigne, Moreau, Riolan, Patin and 
 other members of the Faculté wrote tracts 
 in which Renaudot was excoriated and held 
 up to contempt. Richelieu ordered them to 
 cease. 
 
 Renaudot seems to have been particularly 
 stung by the attacks of Guy Patin, who had 
 termed him “nebulo” and “blatero,” a 
 nebulous braggart. He had Patin summoned 
 before the Maitre des requétes, and it is sad 
 but true that Guy only extricated himself 
 from the charge of libel by asseverating that 
 the terms as he used them were intended to 
 be applied to Guy de Ia Brosse, the founder 
 of the Jardin du Roi, and not to Renaudot. 
 The latter, not to be thwarted, got a sister 
 of de Ila Brosse, who was dead, to sue Patin 
 before the Juges de requétes de [ Hotel. At the 
 trial of the process Patin distinguished him- 
 self by addressing the court in his own 
 behalf for hours, “with an eloquence, erudi- 
 tion, and esprit”? which made the judges 
 marvel. 
 
 They gave judgment for Patin on August 
 14, 1642, and needless to say he was greatly 
 
[194 | 
 
 elated at his trrumph. The Faculté pro- 
 ceeded actively against Renaudot, after he 
 was deprived of his powerful protectors, 
 the King and Richelieu. They took the 
 matter up before the Chatelet, accusing 
 Renaudot of practicing medicine illegally, 
 and procured an order by which Renaudot 
 and his associates were commanded to 
 cease their enterprises. Renaudot appealed 
 to the court of the Parlement of Paris, which 
 august body on March 1, 1644, also ren- 
 dered a verdict against him. Thenceforth, 
 he passed mto obscurity and no longer 
 troubled the repose of the Faculte. 
 
 One method of expressing his contempt of 
 Renaudot which Patin used, appears some- 
 what undignified as well as laborious. On 
 September 17, 1643, Patin caused a Bachelor 
 of Medicine named Courtois to sustain be- 
 fore the Faculté, a thése which Patin had 
 written, ‘“‘Est-ne totus homo a natura 
 morbus” (Do the maladies of man all come 
 from nature?). It had a great success, six 
 editions being printed. In a letter to Spon 
 (December 24, 1643) he tells him that he has 
 sent him a copy, and directs his attention to 
 a passage where, in writing of diseases of the 
 nose, he will find after the word nebulones 
 the name of Renaudot, by taking the first 
 
‘| 195 F 
 letter of each word of the eight following. I 
 give the transcription of the passage as 
 illustrative of a far-fetched seventeenth 
 century witticism: 
 
 Corruptum nasum sequitur corruptio morum; 
 existo enim masonum genere, qui, ancidulo ore 
 loquuntur, nebulones sunt, Ridiculi, Effranaei, 
 Nefarn, Ardeliones, Vafri, Dolosi, Obscent 
 Turbulenti, mendaces, maligni, mvidi, quad- 
 ruplatores flagitiosi, infames, contumeliosi, 
 faccinorosi. 
 
 Writing to Spon (1650) of his great 
 admiration for the poems of Ovid (Ovidius 
 Naso), he says: 
 
 Ovid was a bel esprit and I would willingly 
 reread his works if I had the time. For his sur- 
 name Naso it pleases me by the sympathy which 
 I have for the big nosed, and the hatred I bear 
 to the flat (camus) which are nearly all stinking 
 and filthy, as “The Gazetteer,” Théophraste 
 Renaudot, against whom I gained the beautiful 
 process on August 14, 1642. Thus I remember 
 in going forth from the Palace (palais de justice) 
 that day, I approached him, saying, “M. 
 Renaudot, you can console yourself because you 
 have gained in losing.” “How then?” said he. 
 “Tt is,’ said I to him, “because flat nosed when 
 
{ 196 } 
 you entered here, you are going out with a foot 
 more of nose.’”® 
 
 Renaudot responded to Patin’s personali- 
 ties by equally sharp replies. Because of the 
 fact that Patin confined his therapeutic 
 measures almost entirely to bleeding (la 
 saignée), syrup of roses and senna, he was 
 nicknamed “Doctor Three S’s.” 
 
 Renaudot refers to this in the following 
 epigram: 
 
 Nos docteur de Ia Faculté, 
 Aux malades parfois s’il rendent la santé, 
 Ont besoin de l’apothicaire; 
 
 Mais Patin s’en dispense et, plein de dignité, 
 Avec trois S les enterré. 
 
 Patin!® tells how the Faculté scored on 
 ‘““The Gazetteer”’ in one instance. A rich old 
 abbé, who was one of Richelieu’s attendants, 
 had been attended by Renaudot during an 
 attack of gout. Renaudot gave him a 
 powerful purgative which aggravated his 
 attack. The abbe discharged him and put 
 himself in the care of a member of the 
 Faculté, who cured him. The old gentleman 
 felt so grateful that he gave the Faculté 
 
 ® The French have a proverbial expression applic- 
 able to one who is humiliated or chagrined that he 
 has received un pied de nez. 
 
 10 T_etter to Spon, March 28, 1643. 
 
‘| 197 | 
 10,000 écus towards rebuilding. Patin 
 writes: “‘“The Gazetteer’ from whom this 
 prey has escaped has too good a heart to 
 break over it, but however, I do not doubt 
 that he is much vexed.” 
 
 Renaudot was obliged to give up his 
 consultations charitables, his project for a 
 college of medicine and his pawnshop, but 
 permitted to continue his bureau d’addresses 
 and The Gazette. He died on October 25, 1553.0 
 His two sons, Isaac and Eusebius, both 
 became members of the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine, but only after a decree of the Parle- 
 ment of Paris in 1642 had ordered their 
 admission, which order was not complied 
 with by the Faculté until 1647 or 1648. 
 They continued to publish The Gazette, but 
 before taking the oath required for the 
 doctorate, were obliged to give up the 
 bureau d’addresses and disavow the conduct 
 of their father, in an oath taken before a 
 notary. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 PaTIN EXPERIENCES OPPOSITION 
 
 THE PHYSICIANS OF PARIS VERSUS THOSE 
 OF MONTPELLIER 
 
 In a letter to Belin (June 9, 1644) Patin, 
 summing up his opinion of Renaudot, says: 
 
 The Gazetteer could not confine himself to 
 medicine, which he never practiced, having 
 always sought to make his living by some other 
 occupation such as schoolmaster, author, pedant, 
 spy on the Huguenots, gazetteer, usurer, 
 chemist, etc. The occupation he followed last 
 was the practice of medicine, which he never 
 knew; he is a braggart, and an ardelio, of whom 
 the crest has been lowered by the decree which 
 we, the Faculté de Médecine, have not obtained 
 by our power but by the justice and goodness 
 of our cause, which was founded on a policy 
 necessary In so great a city against the irrup- 
 tion of so many barbarians who have practiced 
 swindling here in place of medicine. 
 
 In a footnote, Triaire! points out that 
 this passage refers to physicians who were 
 not members of the Faculté de Médecine 
 
 1 Lettres de Gui Patin, Paris, 1907. 
 
 [ 198 | 
 
| 199 | 
 
 of Paris, an especially large number being 
 graduates of Montpellier, who came to 
 Paris and tried to establish themselves 
 there in practice. The provost of Paris 
 decided on December 9, 1643, and his order 
 was affirmed by the Court of the Parlement 
 of Paris (March 1, 1644), that no one should 
 practice medicine in Paris who was not a 
 doctor or licentiate of the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine of Paris or an agrégé. By an old decree 
 of November 5, 1504, exception was made 
 for those who were physicians to the 
 King or royal princes, or the greater nobility, 
 during such time as the Court was in resi- 
 dence in Paris or its environs. After its 
 great victory over Renaudot, the Faculté 
 became so assured of its power that it 
 refused to register the physicians to the 
 duc d’ Orléans and the prince de Condé. 
 
 This apparent illiberality was not con- 
 fined to the Faculté de Médecine of Paris. 
 While the physicians of Montpellier were 
 trying to exercise the right to practice 
 their profession in Paris, in spite of the 
 statutes of the Faculté, they, at the same 
 time, were prohibiting the practice of 
 medicine at Montpellier by outside physi- 
 cians by virtue of an ordinance of Louis 
 x11 dating back to 1496. 
 
‘| 200 | 
 
 In a letter to Spon (December 6, 1644), 
 Patin accuses the Faculté at Montpellier 
 of selling its degree of Doctor of Medicine, 
 and says that many who have begun their 
 studies at Paris, go later to Montpellier 
 and purchase their degrees. He adds that 
 he scarcely knows of an illustrious physician 
 of Montpellier and humorously quotes: 
 ‘“‘parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus 
 mus.” He then states that their fame was 
 due to their knowledge of Arabic medicine, 
 Guy’s pet aversion, and that any real 
 knowledge they had was derived from Paris. 
 “We have for antiquity the greatest number 
 of physicians to the kings, and the greatest 
 men who have most profited the public by 
 the excellent writings which they have left 
 us.” 
 
 It is rather curious to find Patin men- 
 tioning the position of court physician as 
 a distinction. “There were scarcely any 
 illustrious physicians of Montpellier before 
 Rondelet, who had studied at Paris and 
 owed his learning to our schools.”’ Rondelet 
 is frequently referred to by Patin in terms 
 of respect. He was an eminent anatomist 
 who for lack of other available anatomical 
 material, dissected the body of his own dead 
 child before his class at Montpellier. 
 
‘| 201 | 
 
 In the same letter Guy writes most venom- 
 ously of two physicians of Montpellier, 
 Heroard and Vautier. The former was first 
 physician to Louis x1, and from his 
 journal, which has been preserved, concern- 
 ing the health of the king, we learn he was 
 a very wise and skilful man; but Guy says 
 he lost no opportunity to hit at the Faculté, 
 probably because that august body was 
 always jealous of his position and anxious 
 to belittle him. Vautier was first physician 
 to Louis x1v and Patin says he prided 
 himself on three things, namely; chemistry, 
 astrology, and the philosopher’s stone, 
 - “but one does not cure the sick by these 
 beautiful secrets. Hippocrates and Galen 
 are the beautiful secrets of our profession, 
 which he perhaps has never read.” Vautier 
 had been physician to Mazarin, and Patin 
 states his belief that he will never be made 
 premier médecin to the king because Riche- 
 lieu in the plenitude of his power had never 
 dared have his physician, Charles, ap- 
 pointed to the king in this capacity. Patin 
 was disappointed in his prognostication, 
 for Vautier was appointed, as we have said, 
 first physician to Louis x1v. Vautier had 
 been first physician to Marte de’ Medici 
 and had great mfluence over her. He was 
 
‘| 202 | 
 
 imprisoned durimg the reign of Louis x11 for 
 his participation in some of her conspiracies. 
 Patin says, ““M. Vautier condemns our 
 Faculté sufficiently often. He says we have 
 only bleeding and senna, and boasts of his 
 having great chemical secrets. He gives anti- 
 mony boldly in any illness, even to children.” 
 
 Patin? expresses very fully his opinion 
 of the superiority of the medical school of 
 Paris over Its ancient rival of Montpellier. 
 He says that the two most famous physi- 
 cians of Montpellier were Laurent Joubert 
 and Guillaume Rondelet, both of whom 
 wrote works on medicine which were merely 
 compilations of their. lectures, and that 
 Rondelet’s celebrated “Histoire des pois- 
 sons” according to de Thou, was not even 
 written by him but by Guillaume Pelicier. 
 All the rest of the writings of the professors 
 of Montpellier are merely foolish pedantic 
 lectures, especially those of Rtviére, in 
 which there is much charlatanry: “They 
 are a stinking marsh of ignorance.and artful 
 impostures.”’ Patin excepts Varandeus from 
 his condemnations. 
 
 But what comparison is there between all 
 these men with Fernel, Sylvius, L. Duret, 
 
 * Letter to Belin, fils, September 7, 1654. 
 
{ 203 } 
 Tagault, the two Pietres, Jean Duret, the Jean 
 Martins, E. Gourmelen, Baillou, the elder 
 Gorens, who the late M. de Bourbon said was 
 more learned in Greek than even Galen; with 
 the two Riolans, with a Guillaume Duval, 
 with the late M. de la Vigne, all prodigies of 
 learning by their polymathy and incomparable 
 men in their practice. 
 
 Patin refers frequently to the efforts 
 made by the physicians of Montpellier 
 to have their right to practice at Paris 
 established. On September 12, 1646, he 
 writes Belin that they have presented a 
 request to the Council by Monsieur Vautier 
 which was rejected, the Chancellor stating 
 that the decree of 1644 was only a confirma- 
 tion of the ancient privileges of the Faculté 
 de Médecine, given after the parties to it 
 had been heard in five public hearings, and 
 that rt must stand. Guy adds: 
 
 In other times foreign (not Parisian) physi- 
 cians wishing to practice, called themselves chem- 
 ists, spagyrics, Paracelsists, boasting to cure 
 the worst diseases without bloodletting, and 
 tO possess great secrets against all sorts of 
 diseases, but today, we see here very ignorant 
 strangers and charlatans who have no shame, 
 and brazenly state that they are physicians of 
 the Faculté of Montpellier. 
 
‘| 204 F 
 
 Many of Patin’s letters are in the same 
 strain and the repetition grows somewhat 
 monotonous. Courtaud, dean of Montpel- 
 lier, felt so aggrieved by the attack on the 
 physicians of his school m the Renaudot 
 controversy that he took up the latter’s 
 cudgels and wrote a most violent tirade 
 against the Faculté de Médecine of Paris 
 and against Patin. This gave rise to further 
 replies on their part, one by Riolan. 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF ANTIMONY 
 
 Patin’s attitude as regards the use of 
 antimony was not simply, as so often repre- 
 sented, a blind hatred of the remedy, or 
 due solely to the fact that its use was 
 popular. He writes to Spon (June 2, 1645) 
 that he considers it (and we must say justly 
 so) a very dangerous and pernicious remedy 
 except in the hands of physicians who are 
 both judicious and experienced and that it is 
 rightly considered dangerous because its 
 use has become widespread in the hands 
 of barbers and quacks whereby many 
 people have been killed. | 
 
 This opposition to the use of antimony 
 got Patin into trouble during his term of 
 service as dean of the Faculté de Médecine. 
 One, Jean Chartier, a member of the Faculté, 
 

 
 HARDOUIN DE SAINT-JACQUES, A PSEUDO-DOYEN OF THE 
 FACULTE DE MEDECINE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 
 
er teatie 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 OFTHE = 
 WEEReTY OF erwets 
 
 
 
 uY ' sf a — = 
 
J 205 
 
 having published a work advocating its 
 use without having previously submitted 
 it for the approval of the Faculté, Patin 
 arbitrarily removed his name from the list 
 of members of the Faculté. Chartier brought 
 a complaint against Patin in the court of 
 the Parlement of Paris. This august body 
 having decided against Patin, reestablished 
 Chartier m his membership, and con- 
 demned Patin to pay a large part of 
 the cost of the process. This decree was 
 rendered in 1653. 
 
 Patin wrote Spon (November 25, 1653) 
 that judgment had been rendered against 
 him through the influence of Guénault, and 
 that the Queen had used her power to aid his 
 enemies. 
 
 According to Bayle, Patin made a great 
 register of those whom he claimed had died 
 through the administration of antimony to 
 them. He proposed to publish it under the 
 title ““Le martyrologie de I’antimoine.” 
 
 It will be recalled that Moliére in ‘“‘Le 
 médecin malgré lui’ .puts in the mouth of 
 the young peasant, who comes to consult 
 Sganarelle, the remark that an apothecary 
 had wished to give his sick mother some 
 vin émétique (antimony) but that he fears 
 it will kill her, “as they say these great 
 
“| 206 | 
 
 doctors kill I do not know how many 
 people with that invention.” 
 
 Patin® says that the controversy about 
 antimony was largely maintained by the 
 action of Hardouin Saint-Jacques, because 
 without consultmg the Faculty he had 
 included vin émétique in his “Codex medica- 
 mentarius,” and to sustain Its inclusion had 
 falsified the Registers of the Faculty for 
 the year 1637, as had been publicly dem- 
 onstrated by Merlet, Perreau, and Blondel, 
 in spite of which Hardouin Saint-Jacques 
 was never punished. In 1657 he writes 
 Spon that Hardouin Saint-Jacques has 
 broken his left arm by a fall from his 
 horse: “It was he whose perfidy is the 
 cause of all the disorder which has befallen 
 our Faculty in regard to antimony, because 
 bering Dean in the year 1638, to favor the 
 apothecaries, a quibus lucrum sperabat, he 
 falsified the registers of the Faculty, but 
 he has not heard the end of it.”” Hardouin 
 Saint-Jacques according to Patin‘ had for- 
 merly been a comedian, having acted at the 
 Hotel de Bourgogne. 
 
 Patin’s correspondence contains Innum- 
 erable references to the deaths of prominent 
 
 § Letter to Charles Spon, 1655. 
 4 Letter to Falconet, December 19, 1660. 
 
‘| 207 F 
 
 persons which he claims were due to anti- 
 mony. A typical instance is one he details 
 to Spon (December 6, 1650). M. d’ Avaux, 
 one of the superintendents of finances, was 
 ill with some pulmonary trouble. Pietre, 
 Seguin, and Brayer were treating him, 
 but a relative (as sometimes happens even 
 today) interfered and insisted that he 
 should be seen by Vautier. The latter 
 promised to cure him with a beverage he 
 would give him. 
 
 The poor man swallowed the antimony on the 
 good faith and standing of M. Vautier. An hour 
 afterwards he commenced to cry that he was 
 burning and that he saw that he had been 
 poisoned, that he was sorry that they had 
 allowed him to take the remedy, and that he 
 regretted that he had not made his will. Then 
 the poison having ravished his entrails, he died 
 vomiting, three hours after having taken it. 
 
 According to Patin many said that 
 Mazarin had had him poisoned as he was 
 a bitter enemy of his. The day after Vautier 
 was calling on de Maisons, the other super- 
 intendent of finance, when the latter said 
 to him with pleasing candor, “ Voila, two 
 superintendents of finance that-antimony 
 has killed this year. I pray you do not 
 
‘| 208 
 
 make me the third.” He referred to the 
 deaths of d’Esmery and d’Avaux. 
 
 Patin in a letter to Spon (April 10, 1644) 
 recounts: “Two days ago Guénault and des 
 Fougerais gave ther Vin émétique to a 
 maitre des comptes named de la Grange, who 
 died of rt. All this made much noise here 
 at the expense of the reputation of these two 
 executioners, who scarcely worry about it.” 
 
 Antimony was usually administered as 
 vin émetique. Patin in a letter to Spon 
 (January 8, 1650) says: “Vin émétique is 
 ordinarily nothing but an infusion of Crocus 
 metallorum in white wine. As for the anti- 
 mony goblet, it is more than twenty years 
 since I have seen one, nevertheless the late 
 M. Guénault had one which he used some- 
 times.” Antimony cups or goblets, pocula 
 emitica, had a great vogue in the seven- 
 teenth century. From the traditional origin 
 of the name antimony one would have 
 thought Patin would have been an advocate 
 of its use. The metal, first known as stibium, 
 was.used as a medicine, especially by Para- 
 celsus in the sixteenth century, but was in- 
 troduced into wider medical use in a work 
 entitled: ‘“‘Currus trrumphalis antimoni,” 
 purporting to have been written by a monk, 
 named Basil Valentine, which was published 
 
‘| 209 
 
 in 1604. It is believed by most historians 
 that no such person as Monk Basil ever ex- 
 isted, and that the name was chosen as a 
 pseudonym by Johann Thilde, a Thuringian 
 chemist. The author of the book alleges that 
 he had observed that some pigs which had 
 eaten food containing antimony, became 
 very fat. He was led by this observation 
 to try what its effect would be on some 
 monks who had become very much ema- 
 ciated as the result of prolonged fasting. 
 Horribile dictu! They all died. Hence the 
 name of stibium became replaced by the 
 designation of antimoine, antagonistic to 
 monks. Certainly if there is anything in a 
 name Guy should have been an antimoni- 
 alist of the most determined kind. 
 
 The history of the controversy about 
 antimony is very curious and interesting. 
 It raged at Paris for over one hundred 
 years, dividing the profession into two 
 camps, the antimonialists and the anti- 
 antimonialists. It was waged not only m 
 the conclaves of the Faculte but m the 
 courts of law, and it caused the bitterest 
 personal animosities and _ recrimmations. 
 After the publication of Valentine’s book 
 antimony became so popular and was used 
 with such recklessness, that there were un- 
 
‘| 210 | 
 
 doubtedly many fatalities from Its improper 
 administration. This led the Faculté to 
 issue two decrees, in 1566 and in 1615, 
 which were confirmed by the court of the 
 Parlement of Paris, declarmg antimony 
 a poison and reprehending its administra- 
 tion. Notwithstanding these solemn denun- 
 clations many physicians mm Paris, even 
 members of the Faculté, continued to 
 prescribe it. It must have been a sad blow 
 for Guy when in 1666, the antimonialists 
 finally trrumphed, and the use of antimony 
 as a medicine was formally admitted by 
 the Faculté, and ordained by a decree of the 
 Parlement of Paris. The vote repealing 
 the decrees against it, and admitting it 
 to the pharmacopeia was carried by forty- 
 eight members of the Faculté, against eight. 
 Poor Guy writes Falconet (July 30, 1666): 
 
 The cabal of the Iast assembly has wronged 
 its reputation. These gentlemen say that a 
 poison is not poison in the hands of a good 
 physician. They speak against their own experi- 
 ence, because most of them have killed their 
 wives, their children, and their friends. How- 
 ever that may be, they speak well of a drug 
 which they dare not taste themselves. I console 
 myself because it is necessary that there should 
 be heresies so that the truth may be proved, but 
 
‘| 211 
 
 I have never been of the humor to worship the 
 golden calf, nor to consider fortune (wealth) as 
 a goddess. God preserve me from it in the future. 
 I am content with the mediocrity of mine. 
 Peace and little! When the wind shall change, 
 all these champions of antimony will scatter 
 like the smoke from their furnace. 
 
 As would be expected from one of his 
 temperament, Guy’s opinions of his con- 
 temporaries are not always borne out by the 
 facts we know concerning them. As an 
 instance of this may be cited his violently 
 unjust criticism of Julian Le Paulmier, one 
 of the best known physicians of his time. 
 Le Paulmier or Palmerius (1520-1588) re- 
 ceived the degree of Doctor of Medicine at 
 Paris in 1556, served four years as a physi- 
 cian to the Hétel-Dieu, and was the student 
 and friend of Fernel who bequeathed him 
 his books and manuscript writings. Patin 
 says he served Fernel as his “valet” for 
 twelve years and that in recompense Fernel 
 had him given the degree of doctor. In 1569 
 Le Paulmier published a book “Traité de Ia 
 nature et curation des playes de pistolle, 
 harquebuse et autres bastons a feu, en- 
 semble les remédes des combustions et 
 brileurs extrémes et superficiels,” in which, 
 while agreeing with Pare in many of his 
 
| 212 
 
 views, he differed in others and even brought 
 the charge that the great mortality among 
 the wounded at the siege of Orléans and at 
 the battles of Dreux and St. Denis was due 
 to the methods of treatment employed by 
 Paré and the other surgeons, thereby pro- 
 voking a response from Pare. Although a 
 Huguenot, Le Paulmier was physician to 
 Charles rx and to Henri 11 and held by 
 them in high esteem, as also by many of 
 the great nobles of the court. He published 
 two treatises on the medicinal use of wine 
 and cider, and a number of consultations of 
 his master, Fernel. In a letter to Spon in 
 April, 1643, Patin calls Le Paulmier a wily 
 Norman, adding that a Norman by race 
 and a physician by profession possesses 
 two powerful degrees to become a charlatan, 
 and that he had bragged that Fernel had 
 bequeathed him some very powerful secrets. 
 He also accuses Le Paulmier of having, at a 
 time when cider was not familiar as a bever- 
 age at Paris, brought up a quantity from 
 Normandy and havimg put a little senna in 
 it, sold it at a great price, as a wonderful 
 secret remedy, thereby makmg a large 
 fortune. Patin’s hostility was possibly due 
 to the great esteem in which he held Fernel 
 and to a sort of jealousy of one who should 
 
‘{ 213 F 
 
 have the right to be considered a favored 
 disciple. Pierre Le Paulmier, Julian’s nephew, 
 published, mm 1609, a book “Lapis philoso- 
 phicus dogmaticorum,” m which he advo- 
 cated the doctrines and medicines of Para- 
 celsus and the chemical school, at that 
 time most vehemently combated by the 
 Faculté de Médecine, for which he was 
 suspended by his colleagues. Patin records 
 somewhat vauntingly that “he continued 
 in his chemistry, which suffocated him, 
 having been surprised by an apoplexy 
 near a furnace in the year 1610.’ Pierre Le 
 Paulmier in turn left his papers to Théodore 
 Turquet de Mayerne (1573-1655), the famous 
 ‘chemical doctor”? whose practices brought 
 him under the ban of the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine to such an extent that he was obliged to 
 leave France and settle in London, where he 
 became physician to James 1, and after 
 him to Charles 1 and Charles 1, and 
 achieved great fame and practice. Mayerne 
 published at Geneva a _ book entitled 
 “Enchiridion chirurgico praticum,”’ which 
 Patin says was undoubtedly composed from 
 the papers Fernel had left Le Paulmier, 
 which the latter bequeathed to his nephew, 
 and he m turn to Mayerne. 
 
{214} 
 It will be recalled that Mayerne, Guénault 
 and others persisted m prescribing antimony 
 after it was decreed by the Faculté de 
 Médecine to be a poison and that the decrees 
 of the Faculté had been solemnly authorized 
 by the Parlement of Paris in 1566 and in 1615. 
 No words suffice to express Patin’s 
 detestation of Bourdelot (1610-1685), phy- 
 sician to Louis xu and the Prince of Condé. 
 Patin had been summoned to Sweden to act 
 as physician to the notorious Queen Chris- 
 tina. He declined and Bourdelot went m 
 his stead. Bourdelot is accused of encourag- 
 ing the Queen in her vicious habits. Patin 
 dwells especially on his avarice. 
 
 He disregards and always will disregard 
 the Sunday Sermon to secure a quantity of 
 gold.® He lies nearly as much as he talks, and 
 when he can he deceives the sick also. He brags 
 here in good company that he was the discoverer 
 of the circulation of blood, and that his col- 
 leagues do all in their power to deprive him of 
 the credit. He is a deep-dyed flatterer, grand 
 servant of the apothecaries, and with all his 
 fanciful bragging, a horrible liar.® 
 
 Patin adds that he had been apprentice 
 to an apothecary and educated in his 
 
 5Letter to Spon, March 2, 1643. 
 6Letter to Spon, January 8, 1650. 
 
| 215 f 
 
 father’s barber shop. Bourdelot’s real name 
 was Pierre Michon but he assumed the name 
 of his uncle, Edmund Bourdelot, physician 
 to Louis x11. Mazarin bestowed an abbey 
 on him. Patin’s bad opinion of him seems 
 borne out by contemporary evidence al- 
 though the language in which he expresses 
 it is hardly seemly. 
 
 Patin’s hatred of the Chartier family 
 (three members of which were physicians, 
 René, the father, and his two sons, Jean and 
 Philippe) was intense. Jean Chartier, as 
 told above, had been guilty of writing a 
 book in favor of the use of antimony, and 
 worse than that he had won in his legal 
 action against Patin for reinstatement in 
 the Faculté de Médecine. René Chartier 
 was a very erudite man who devoted his 
 life to the publication, in Greek and Latin, 
 of a very commendable edition of the works 
 of Hippocrates. When René died in great 
 poverty Patin wrote to Spon (April 21, 
 1655) with exultation over his misfortunes, 
 that “the widow is in desperate straits and 
 Jean is living on the charity of the Bishop 
 of Coutances.”, He was unable to pick any 
 serious defects in Chartier’s ‘‘ Hippocrates”’ 
 so he descended to a supercilious remark - 
 that it should contain a table of contents. 
 
‘| 216 | 
 
 Guy’s heart was never touched by compas- 
 sion when his opponents suffered. Such 
 misfortunes only seem to have added bit- 
 terness to his angry contempt for them. 
 
 A typical instance of Patin’s attitude 
 towards members of his profession whom he 
 disliked, or rather hated, for it was not his 
 wont to water his wine in such matters, is 
 to be found in a letter he wrote Falconet 
 (March 23, 1663), concerning a book written 
 by Charles Bouvard (1572-1658). The latter 
 was a brother-in-law of Riolan, fils, and 
 had been physician to Louis x11. He claimed 
 that it was by following his advice and 
 drinking the waters of Forges, that the long 
 years of sterility of Anne of Austria were 
 terminated, and that she gave birth to 
 Louis xiv and his brother. 
 
 When a very old man he set himself to 
 write a book for the reformation of medicine. 
 The book was entitled, ‘‘ Historiae hodiernae 
 medicinae rationali veritatis ad rationales 
 medicos,’ and was published in a very 
 small edition at Paris about 1655. Patin 
 wrote of it to Falconet on several occasions, 
 telling him that Bouvard had shown advance 
 copies to only three persons, Riolan, Moreau 
 and himself. Patin thought very poorly of it. 
 He says that though Bouvard was at one 
 
| 217 
 time an excellent man he was now senile, 
 and that his life at the Court had corrupted 
 him. He calls him elsewhere a devout 
 humbug, who would rather go to church 
 twice than once. Patin writing some eight 
 years after the publication of the book said 
 that Bouvard was told by Riolan that he 
 had better suppress the book as it contained 
 matter which would anger Cardinal Mazarin 
 and his two favorite physicians, Vautier and 
 Valot. Bouvard accordingly withdrew from 
 circulation the books that had been printed, 
 Moreau and Patin both returning the copies 
 he had submitted to them. 
 
 I know that he had talked to the Iate King 
 (Louis x111) of the merit and capacity of some of 
 the doctors through whose hands the King had 
 passed, until finally the King exclaimed, “‘ Hélas, 
 how unfortunate I am to have passed through 
 the hands of so many charlatans!’ These 
 messieurs were Héroard, Guillemeau and Vau- 
 tier. The first was a good courtier but a bad and 
 ignorant physician. M. Sanche, the father told 
 me in the past year that he was never a physi- 
 cian of Montpellier. The second was a wily 
 courtier, who greatly desired to make a fortune, 
 but the misfortunes of the Queen Mother, from 
 whom he had hoped to receive it, carried him 
 away, and the demon character of the Cardinal 
 was stronger than his. So much so that he 
 
‘| 218 
 
 succumbed, and whatever effort he has made 
 since, he has not been able to recover, although 
 he has moved heaven and earth, and the late 
 Prince of Condé himself spoke for him, even 
 to Cardinal Richelieu himself, as well as to 
 the Iate King and the Queen Mother. He had 
 some good qualities, he also had evil ones. I 
 associated with him twenty-seven years. We 
 graduated at the same time. I knew well how 
 he behaved. M. Baralis and I were his phy- 
 sicians until his death. Finally, I knew that 
 in his practice there was much of hypocrisy 
 and finesse; but also there was good doctrine 
 and virtue, that is to say, of mixed merchan- 
 dise. Vautier was an ignorant Jew of Avignon, 
 very boastful and uneducated. He was fortunate 
 not to have been hung, and he would infallibly 
 have been so, if the poor Queen had lived six 
 months longer. He had made counterfeit money, 
 and subsequently found means to ensconce 
 himself at Court. The disgrace of the Queen 
 Mother gave him the entrée at Blois by the 
 credit of Madame de Guercheville. He bragged 
 that he possessed chemical secrets. . . . The 
 Marillacs used him in their conspiracy against 
 Cardinal Richelieu. The Day of Dupes’ came. 
 
 7 Journée des Dupes, November 11, 1630, thus 
 called because on that date the Queen Mother and 
 Richelieu caused the downfall of the conspirators 
 who had been duped into believing that they were 
 strong enough to overthrow them. 
 

 
 FRANCOIS GUENAULT 
 (15— —1667) 
 
THE LIBRARY | 
 OF THE 
 CHIVERSITY OF TLLINGIS 
 
 
 
[219 f 
 
 The Cardinal arrested the Marillacs and they 
 were lost. Vautier was arrested and imprisoned 
 in the Bastille for nearly twelve years. At length 
 the scene and theater of the Court being 
 changed, he became premier médecin du rot, by 
 means of 20,000 écus which he gave to Cardinal 
 Mazarin, who took from all hands, on condition, 
 so they said, that he should be his spy. That is 
 politics! He had been the father’s prisoner for 
 twelve years and they trusted him with the 
 health of the son. 
 
 Another person who was most antipathe- 
 tic to Patin was Francois Guénault, physi- 
 cian to Louis x11, his wife, Anne of Austria, 
 the Prince of Condé and many of the great- 
 est personages of his time. He had probably 
 the largest and most fashionable practice 
 of any of the physicians of Paris, but he was 
 a confirmed advocate of the use of anti- 
 mony. He figures as Macroton, with the 
 three other court physicians in Moliére’s 
 “T’amour médecin.” He was accused of 
 bemg avaricious and unscrupulous. Patin 
 writes of him that he was said to have 
 stated “that one would not be able to 
 extract the white crowns (écus_ blancs) 
 from patients unless one deceived them.” 
 He elsewhere terms him “‘un grand empois- 
 onneur chymique.” Patin’s hate poisoned 
 
“| 220 [| 
 
 his mind to such an extent that when 
 Guénault’s daughter died in childbirth, her 
 father having administered antimony to 
 her during her illness, Patin actually writes: 
 “Guénault is a madman. By wickedness 
 (méchanceté) he has poisoned his daughter.” 
 
 Although a good friend of Patin’s, Lamoig- 
 non did not employ him as his physician 
 but had Guénault in that capacity. Patin 
 writes Falconet (May 10, 1661) that he has 
 been unable to secure an interview with the 
 premier president for a townsman of Fal- 
 conet’s, because Lamoignon is ill: 
 
 He is in the hands of Sieur Guénault, who has 
 retarded his recovery in place of hastening it, 
 having purged him too soon, which obliged them 
 to have recourse to bleeding many times. They 
 have begun now to purge him but he has a 
 severe headache which prevents one talking of 
 any business to him. I have promised your 
 friend that when he has recovered I will go and 
 see him, and sometime I will try to obtain some- 
 thing for him. Do not be astonished that I am 
 not his physician, Guénault has been so for 
 more than twenty-six years, for political reasons. 
 
 When Guénault died, Patin wrote Fal- 
 conet (May 17, 1667) : 
 
 Today, in the morning, the 16th of May, M. 
 Guénault died at St. Germain of an apoplexy 
 
‘| 221 
 
 God did not permit that he should be saved by 
 vin émétique, he, who in former times, has killed 
 sO many persons with this poison and with the 
 laudanum chymisticunt. 
 
 On Van Helmont the judgment passed by 
 Patin in a letter to Spon (April 7, 1645) was: 
 
 He was a wicked, Flemish rascal, who died 
 insane a few months ago. He never did any- 
 thing of value. I have seen everything he wrote. 
 This man only thought of one method of prac- 
 tice, made up of chemical and empirical secrets. 
 He wrote much against bloodletting, for the lack 
 of which, however, he died in a frenzy. 
 
 In recent times the contributions of 
 Van Helmont to medicine, especially to 
 chemistry, rank much higher than those of 
 Guy, or any of his contemporaries of 
 the Faculté de Médecine of Paris. His 
 investigations first directed attention to 
 the fact that many of the processes of the 
 living body were chemical and Ied to the 
 chemistry of vital processes, and he dis- 
 covered the chemical existence of gases, and 
 their different natures, such as flammable 
 and non-inflammable, noxious and mnox- 
 ious, thereby opening up an entirely new 
 field of chemical research. 
 
 Van Helmont, who was born in 1577 and 
 died in 1644, was before Franciscus de le 
 
«| 222 
 
 Boé (1614-1672) the chief contemporary 
 representative of the tatrochemical school, 
 the founder of which was Paracelsus, con- 
 sequently he was the living embodiment of 
 evil to Patin’s mind. Van Helmont’s mystical 
 theories of an archaeus, or governing princi- 
 ple of animal life, with a special archaeus 
 presiding over each region or organ of the 
 body made no appeal to Patin’s materialis- 
 tic mind, and he very rightly had no 
 patience with the sympathetic omtment or 
 powder, in support of which Van Helmont 
 wrote a treatise. This sympathetic oint- 
 ment, or weapon salve, was one of the most 
 curious delusions which has ever prevailed 
 in the medical profession. Briefly, it con- 
 sisted in the belief that wounds could be 
 healed by dippmg something, preferably 
 the weapon with which the injury had been 
 inflicted, in the blood or discharges from 
 the wound, and then dressing this object 
 with the ointment or salve, applymg band- 
 ages to it while leaving the wound itself 
 undressed. In other words it was a form of 
 “absent treatment.” These ointments were 
 variously compounded. Paracelsus, to whom 
 is usually ascribed the start of the idea, 
 especially recommended one composed of 
 moss from a human skull, human fat and 
 
{ 223 } 
 
 blood, mummy, oil of roses, bole armeniac, 
 and linseed oil. Sir Kenelm Digby manufac- 
 tured his sympathetic powder from a mix- 
 ture of copper sulphate and other chemicals. 
 When Patin hated once it was for good and 
 all, and nothing which Van Helmont might 
 do that was of worth could atone for his 
 mysticism and chemistry. In justice to 
 Patin it should be noted that most of Van 
 Helmont’s chemistry was but a dim fore- 
 shadowing of the discoveries of later days 
 and it was so hidden in the jargon of 
 mysticism in his writings that its signifi- 
 cance is hard to find nowadays and must 
 have been doubly so to his contemporaries. 
 
 Of the famous chemist Oswald Crollius, 
 Patin in a Ietter to Charles Spon (February 
 20, 1654) wrote: 
 
 I believe this man was never a physician, 
 sage, or philosopher. He was a peculiar char- 
 acter, melancholy and ambitious, who, dis- 
 contented with the ordinary science of the 
 schools, wished to tnvent some other more 
 certain. But he sought to fly without wings. 
 . . . I have before heard the goodman Fram- 
 boisiére say that a German who knew Crollius 
 had told him that this man was imbued with 
 the desire to make two systems of science, 
 one of theology, the other of medicine, without 
 
| 224 
 
 any other authority than that of the Bible, 
 and that he was usually hidden in a barn among 
 charcoal and furnaces, under pretence of mak- 
 ing chemical remedies, but that he was under 
 suspicion of making there the false silver money, 
 which is current In some parts of Germany. 
 Is not that a fine occupation for a reformer of 
 the sciences. 
 
 Guy de Ia Brosse, who was physician 
 in ordinary to Louis x11, was a skilful and 
 learned man who founded the Jardin des 
 Plantes, procuring patent letters for its 
 establishment and being named its mtend- 
 ant in 1626. Patin wrote describing his 
 last illness, m a letter to Belin (September 
 4, 1641): ““He had a flux of the belly from 
 eating too many melons and drinking too 
 much wine. As to the last, it was not as 
 much his fault as his custom.” Patin tells 
 how Ia Brosse took emetics, astringents 
 and eau-de-vie but when bleeding was 
 spoken of he said: “It was the remedy of 
 sanguinary pedants and that he would 
 rather die than be bled.” “The devil will 
 bleed him in the other world, as merits 
 a rascal, an atheist, an impostor, a homicide, 
 and a public executioner such as he was.” 
 
 Triaire thinks possibly Guy’s enmity was 
 due to the fact that in founding the Jardin 
 
| 225 | 
 des Plantes this erudite naturalist took from 
 the Faculté the privilege of teaching a 
 very Important branch of medicine. 
 
 Elie Beda des Fougerais, premier médecin 
 to Louis xiv, who figures as Desfonandrés in 
 Moliére’s “‘L’ amour médecin,” was, accord- 
 ing to Patin,® not to be classed with honest 
 men: 
 
 He is a chemist, an empiric, and gains all he 
 can by effrontery and impudence, without sea- 
 soning his actions with any prudence. He 
 promises to cure everybody. He makes crazy 
 statements of what he can do and of knowing 
 more than anyone else; that such and such an 
 one knows only how to bleed and purge, but 
 that he possesses great secrets. . . . He was 
 formerly a great giver of antimony but he did 
 such poor business that he gave itup. . . . I 
 do not like to talk nor think evil, but it is not 
 through mischief that I speak thus of him, but 
 in pure truth that you may know and recognize 
 that this personage is a valet to the apothe- 
 caries and a grand cajoler of pretty women. 
 
 Patin writes of Beda’s (the man’s real 
 name was Elie Beda, he added the des 
 Fougerais of his own will) conversion to 
 Catholicism to Spon (May 8, 1648) that it 
 had “‘pleased God to touch the heart (I do 
 
 8 Letter to Spon, August, 1650. 
 
«| 226 
 
 not say the soul because I doubt if he has 
 one), of our master Elie Beda . . . He 
 goes henceforth to mass, carries a chaplet, 
 and acts the bigot, as the others.” 
 
 On Joseph Duchesne (1521-1609) more 
 generally known by his Latinized name 
 Quercetanus, Patin pours forth the follow- 
 ing diatribe in a letter to Spon (January 
 8, 1650). Quercetanus had been physician 
 in ordinary to Henri tv and was an ardent 
 follower of Paracelsus and an antimonialist: 
 
 The same year there died here a wicked 
 rogue of a charlatan, who killed many during 
 his life, and also after his death by the miserable 
 writings which he left under his name which he 
 had caused to be made by other physicians and 
 chemists from here and there. 
 
 It was Josephus Quercetanus, who called him- 
 self at Paris the Sieur de la Violette. He was a 
 great quack, a heavy drunkard, and one plainly 
 ignorant, who knew nothing of Latin, whose 
 first trade was that of surgeon’s apprentice in 
 Armagnac, which is a poor country. He passed 
 at Paris, and chiefly at the Court, as a first-class 
 physician, because he had learned something of 
 chemistry in Germany. 
 
 Patin’s hatred of the Arabic school of 
 Medicine is fully explained in a letter to 
 Spon (May 29, 1648) in which he writes that 
 
‘| 227 | 
 all that is good in their doctrine came from 
 the Greeks. As to their remedies the school 
 flourished at a time when they were in 
 possession of better remedies than those 
 known to Hippocrates but the Arabs made 
 bad use of them. 
 
 The miserable Arabesque pharmacy was 
 introduced and the rascally hot remedies, use- 
 less and superfluous, which are today in too 
 much credit all over the world, and by a 
 quantity of which the sick are villainously 
 deceived. What good are all these compositions, 
 all these sugared and honeyed alteratives, 
 against which the wisest men in Europe have 
 declared and raised themselves for a hundred 
 years, aS against an insupportable tyranny? 
 
 . The great abuse of medicine is due to the 
 multiplicity of useless remedies and the neglect 
 of bloodletting. The Arabs are the cause of 
 both. . . . We save more sick people with a 
 good lancet and a pound of senna, than the 
 Arabians can with all their syrups and opiates. 
 We would do very wrong to quit the good 
 remedies, which have come into use from the 
 time of Hippocrates, for those which are less 
 good or unknown to us. The method does not 
 comprehend the remedy but the law and manner 
 of using it rightly. It is the doctrine of tndica- 
 tions which shows a physician as he really 
 is, and for this we owe our entire obligation to 
 
‘| 228 
 
 the Greeks, who if they knew not senna and 
 cassia It was not their fault, but their misfor- 
 tune. Also it was not by the Arabs that senna 
 was discovered and made known to us, it was 
 in use before them. Strong and violent remedies 
 are yet good for some, but the science and 
 method of the Greeks teach us to use most 
 successfully the benign and to keep away from 
 those capable of harm, if we have not great need 
 of them. 
 
 There is a brutality in Patin’s references 
 to those whom he hated, which ts either a 
 childish affectation or else an indecency. He 
 writes to Spon (March 8, 1644) as follows: 
 
 M. Merlet, eight days before the death of 
 M. Richer, made a false step in mounting (his 
 mule or horse) by which he thought he had 
 broken his leg, but he only had a slight disloca- 
 tion of the péroné (ankle). The wags say that 
 he would have done better if he had broken his 
 neck. That will be for another time when it will 
 please God to deliver our school of this terrible 
 fool. 
 
 MOLIERE AND PATIN 
 
 Guy’s great therapeutic standbys were 
 purgation, with senna or manna, enemas, 
 and venesection. Some of his letters remind 
 one forcibly of the chorus of the bachelors 
 
‘[ 229 | 
 of medicine in “Le malade imaginaire” 
 
 of Moliére: » 
 
 Clysterium donare, 
 Postea saignare, 
 Ensuitta purgare. 
 
 A maxim of Patin’s was ‘Marcher la 
 saignée devant la purge.” 
 
 Probably the ideas of most readers of 
 the present concerning the medical pro- 
 fession in France during the seventeenth 
 century are derived from Moliére, wherefore 
 it is well that we should stop for a moment 
 to consider somewhat his attacks on them. 
 
 Three of his comedies are especially 
 virulent in their attacks on the profession, 
 “L’amour médecin,” “Le médecin malgré 
 lur’ and “Le malade imaginarre.” In 
 “L’amour médecin” he caricatures a con- 
 sultation between four of the King’s physi- 
 cians, Daquin or Valot under the name of 
 Tomés, Elie Beda des Fougerais as Des- 
 fonandrés, Guénault as Macroton, and 
 Esprit as Bahis, in such a way that his 
 audiences, largely composed of courtiers 
 must have hugely appreciated the joke, and 
 readily recognized the originals under the 
 scanty disguise. 
 
 It is said that Boileau suggested to Moliére 
 the names under which certain well-known 
 
{ 230 
 
 characteristics of the physicians were re- 
 vealed. Thus, Desfonandrés means “slayer 
 of men’; Bahis mdicated one who stam- 
 mered; Macroton, a slow talker, as Guénault 
 was known to be; Tomés, a bleeder, was 
 applicable to Daquin, who was famous for 
 his propensities in that direction. Elsewhere 
 I have given Patin’s own expressions 
 concerning Guénault and des Fougerais. 
 No ridicule which Moliére could throw at 
 them could equal the contempt which Patin, 
 their colleague, heaped upon them. Patin 
 writes to Falconet (September 22, 1665): 
 
 They performed a short time ago at Ver- 
 sailles a comedy about the physicians of the 
 Court, in which they were treated with ridicule 
 before the King who laughed at it very much. 
 They put in the chief place the first five physi- 
 cians, and above all our master, Elie Beda, 
 otherwise the Sieur des Fougerais, who Is a man 
 of great probity and very worthy of praise, if 
 one believes that of which he would persuade us. 
 
 A few days later, September 25, 1665, 
 Patin refers again to the performance of 
 ““L’amour médecin.” ““They are now per- 
 forming at the Hotel de Bourgogne, 
 ‘L’amour médecin.” AII Paris crowds there 
 to see represented the physicians of the 
 Court, chiefly Esprit and Guénault, with 
 
| 231 F 
 masks especially made. They mock those 
 who kill people with impunity.” 
 
 Patin does not state that he himself saw 
 the play. He writes to Falconet (March 29, 
 1669) that all Paris is going to see ‘“T'artufe.” 
 Reveillé-Parise thinks that the austerity of 
 the manners of physicians rendered it cus- 
 tomary for them not to go to the theater. 
 
 There is no doubt that the members of 
 the Faculté de Médecine of Paris in the 
 seventeenth century laid themselves open 
 to the shafts of ridicule. It was a close 
 corporation holding tenaciously to ancient 
 privileges, admitting to its membership 
 only a chosen few each year and those 
 chiefly drawn from the ranks of relatives 
 and friends of those already members. 
 In its very reaction against the poor tradi- 
 tion of Arabic medicine, the relic of medie- 
 val barbarism, towards the pure Greek 
 tradition, it did not escape from slavish 
 subservience to the latter, and at a time 
 when many were escaping from dogmatic 
 adherence to ancient forms and rebelling 
 against submission to authority simply 
 because it was ancient, the Faculté tried 
 in vain to stem the current. Moliére 
 combated hypocrisy and affectation wher- 
 ever he found them and these two vices 
 
| 232 | 
 
 were preeminently displayed by members 
 of the Faculté. Moliére’s health was poor 
 and he had to have recourse frequently to 
 medical aid during the later years of his 
 life. He had as his physician Mauvilain, 
 whom he seems to have respected, and for 
 whose son he besought the only favor he 
 is known to have asked of the King, an 
 ecclesiastical preferment. It is true that 
 when Louis x1v asked him how he and 
 Mauvilain got along with one another, he 
 replied: “‘Sire, we talk together; he pre- 
 scribes remedies for me; I do not take 
 them; and I recover.”’ Probably his fre- 
 quent intercourse with physicians and their 
 mability to cure him caused his satirical 
 ridicule of them in his plays. He died from 
 a pulmonary hemorrhage and most prob- 
 ably had tuberculosis for many years before 
 his death. Moliére’s only reference to Patin 
 is somewhat indirect. During the consul- 
 tation in “L’ amour médecin” the doctors, 
 not talking at all about the patient whom 
 they have been called to see, discuss the 
 quarrel between Théophraste and Artémius, 
 the latter undoubtedly being Patin, and the 
 other his opponent Renaudot. 
 
 Patin certainly read if he did not witness 
 the comedies of Moliére. In a letter to 
 
| 233 | 
 
 Falconet (August 28, 1669) he uses the 
 name Tartufe as synonymous with hypo- 
 crite. A physician named Cresse became 
 involved in a scandal with the wife of a 
 barber and Patin, writing to Falconet in 1669, 
 in several letters says that it is reported 
 Moliére will write a comedy about the 
 affair, but the great dramatist never did. 
 
 In many of his comedies besides the three 
 mentioned above Moliére indulges in sly 
 hits at the medical profession. It is possible 
 his ridicule did some good but there was 
 no apparent great reformation in French 
 medicine until shortly after the Revolution 
 when there arose the great school repre- 
 sented by such names as Bichat, Laénnec, 
 Trousseau, Louis, Dupuytren, Desault, Lar- 
 rey, etc., which during the first part of the 
 eighteenth century gave to their country 
 the foremost position in medical science in 
 the world.°® 
 
 Patin was not a frequenter of the “theater- 
 ballet”? at the court, and he makes no men- 
 tion of his ever having gone to see a play 
 or having read one himself. The theater- 
 
 9Brander Matthews in Appleton’s Magazine, 
 August 8, 1874, and in Scribner’s Magazine, January, 
 1910, has written most entertainingly of Moliére 
 and the medical profession. 
 
| 234 F 
 
 going population at Paris was largely con- 
 fined to the nobility or to the frequenters of 
 fairs. Mauvilain, Moliére’s physician, was 
 a classmate of Robert Patin’s. Guy Patin 
 refers to him occasionally m his lists of 
 evildoers who gave antimony, and whom 
 he accused of being avaricious for fees. 
 
 Patin only mentions Corneille once when, 
 in a letter to Falconet (October 21, 1643), 
 he tells him: “‘M. Corneille, the illus- 
 trious maker of comedies, is going to write 
 an answer to Pellisson’s ‘Histoire de 
 ’ Academie.’ ”’ 
 
 Patin knew La Fontaine, the author of 
 the celebrated fables. He writes Charles 
 Spon in August, 1658, that he had shown 
 La Fontaine a letter that Spon had written, 
 and that La Fontaine had asked him to 
 send him his good wishes. 
 
 BLOODLETTING 
 
 Patin’s letters are full of references to 
 the beneficent effects obtamed by copious 
 bloodletting, applied to diseases of the most 
 infinite variety. A few extracts will suffice 
 to illustrate his views. He writes to Spon, 
 April, 1645, thus: 
 
 There is no remedy in the world which works 
 as many miracles as bleeding. Our Parisians 
 
| 235 | 
 ordinarily take little exercise, drink and eat 
 much, and become very plethoric. In this condi- 
 tion they are hardly ever relieved of whatever 
 sickness befalls them if bloodletting does not 
 proceed powerfully and copiously, nevertheless 
 if the sickness is acute one does not see the 
 effect as soon as from purgation. About the year 
 1633, M. Cousinot, who is today first physician 
 to the King, was attacked by a rude and violent 
 rheumatism, for which he was bled sixty-four 
 times in eight months, by order of his father, 
 and of M. Bouvard, his father-in-law. After 
 having been bled so many times they com- 
 menced to purge him, by which he was much 
 relieved, and in the end recovered. The idiots 
 who do not understand our profession imagine 
 that there is nothing to do but to purge, but 
 they deceive themselves because if bleeding 
 copiously had not preceded it, to repress the 
 Impetuosity of the vagabond humor, to empty 
 the great vessels, and to chastise the intemper- 
 ance of the liver which produced the serum, the 
 purgation would have been useless. Another 
 time I treated in this city a young gentleman of 
 seven years, who fell into a pleurisy by over- 
 heating himself when playimg tennis, having also 
 received in the game a stroke on the foot on the 
 right side, which provoked the most grand 
 fluxion. His tutor hated bloodletting very 
 much and I could only oppose to this hatred a 
 good counsel, which was to call two of our 
 
‘| 236 | 
 ancients, M. Seguin and M. Cousinot. He was bled 
 
 thirteen times and was cured in fifteen days, as if 
 by a miracle, even the tutor was converted by it, 
 
 In the same letter he writes: 
 
 It is perfectly true that bleeding is a very 
 powerful remedy in smallpox, especially if done | 
 early, but this disease is sometimes so insidious, 
 and the lungs sometimes so involved that it is 
 folly to promise relief from it. That is why 
 prognosis Is in this case so useful to the physi- 
 cian. It is my custom to say to mothers who 
 generally have a great concern for the faces of 
 their children, that it is necessary first to be 
 assured of their life, and that I cannot answer 
 for the outcome of this dangerous disease 
 until after I have seen the children out in the 
 street many times playing with other children. 
 
 Patin considered bleeding as the only 
 therapeutic measure of any avail in apoplexy. 
 He writes to Falconet (May 10, 1661): “This 
 afternoon I gave a very good lecture in 
 which I amply explained apoplexy, and 
 belabored the apothecaries who would 
 exhaust their shops on this malady, but in 
 vain. We only cure it by prompt bleedings.” 
 
 Patin again writes to Falconet (October 
 14, 1664) his views regarding the treatment 
 of epilepsy. He begins by declaring his 
 belief that there was no specific for It: 
 
| 237 | 
 
 I believe that there are no anti-epileptic 
 remedies. M. Seguin, Riolan, de la Vigne, and 
 Moreau, are of the same opinion. Those 
 which Crollius and the race of chemists vaunt 
 as such, are fictions or fables. I do not except 
 mistletoe, the foot of the eland, the root 
 of peony, nor other similar bagatelles. The 
 cure of such a great disease depends on an 
 exact regimen of life, with abstinence from 
 women, wine, and all hot and vaporous foods; 
 but bleeding and frequent purgation are neces- 
 sary. These do not hurt the brain, and are not 
 made with pills or powders. It is necessary, 
 sometimes also to evacuate the pus which is in 
 the mesentery, the lungs, the hollow part of the 
 liver, or the uterus, and the fits will not cease 
 until such humor is evacuated. Fernel was 
 a great man who broke the ice on many points, 
 but he lived too short a time to know and tell 
 all. He only lived fifty-two years. Pearls are of 
 no use in it (epilepsy) except to enrich the 
 apothecary. 
 
 Speaking of the desperate illness of M. 
 Merlet, Patin tells Belin: “‘M. Merlet has 
 been nearly at the gate, but he has not 
 passed through the wicket.” It is wonderful 
 that he escaped because Patin tells us that 
 he was extremely sick “of an inflammation of 
 the lungs for which he was bled sixteen times 
 in January. Ina previous month, July, he was 
 
238 | 
 bled eighteen times for a malignant fever. 
 Merlet was at that time sixty-six years old.” 
 
 Patin was a “Brissotin,” or disciple of 
 Pierre Brissot (1478-1522) as one would 
 naturally expect. Brissot brought nto vogue 
 “derivative” bleeding, that is bleeding 
 from the side of the body on which the 
 lesion was located, as taught by Hippoc- 
 rates. To this was opposed the Arabian 
 theory of “‘revulsive” bleeding, or drawing 
 blood from the opposite side to that of the 
 lesion. In support of this he writes to Belin, 
 fils (March 14, 1649) after his father had had 
 a paralytic stroke, urging that he should 
 bleed him from the unparalyzed arm, or 
 possibly a little Iater from the palsied one. 
 Brissot’s theory was applied especially to 
 bleeding in cases of pleurisy. 
 
 For the benefit of the lay reader it should 
 be stated that m paralysis due to an 
 apoplectic stroke or hemorrhage in the brain 
 the paralysis occurs on the opposite side of 
 the body. 
 
 Brissot’s teaching at a time when the 
 Arabian school was at the height of its 
 power raised such a storm that he was 
 banished from France by the Parlement 
 of Paris. The echoes of the controversy 
 still lingered in Patin’s time. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 PaTIN’s LATER YEARS 
 
 SURGEONS AND BARBER-SURGEONS 
 
 To the barber-surgeons, Patin was more 
 lenient than to the apothecaries because the 
 barbers were more humble in their attitude 
 toward the physicians. Patin writes to 
 Belin (January 14, 1651): 
 
 As for the barber-surgeons, they are only 
 received with our approbation and after exami- 
 nation in our presence, and they are only per- 
 mitted to practice surgery, not at all pharmacy, 
 above all not to administer any purgative or 
 narcotic except on the prescription of a 
 physician. 
 
 “When each follows his métier, the cows are 
 better watched.” We have here very subservient 
 (souple) surgeons. Bleeding makes them rich, 
 but they know very well that they are in our 
 hands and their gains also. They cannot admit 
 candidates to their society (Ils ne font point 
 d’actes) unless the dean of our Faculté is present, 
 accompanied by two doctors who have the right 
 to impose silence when they are extravagant in 
 their questions, these three even have to sign 
 
 [ 239 | 
 
‘| 240 | 
 the act of reception (of the candidate) otherwise 
 he has not the right to open his shop. For the 
 rest they love us as their patrons, they see how 
 we have treated the apothecaries, and how we 
 have nearly annihilated them, and that it 
 would not be difficult for us to do the same 
 thing to the surgeons, if they were not souple 
 and did not rule themselves wisely towards us. 
 
 To Spon he writes (April 21, 1665): 
 
 I assure you that at Paris we hate the sur- 
 geons as much and perhaps more than the 
 apothecaries, seeing that they are equally 
 insolent, added to which they are companions 
 of the country of adieusias, who promise mar- 
 vels to poor people quos impura Venus ut 
 plurimum momordit. 
 
 The history of the Jong quarrel between 
 the physicians and surgeons of France has 
 been accurately and thoroughly discussed 
 by Malgaigne in the introduction to his 
 edition of the works of Ambroise Paré. 
 
 In Patin’s time there existed three 
 classes of those who practiced the healing 
 art; the physicians, the surgeons, and the 
 barber-surgeons. The physicians, repre- 
 sented by the Faculté de Médecine, had 
 formerly had control over both the surgeons, 
 whose organization was known as the 
 
| 241 F 
 Collége de Saint Céme, and the barbers 
 who belonged to the society of the barber- 
 surgeons. 
 
 In 1657 the barber-surgeons decided to 
 amalgamate with the Surgeons of Saint 
 Céme, frequently called surgeons of the 
 long robe, because they wore a long robe 
 similar to that m vogue with the physicians 
 of the Faculté. This would have the effect 
 of removing the barber-surgeons from the 
 control of the Faculté and would strengthen 
 the hands of the surgeons im their fre- 
 quent contests with the latter. The surgeons 
 had for centuries been ground between 
 two millstones, the Faculté, which would 
 not permit them to prescribe and regarded 
 them simply as mechanical assistants to 
 be called In when they were needed, and 
 the barber-surgeons who were constantly 
 trespassing on the surgeons’ field and had 
 for many centuries done much more and 
 better surgical work than the surgeons of 
 the long robe. The latter treated abscesses 
 and wounds by the application of plasters 
 and ointments, but most of the operative 
 work was done by the barber-surgeons, 
 from whose ranks the incisors, bone-setters, 
 and lithotomists were drawn. Thus Franco, 
 the Colots, and Paré himself were barber- 
 
[242 F 
 surgeons, and there is no name of note 
 found among the surgeons of Saint Céme 
 over a period of some hundreds of years. 
 Paré was only admitted to their ranks 
 through the exertion of the King’s influence 
 after he had become famous, and in the 
 face of great opposition on the part of 
 many of the members. 
 
 Patin as might be expected was furious 
 at the prospect of this union. He writes 
 to Spon (July 13, 1657): 
 
 We are now at law with our barber-surgeons 
 who wish to unite with the surgeons of Saint 
 Come, our ancient enemies. Cosmiani alli 
 (those of Saint Céme) are miserable rascals, 
 nearly all tooth-pullers and very ignorant, 
 who have attached the barber-surgeons to 
 their string, by making them share their halls 
 and their pretended privileges, among others 
 holding their examinations in their hall, wearing 
 a Iong black robe and a square bonnet, and they 
 demand that we be present at these functions, 
 I mean our Dean, who goes there accompanied 
 by two doctors. . . . They talk of (giving) 
 degrees of bachelors, of licentiates and other such 
 ceremonies and vanities, altogether indecent for 
 such booted lIackeys. The cause will be plead in a 
 month and I believe that all the audacious 
 designs of this superb mob will be bridled and 
 regulated, and meanwhile our Dean will not 
 
‘] 243 F 
 
 be present at any of their functions. Are these 
 surgeons of Saint Céme not agreeable? They 
 had permission from the king about three 
 hundred years ago by which they were given 
 license to assemble together. They claim from 
 this word license that they were permitted to 
 make licentiates in surgery, which however they 
 have never undertaken to do heretofore. . . . 
 And they would make for us, doctors pas latins 
 (ignorant of Latin), who would not know even 
 how to read or write. We do not attempt to 
 prevent them from being surgeons of Saint 
 Come, or that the others might unite with 
 them, we would only have a company of barber- 
 surgeons, as we have had until now, which 
 would be dependent on our Faculté, and would 
 take every year an oath of fidelity in our schools 
 at the hands of our Dean, in magnis comitatis 
 Facultatis, and pay us every year a certain sum 
 for the rights which we have in their functions. 
 But we do not wish robes, bonnets, licenses, nor 
 any similar abuses. . . . They are already 
 sufficiently vainglorious and stupid without 
 furnishing themselves with any such apparatus. 
 
 The union was brought about im spite 
 of the Faculté’s opposition, to the great 
 benefit of French surgery. 
 
 The legal proceedings were not termI- 
 nated until 1660 in which year Patin wrote 
 several letters to Falconet expressing his 
 
| 244 | 
 
 satisfaction with the terms of the settle- 
 ment. They were satisfactory to Patin 
 because, although the surgeons of Saint 
 Céme and the barber-surgeons were united 
 in one guild, it was placed under the 
 authority and control of the Faculté de 
 Médecine. This decree of the court was 
 confirmed by another in 1676, four years 
 after Patin’s death, wherein it was ordered 
 that the officers of the guild should appear 
 each year, on the day after the feast of 
 Saint Luke at the Ecoles de médecine, to 
 take the customary oath, pay a gold écu, 
 and present a catalogue of their maitres 
 to the deans of the Faculté. This distinction 
 between the physicians and surgeons m 
 France continued until August 18, 1792, 
 when the Assembly abolished all faculties 
 and corporations. After the Revolution, 19, 
 ventose an xi, the medical schools were 
 legally reorganized but the educational 
 requirements were the same for the practice 
 of either medicine or surgery and only one 
 degree, that of M.D., was given to the 
 graduates. 
 
 THE APOTHECARIES 
 
 A very famous victory was won by Patin 
 in 1647, over those whom hecalled ‘‘mes 
 
| 245 } 
 chers ennemis,” the apothecaries of Paris. 
 The apothecaries had sided with Renaudot 
 in his memorable attack on the Faculté de 
 Medecine because of the condemnation by 
 it of the use of antimony and its attitude 
 against the Arabian polypharmacy which 
 was such a great source of revenue to the 
 pharmacists. Patin was especially conspicu- 
 ous in the Faculté and both in speech and 
 writing lost no opportunity to belabor the 
 apothecaries for what he called their swind- 
 ling and avariciousness. The new pharma- 
 copeeia published by the Faculté de Méde- 
 cine was calculated to hurt the apothecaries 
 very much as it had a distinct tendency to 
 lessen the complexity of compounds and 
 to encourage the use of the simpler prepara- 
 tions. Patin wrote a thesis “‘Estne longae 
 ac jJucundae vitae trita certaque parens 
 sobrietas.” This may be briefly summed up 
 as “On Sobriety”’ and he caused it to be 
 sustained by one of his scholars, Montigay, 
 March 14, 1647. In it he poured out a 
 long diatribe against the apothecaries, their 
 methods and their preparations. The 
 apothecaries brought an action in the court 
 of the Parlement of Paris against Patin. 
 Patin in a letter to Falconet (April ro, 
 
| 246 | 
 
 1647)! tells how, acting as his own lawyer 
 he discoursed for an entire hour, at the 
 end of which the Court gave judgment in 
 his favor and the apothecaries were driven 
 from the hall, amidst the jeering and hoot- 
 ing of the audience, which according to 
 Patin amounted to six thousand persons. 
 
 His description is so picturesque or 
 Patinesque, that I transcribe it in full: 
 
 For my dear enemies, the apothecaries of 
 Paris, complained of my last thesis to our Faculté 
 which mocked them. They appealed against it 
 to the Parlement, where their advocate having 
 been heard, I myself responded immediately 
 (sur le champ) and having discoursed an entire 
 hour to a very large and very favorable audience 
 (as I had also done five years ago against the 
 Gazetteer), the poor devils were condemned, 
 hooted, mocked, and confounded by all the 
 court, and by six thousand persons, who 
 were ravished to see them refuted and over- 
 
 1 André Falconet (1612-1691) was a native of 
 Roanne. He received his doctor’s degree at Mont- 
 pellier and practiced medicine at Lyons. He is first 
 mentioned by Patin in a letter to Spon, April 21, 
 1643, wherein he asks Spon for information about a 
 “*M. Falconet who has written on scurvy”’ referring 
 to a work by Falconet entitled ‘‘ Moyens préservatif 
 pour le guérison du scorbut,”’ published at Lyons in 
 1642. 
 
‘| 247 | 
 
 thrown as I had done. I talked against their 
 bezoar, their confection of alkermes, their 
 theriac, and their compositions. I made them 
 see that organa pharmaciae erant organa pallacae, 
 and made them acknowledge it to all my 
 auditors. The poor devils of pharmacists were 
 put to such confusion that they did not know 
 where to hide themselves. AII the city knew it 
 and likewise mocked them, so much that honor 
 came to me from all sides, the same as from our 
 Faculté which rendered me thanks because I 
 had so well defended myself from the annoyance 
 (pince) of these good men, and in such a way 
 that it went to the honor of our company. The 
 judges even have praised me. Voila, monsieur, 
 [histoire des pbarmaciens. 
 
 Paris really was a hotbed where all 
 kinds of charlatanry flourished in Patin’s 
 time as Is apt to be the case in any great 
 city, and there was much cause for com- 
 plaint. He writes to Spon (April 21, 1655): 
 
 There arrive here a thousand misfortunes 
 because of the too great credulity of the sick, 
 who address themselves to the surgeon’s appren- 
 tices, apothecaries, charlatans, operators and 
 other ignorant animals eager for gain. Note that 
 the greater part of these strollers are Proven- 
 cals, Languedociens, and Gascons, or from the 
 
| 248 F 
 neighboring provinces. This only occurs here 
 because of the lack of police and negligence of 
 our judges. 
 
 Patin was a vehement, not to say ven- 
 omous, enemy when aroused, but also a 
 very difficult one to combat, because of 
 the careful preparations he made for his 
 various combats and the skill with which 
 he armed himself. Thus he writes to Belin 
 (August, 18, 1647) that he is going to prepare 
 for a future possible attack by the apothe- 
 caries, a work in which he will “‘refute the 
 bezoar, the cordial waters, the unicorn’s 
 horns, theriac, the confections of hyacinth 
 and alkermes, the precious fragments and 
 other arabesque bagatelles,” but that it 
 will require three or four years of leisure to 
 complete the book. In the two speeches 
 which he delivered at the Renaudot trial 
 and in his own defense against the apothe- 
 caries, his audiences were overpowered 
 by his display of learning and the scope of 
 the arguments with which he supported 
 the sharp and witty invectives which he 
 Iaunched against his foes. Patin would 
 surely have pleased Dr. Johnson as a “‘good 
 hater.”’ He certainly had the courage of his 
 convictions. Writing to Belin (January 18, 
 1633) in speaking of the warfare the physi- 
 
| 249 
 clans were waging against the apothecaries 
 because of avarice and extortion, Patin says: 
 
 In the majority of the grand houses there are 
 no longer apothecaries, it is a man or a chamber- 
 maid who makes and gives the enemas, and the 
 medicines also, which we have reduced to the 
 laxative juice of prunes, or bouillon and senna 
 with juice of citron, or orange, or verjuice, or 
 a laxative ptisan of cassia and senna, accord- 
 ing to the taste of the patient. 
 
 In a long letter to Spon (June 18, 1649) 
 Patin bursts forth against the monks whom 
 he hates almost as bitterly as the Jesuits. 
 After a long tirade he writes: 
 
 But leave that pest of religion to pass to that 
 of medicine, I mean the apothecaries. You 
 (the physicians of Troyes) have made an 
 agreement with them; they are not worthy to 
 enter Into a composition with their masters, 
 upon whom they should depend absolutely. If 
 you wish to prevent them from undertaking 
 anything or trespassing on you it is only 
 necessary to make them remember the Médecin 
 Charitable, with which, though it only costs a sol 
 or two, we have ruined the apothecaries of Paris. 
 Make them understand that there are at the 
 grocers, cassia, senna, rhubarb, syrup of roses 
 and with these remedies we can do without them, 
 
| 250 | 
 
 and have rendered them so ridiculous, that no 
 one wishes to see them at their houses, and so 
 they have more leisure than they desire 
 to stay in their shops. There is no more, 
 thank God, any question of bezoar, or cordial 
 waters in smallpox, or julep cordials, or 
 pearls, in any disease whatever. The people are 
 not decetved by these bagatelles or by any 
 others. The rich do not avail themselves of 
 them any more and hold themselves under 
 obligation to many ancients of our Faculté for 
 delivering them from this tyranny. These 
 messieurs, our ancients were M. Marescot; 
 his son-in-law, Simon Pietre; Jean Duret, 
 son of Louis; the two Cousinots; Nicolas 
 Pietre; Jean Hautin; M. Bouvard du 
 Chemin; Brayer; de Ia Vigne; Merlet; Michel 
 Seguin; Baralis; Alam; R. Moreau; Boujonier; 
 Charpentier; de Launay; Guillemeau; and many 
 others who introduced into the families at Paris 
 an easy and familiar medical practice which 
 has delivered them from the tyranny of these 
 arabesque cooks.?. . . In such sort that the 
 apothecaries at present scarcely find them- 
 selves in demand except for strangers lodging in 
 furnished chambers. 
 
 2 Figaro. Barber of Seville, Act 1, Sc. iv, speaking 
 of his functions in the house of Bartholo says he is 
 “his barber, his surgeon, his apothecary; there is not 
 given in his house a stroke of the razor, the lancet, or 
 the piston except by the hand of your servant.” 
 
| 251 f 
 
 Writing to Spon (March 10, 1648) Patin 
 tells him that Guillemeau had written a 
 thesis in which he attacked the apothe- 
 caries and the Arabian pharmacy but that 
 he had not had the courage to print it 
 without retrenching many of the strongest 
 parts of his arguments. Guy says “‘every- 
 body is not equally brave in this country, 
 those who think themselves wise here, 
 worship the golden calf and revere the for- 
 tune of the wicked.”” Some one had said to 
 him that “everyone was not as fortunately 
 brave as he, and that although what he had 
 written was right, nevertheless there was no 
 need to say or write it.”” Guy pours out his 
 contempt on such cowardice. Nevertheless 
 one cannot help the feeling at times, that 
 part of his bitterness, especially against 
 the physicians who held a great place at 
 Court, was sour grapes. 
 
 SIDE LIGHTS ON PATIN’S CLIENTELE 
 
 In a letter to Belin,* he says: “Most of 
 the Court physicians are ignorant or char- 
 latans, and very often both,” and again, 
 “at least you can go and see M. Vautier, 
 chief physician to the King, but do not 
 
 3 March 14, 1657. 
 
| 252 F 
 
 talk to him of me; our dogs do not run 
 together. I am not, nor do I wish to be 
 an antimonial doctor, for I know too well 
 that antimony Is a poison.” Some of those 
 whom he judged most harshly, were cer- 
 tainly held in great esteem, not only by their 
 patients but by many of their professional 
 colleagues. Guy is not above letting his 
 correspondents know that he has some 
 aristocratic patients on his list. Thus he 
 concludes a long letter to Spon (May 209, 
 1648): “But here is the hour that a coach 
 should come to take me, drawn by six good 
 horses, to see, at nine leagues from here, 
 M. de Marillac, Master of Requests, who 
 is sick there with an attack of gout.” 
 
 The Marillacs were very prominent 
 people and Patin liked to imform his. 
 friends of his professional relations with 
 them. He writes to Spon (June 14, 1650) 
 that he and the elder Moreau had been 
 taken by the wife of M. de Marillac, 
 maitre des requétes, “two leagues from here 
 to see her sister, a nun, who was sick. . . 
 It was beautiful m the country, and very 
 comfortable to go there in a coach.” 
 
 In a letter to Belin, fils (June 19, 1649) 
 Guy says he is going against his will to 
 Fontainbleau to see the son of a trésorier de 
 
| 253 I 
 
 l extraordinaire des guerres who Is very sick, 
 “‘the father and mother take me there in 
 their coach.” The physicians of the seven- 
 teenth century made their rounds on horse- 
 back or riding a mule. There were stone 
 steps placed at the école de médecine to 
 facilitate their mounting and getting off. 
 
 Pict quotes from Patin’s contemporary 
 Vigneul de Marville the following sketch 
 of Guy which Is contained in his ‘“Mélanges 
 d’histoire et de littérature.”’ 
 
 Guy Patin was satiric from his head to his feet. 
 His hat, collar, cloak, his doublet, stockings and 
 boots, all bid defiance to the world and went to 
 law with vanity. He had in his countenance, 
 the air of Cicero and in his esprit, the character 
 of Rabelais. His great memory furnished him 
 always with subjects for conversation and he 
 talked much. He was hardy, bold, incon- 
 siderate, simple and naive in his expressions. 
 
 In spite of some repellant characteristics 
 Patin seems to have had a large practice 
 chiefly among the rich bourgeoisie, the 
 officials of the Parlement of Paris, lawyers 
 and merchants. His professional standing 
 was good with his colleagues in spite of his 
 many enmities, because we know that he » 
 
 4 Guy Patin, Paris, 1911, 
 
| 254 } 
 attended many of them, Riolan, Moreau, 
 etc., and that he was frequently called in 
 consultation by them. 
 
 Patin writes to Charles Spon (January 20, 
 1645) of a bequest of three thousand livres 
 which he recetved from a patient named 
 Jean Baptiste Lambert to whom he had been 
 physician for eight years. Lambert had 
 acquired a great fortune by participating 
 in the financial affairs of the government, 
 and Patin hints that he had given him an 
 opportunity to join in his devious methods 
 of acquiring wealth but adds that he had 
 always ‘“‘despised the fortune in which he 
 wished me to share.” 
 
 A sidelight on the devious ways by which 
 some physicians sought to obtain practice 
 in Guy’s time is afforded in a letter written 
 by him to Spon (January 7, 1661). The lat- 
 ter had referred a patient who was at Paris 
 to Patin, but the patient had fallen instead 
 into the hands of a physician named 
 Lienard. Patin says it was probably through 
 the agency of an inn keeper: 
 
 Because he (Lienard) is in relation with all 
 the hosts in his quarter and I do not doubt it 
 if his inn was in the rue des Trois Mores or 
 Aubry-le-Boucher, because I have known this 
 fact for a long time . . . God be praised of all, 
 
| 255 F 
 I do not lack patients, nor wish for them. I 
 thank you nevertheless for your good affection. 
 I ask you only if he is still at Lyons, without 
 seeming to do anything, to learn from him the 
 
 name of the street and sign of his inn, because 
 I think I have divined it. 
 
 Lienard had evidently insmuated to the 
 patient that if he fell m Patin’s hands he 
 would be bled to excess, because the patient 
 told Spon that he had heard of this failing 
 of Patin’s. The latter says this was a cow- 
 ardly trick of Lienard’s similar to many 
 others that he had done. 
 
 Patin, like other physicians, occasionally 
 had patients stray from his fold, and he 
 writes to Falconet (January 31, 1659) with 
 ill-concealed despite of one such instance: 
 
 As to this Abbé Forcoal, I formerly treated 
 him when very ill for several diseases. His 
 father said that he wished to witness how much 
 he thought of me and that he would give me 
 one hundred écus a year to be their physician. 
 This he did and I received this for eighteen 
 months. The Abbé (who at that time was 
 only aumonier du rot) suffered from a painful 
 and grievous illness, from which he happily 
 recovered and said much in praise of me. 
 Much time passed and they did not send for 
 
| 256 | 
 me. I learned that Valot went to see them, 
 and gave them powders, waters and pills, and 
 that they had given me up because I prescribed 
 too few drugs. . . . When I met the father 
 in the city he always said he would send for me 
 to see them, but he did not do so, so I rested 
 there. The father was a miserable native of 
 Cevennes, a Huguenot, who came to Paris to 
 improve his condition, and make his fortune 
 if he could. He was lackey to a secretary of the 
 King’s, named Addée, likewise a Huguenot, 
 and then became his clerk. Finally, he became 
 a great partisan and mixed in many affairs, 
 the aides, the gabelle, and others, where he 
 would make money. He changed his religion 
 to become secretary to the council, and became 
 a still greater partisan. Then he married his 
 only daughter, who was very beautiful, to a 
 son of M. Addée, his former master, who is 
 blind and a Huguenot, but she was a Catholic. 
 He had many sons, of which he made the 
 eldest a captain, the second a maitre des requétes, 
 the third aumonier du roi, who is now the Abbé. 
 
 . . Finally Forcoal, the father, died, owing 
 five or six millions, with three hundred law- 
 suits by those whom he owed... . 
 
 The whole secret of these people 1s while they 
 have the upper hand, to take money from all 
 sides, and then to go into bankruptcy, not only 
 to their creditors but likewise to God, for their 
 conscience and their honor. 
 
| 257 } 
 
 Patin gives a curious Instance of his 
 physiological views in the followmg state- 
 ment to Falconet (October 26, 1658): 
 
 Inflammation of the lung is always fatal to 
 those who have red hair. The late M. de la 
 Vigne, one of the physicians of our Faculté was 
 very red. I called him one day in consultation on 
 a secretary of the king’s named Collier who was 
 seventy-five years old, and very redheaded. He 
 was ill with an inflammation of the lung, which 
 I predicted would be fatal. M. de la Vigne asked 
 me where I had learned this prognostic of the 
 redheaded? I answered him that I had always 
 remarked it as very true besides which I had 
 heard it said by M. Nicolas Pietre, who had 
 learned it from his brother, the great Simon 
 Pietre and the reason was that the redheaded 
 abounded in bitter and malign serosity. 
 
 Patin certainly at times lays himself 
 open to the reproach that those who live in 
 glass houses should not throw stones. He 
 retails with relish the foibles and weaknesses 
 of his fellowmen, and consequently exposes 
 himself to the exposure of his own. Even 
 the dead did not escape his malicious pen. 
 Thus he writes to Spon (January 20, 1649): 
 
 We have freshly lost one of our companions, a 
 resolute and well-intentioned man named M. 
 Nic Heliot, aged forty-seven years. He died of 
 hydropsy of the lungs, after having languished 
 
] 258 F 
 
 for two months. He had imvited in his [ast 
 will, all the Faculté, as many doctors as possible 
 to be present at his interment. To this effect he 
 had ordained that each doctor who came there in 
 a red robe should have two quarter crowns for 
 his presence, and half that to those who came in 
 a black robe with the square bonnet. He was 
 interred with very great ceremony and pomp, 
 accompanied by sixty doctors, of whom there 
 were forty in red robes and twenty im black. 
 Nevertheless the Faculté decreed that they 
 should not take his money, and that the said 
 sum of one hundred pounds which would have 
 been necessary to carry out his last wishes, 
 should be left and returned to his widow. He 
 died without children. His brother is an échevin 
 of the city of Paris. He was of a good family, 
 very rich, but he loved extremely the ceremonies 
 and displays that make a noise. God guard from 
 harm those who are of an altogether different 
 sentiment. For me I am content and much 
 desire that they should bury me at four o’clock 
 in the morning, or at nine o'clock im the evening, 
 and that this manége, which seems only invented 
 for the gain of priests and bell ringers, or for the 
 solace of the living, fiat et pereat sine sonitu, 
 but I hope this may not arrive too soon. 
 
 RICHELIEU AND MAZARIN 
 
 Years after Richelteu’s death Patin con- 
 tinued to refer to him with the greatest 
 
1 259 F 
 
 animosity. Writing to Belin, fils (January 
 14, 1651), he speaks of a case in which a 
 surgeon had given a narcotic pill containing 
 opium to a patient, with a fatal result, and 
 adds that possibly it was the same kind of 
 pill which was given to the great Cardinal 
 shortly before his death, which Patin 
 thought had accelerated his end and he 
 concludes: “‘Would to God he had given it 
 to him twenty years sooner.” Patin never 
 admits that any of Richelieu’s great 
 policies were actuated by a desire to 
 aggrandize France or the King, although 
 It Is now conceded that he was a great 
 man who, though frequently gratifying 
 his personal ambition, nevertheless in the 
 main served the interests of his King and 
 country. 
 
 His hatred of Richelieu was augmented 
 by the fact that the Cardinal had caused 
 the execution of de Thou, a great friend of 
 Patin’s, for treason in 1644. De Thou was 
 the son of the famous French historian. 
 The correspondence contains many refer- 
 ences to the execution of young de Thou 
 years after the event. Writing to Spon 
 (September 12, 1664), Patin says: “It ts 
 twenty-two years ago that Armand, Car- 
 dinal de Richelieu, Ministre enragé had 
 
‘| 260 
 
 beheaded in your city my good and dear 
 friend, M. de Thou.” 
 
 There are many allusions in Patin’s 
 correspondence to Richelieu’s atheism, or 
 at Teast lack of belief in the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 Thus Patin wrote to Spon (April 13, 1647) 
 the following anecdote: 
 
 The Cardinal Richelieu who loved a joke 
 when he was not tormented by his black bile, 
 asked one day of Doctor Mulot, his confessor, 
 how many masses were necessary to get a soul 
 out of purgatory. Doctor Mulot responded that 
 the Church had never defined it. The Cardinal 
 replied: “‘That is because you are an ignoramus, 
 I know very well, it requires as many of them 
 as of bullets of snow to heat an oven.” Are 
 these not good men, who mock thus the holy 
 and sacred fire which makes their marmite 
 boil so fortunately? 
 
 Patin writes Spon (November 3, 1649) 
 that a courtier had told him that two years 
 before his death, Richelieu, notwithstanding 
 his ill health and the immensity of his 
 labors, had three mistresses; his niece, 
 Marie de Vignerot, who is better known as 
 the duchesse d’ Aiguillon; Madame de Chaul- 
 nes, and the famous Marion Delorme. Of 
 the latter Patin adds that she had been 
 
‘| 261 | 
 
 the mistress of Cing-Mars, and many others 
 before Richelieu: ‘She is still held in 
 esteem, and has even passed into history 
 for her beauty, because Vittorio Siri has 
 talked of her in his ‘Mercure.’”’ 
 
 Patin’s hatred of Cardinal Mazarin, the 
 inheritor of Richelieu’s power was fully as 
 bitter without any particular personal rea- 
 son for it. One of his favorite epithets for 
 him is “the Pantaloon in a Jong robe”’ or 
 “the Pantaloon with a red hat.” Writing to 
 Garnier, a physician of Lyons, June 18, 1649, 
 he says of Mazarin that it is the “‘ Pantaloon 
 in a long robe”’ who “‘is the cause of all our 
 ills, and of the ruin of France.” 
 
 He accuses Mazarin of finding in the 
 wars into which he plunged France the 
 pierre philosophale, and complains many 
 times of the devastation and pillage to which 
 the country was subjected not only by the 
 enemies’ troops but by the irregularities 
 committed by the French troops in their 
 own country. In a letter to Spon (May 14, 
 1649) he complains that his country house 
 has been robbed by the soldiers of Mazarin, 
 and he raises his voice many times in bitter 
 complaints agaist the policies of the 
 Cardinal. Although Mazarin’s apologists 
 point to the successful results of his di- 
 
“| 262 
 
 plomacy and show how the wars in which 
 he involved France added to her territories 
 and increased her prestige, nevertheless 
 those who have studied the history of the 
 period in which he controlled the destinies 
 of the country are struck with his disregard 
 for the sufferings of the French people and 
 with the selfishness and avarice which 
 dominated his actions, and must allow that 
 there is much justice in Patin’s allegations. 
 Undoubtedly France was never mm appar- 
 ently greater position and prosperity than 
 during the reign of the Roz Soleil, but 
 beneath the surface of all this splendor was 
 the misery and woe of the common people, 
 paving the way for the events of one 
 hundred years later. The arrogance and 
 pride of the King of France led to the 
 estrangement and hatred of France by 
 other countries, and to the numerous wars 
 from which France was to suffer throughout 
 the eighteenth century and the ruinous 
 financial policy which terminated in the 
 overthrow of French royalty. 
 
 Patin’s letters written during 1648-49 
 when the people of Paris were in revolt 
 against the arbitrary government of Maz- 
 arin show that he sympathized with the 
 people although he took no active part in 
 
‘| 263 | 
 
 the revolt. He retails with joy every piece 
 of news that he picks up which would 
 put Mazarin in a disadvantageous light. 
 After the King, Queen Mother and the 
 Cardinal had re-entered Paris he writes 
 Belin, fils, that a printer named Morlet 
 had been arrested for printing some scur- 
 rilous verses about the Queen Mother and 
 Mazarim. It was a matter of current scanda- 
 lous rumor that Anne of Austria and 
 Mazarin maintained much more intimate 
 relations than those which are customary 
 between a regent and a chief minister of 
 state. Patin says the printer was taken to 
 the Chatelet and on the same day con- 
 demned to be hanged. He appealed to a 
 higher court which confirmed the sentence. 
 When he was being conveyed to his doom the 
 people attacked the escort. The archers who 
 constituted his guards fled before the savage 
 mob, as did the executioner who rode im the 
 cart with the prisoner. The latter escaped. 
 
 Patin tells Belin (August 27, 1649) that 
 the Queen Mother and Mazarin were greatly 
 afraid of what might happen to them when 
 they returned to Paris after having had to 
 flee from the city and then having laid seige 
 to it: ““The executioner of an Italian was so 
 afraid for his skin.” He adds that there need 
 
| 264 | 
 be no more fear of his adding any new taxes 
 or creating new offices. 
 
 Mazarin and his agents repressed with 
 the greatest brutality every manifestation 
 of the sentiment of the public towards him. 
 The animosity of the people found its chief 
 vent in the so-called ‘‘Mazarinades,” pam- 
 phlets and verses secretly printed and cir- 
 culated from hand to hand in which the 
 Cardinal was held up to ridicule and hatred 
 in the most virulent manner. Patin writes 
 to Spon (July 13, 1649) of a widow, named 
 Meusnier, and her two sons who were 
 arrested for printing some of these docu- 
 ments. The elder son was sentenced to be 
 hanged, the mother was to witness the 
 execution of her son, then to be publicly 
 whipped, and afterwards expelled from the 
 kingdom and the younger son was to be sent 
 to the galleys. 
 
 When Mazarin died he left a large legacy 
 to found the Collége des Quatre Nations, 
 also bequeathing to France his magnificent 
 library and the Palais Royal to the King. 
 But this posthumous generosity did not 
 lessen Patin’s animosity. He writes Fal- 
 conet (March 9, 1661): 
 
 They talk no more of the death of Mazarin. 
 He has passed; he has folded his baggage; he is 
 
| 265 | 
 
 in lead the eminent personage. But they do 
 talk of his will, of his écus, and they are in diffi- 
 culty as to who will succeed to his political and 
 financial all-powerfulness. They say he has left 
 two millions to build a great college, for the in- 
 struction of poor gentlemen of four nations. One, 
 I think, like the University at Paris or at Nevers, 
 and that he is to be buried in the church of this 
 college as its founder. Others say that he will be 
 buried in Saint Denis, in France, having been its 
 Abbé. But it little imports where they bury 
 him, provided that he steals and tyrannizes no 
 more over the people, as he did for too long a 
 time. Bon Dieu! but their patience has been 
 great with this tyrant. They say the college is to 
 be built opposite the Louvre on the bank of the 
 Seine. They say that the Queen Mother is not 
 grieved at the death of Mazarin nor is 
 the duc d’Anjou, and that the King has quar- 
 relled with them aboutit. . . . . The four 
 nations of which I have spoken above are the 
 Spaniards, Italians, Germans and the English. 
 He employs the money which he has stolen in 
 France for foreigners, not for the French. 
 
 SOCIAL LIFE IN FRANCE IN THE SEVEN- 
 TEENTH CENTURY 
 
 It is very hard for the modern mind to 
 
 comprehend the curious mélange presented 
 
 5 It was erected there at that time. The buildings 
 are now occupied (1920) by the Bibliothéque 
 Mazarin and the Institute de France. 
 
‘| 266 [> 
 
 by the manners, customs, religion, super- 
 stition, erudition and ignorance, in the 
 social life of the seventeenth century in 
 France. Until Louis xiv attained his major- 
 ity all political power was in the hands first 
 of Richelieu, afterwards of Mazarin, both 
 brilliant, crafty, unscrupulous ecclesiastics, 
 who balked at no means to gratify their 
 ambitious ends. Their rule was necessarily 
 despotic. There yet Imgered m France 
 remains of the old feudal spirit, not yet 
 entirely subdued to the idea of the concen- 
 tration of power in the hands of a monarch. 
 During the mmorities of both Louis xu 
 and Louis xiv some of the great princes of 
 France tried their best to overthrow the 
 power held by Marie de’ Médici as regent 
 for her son, or by Anne of Austria during 
 the minority of hers. All these attempts 
 proved futile against the craft and ability 
 of the two cardinals on whom the Queens 
 successively relied, but the first half of the 
 century is marked by a succession of trea- 
 sons, stratagems and wars, only finally to 
 end in the despotism of Louis xiv. The 
 great Condé was for some time in arms 
 against France, fighting with Spanish 
 troops against his country. The social life 
 as detailed in the memoires and letters of 
 
‘| 267 } 
 
 the time was marked by bloodshed and a 
 looseness of morals which is almost beyond 
 belief. Duels were so frequent and so fatal 
 that the sternest edicts were issued against 
 them. Every great man had a horde of 
 parasites who would willingly commit mur- 
 der or any other crime at his bidding. 
 According to Patin even Cardinal Mazarin 
 was guilty of having his enemies attacked 
 by bands m his employ. He relates to Spon 
 (November 4, 1650) that, some days before, 
 a band of thirty armed men had attacked 
 the coach of M. Ie duc de Beaufort 
 in the rue St. Honoré. Fortunately for 
 the latter he was not in it at the time 
 and thus escaped the death which befell 
 several of his servants. Patin implies 
 that the assassins were in the employ of 
 the Cardinal. The great nobles such as 
 Condé, Conti, Gaston d’Orléans, all had 
 their ““men”’ and indulged im Iittle private 
 wars of their own, occasionally combining 
 with one another against the royal 
 authority. 
 
 The Iackeys attached to the households 
 of the nobles were a great source of trouble. 
 They adopted the msolent bearing and 
 manners of their masters and were involved 
 in continual broils among themselves or 
 
| 268 - 
 
 with the citizens. Patin in a letter to 
 Falconet (January 26, 1655) relates a typical 
 incident: 
 
 A young gentleman, a captain of the guards, 
 named M. de Tilladet, whose father yet living 
 was once governor of Bapaume and later of 
 Brissac, nephew of M. le Tellier, secretary of 
 state, was miserably killed by the pages and 
 lackeys of M. d’Espernon. The carrosses of 
 the two masters met and ran into one another. 
 The lackeys tried to kill the coachman of M. de 
 Tilladet. The master jumped from his coach to 
 prevent them, was overwhelmed by these rascals 
 and brutally killed. The King wishes justice 
 should be done and has issued a proclamation 
 against lackeys in order to prevent such abuses, 
 to wit that they shall not carry swords or fire- 
 arms in the future, on pain of death; and they 
 shall henceforth dress in suits of various colors, 
 and not in gray, in order that they may be 
 recognized. This proclamation was sent to 
 Parlement to be certiffed and published. This 
 has been done. It is affixed on all the squares 
 and published throughout the city, but I do 
 not know for how long a time it will be observed. 
 The Jesuits say that the decrees of the Sor- 
 bonne last no longer than a week. Perhaps it 
 will be the same with these ordinances, because 
 the French people make many good regula- 
 tions but observe them badly. 
 
| 269 F 
 
 Many of the great Iadies of the court in- 
 dulged in the most shameless intrigues. 
 Mazarin was accused of being the lover of 
 Marie de’ Médici, and by many of being 
 the father of Louis x1v. Marguerite de Valois 
 and the duchesse de Navarre are said to 
 have had the heads of their respective 
 lovers, Coconas and La Mole embalmed 
 after they had been beheaded for treason 
 and to have kept these gruesome relics as 
 trophies of their affection. The court was 
 full of bastards of high lineage for whom 
 provision was made at the public expense 
 by the gift of political or ecclesiastical 
 benefices. 
 
 Murders were so frequent among the 
 nobility that they only excited momentary 
 interest. The wicked and eccentric Queen 
 Christina of Sweden after her abdication 
 while staying at Fontainebleau caused one 
 of her household named Monaldeschi to be 
 murdered in the hall of the palace. For a 
 short time the court was horrified but a few 
 weeks later she was in Paris, féted and 
 entertained as if nothing had happened. 
 
 Although there are frequent references 
 in the “Letters” to the famous blue- 
 stocking Queen, Christina of Sweden, 
 Patin seems never to have met her per- 
 
‘| 270 | 
 
 sonally. Writing to Falconet (October 6, 
 1656) he says: 
 
 The Queen of Sweden has not been in Paris 
 as much as she had wished. She has seen next to 
 nothing of it. Nevertheless she has recetved 
 the approbation of all those who have met 
 her here. She has much presence of mind and . 
 perception. She is neither stupid nor bigoted. 
 She loves neither women nor girls. She under- 
 stands Latin well and knows more of it than 
 many men who profess to do so. I know from 
 a good source that when twenty-three years old 
 she knew all Martial by heart. They say she 
 makes much of Catullus, the tragedies of Seneca, 
 and yet more of Lucian. . . . As to her con- 
 version, brought about by the Jesuits, I do 
 not know what to say of it. My deceased father 
 told me that the fat M. du Maine (Mayenne) chief 
 of the League, said that princes had no religion 
 until they had passed the age of forty when 
 they became old and wise, or at least should 
 become so. When I consider the course of this 
 Queen during the past two years, I recall the 
 story of a certain Italian, who suffered from 
 pérégrinomanie, or the mania for traveling. He 
 came to Geneva and after having seen how the 
 ministers lived, was asked by them what he 
 thought of their religion. “It is not so bad,” 
 he replied, “but ours is more useful in travel- 
 ing.” Thus, m the design which she has to 
 
| 271 | 
 travel in different countries, she can well take 
 the advice of this Italian, and beyond doubt 
 she could not easily see Rome, the Pope, and 
 the many butterflies that are there, without 
 travesting herself as she has done, whether she 
 has done it seriously or not. 
 
 The Marquis de Charton was murdered as 
 he came out from mass at the church of 
 the Augustines. Patin tells with some gusto 
 how one of his murderers was beheaded 
 and the other broken on the wheel. 
 
 ABORTION 
 
 Abortion was an antisocial crime which 
 prevailed to a terrible extent in the highest 
 social circles in France during the seven- 
 teenth century. Bayle’ devotes one of his 
 most interesting marginalia to a discussion 
 of the question. In spite of civil and ecclesi- 
 astical decrees and proclamations and of 
 the special abhorrence with which the crime 
 was regarded by the Church of Rome, the 
 grandes dames of the time made light of the 
 earthly and spiritual terrors which were 
 held up to them and persistently resorted 
 to crime to conceal their shame. Bayle uses 
 this to support the thesis that the fear of 
 
 6 Dictionnaire biographique. Guy Patin. 
 
| 272 
 
 worldly shame is a stronger sentiment than 
 that of religion. There was a large class of 
 men and women who practiced abortion as 
 a specialty, the latter drawn chiefly from 
 the ranks of the midwives. It was estimated 
 that over six hundred cases were known to 
 have occurred, the greater part among 
 women of high social position, m less than 
 one year in Paris alone. Patin writes to 
 Falconet (June 22, 1660) of a very notorious 
 case of this kind; Mademoiselle de Guerchi 
 had been seduced by the duc de Vitry: 
 
 They make a great clamor here about the 
 death of Mademoiselle de Guerchi. They had 
 imprisoned the midwife at the Chatelet, but she 
 has been taken from there to the conciergerie 
 by order of the Court. The curé of Saint 
 Eustache has refused sepulture to the body of 
 the lady. They say that it was carried to the 
 hotel de Condé, and was there put in quicklime 
 In order to consume it soon, so that it could 
 not be identified if anyone came to see it. The 
 midwife has defended herself well up to now. 
 
 . But I believe the question will be put 
 to her. The vicars-general and the pleni- 
 potentiaries went to complain to the Premier 
 President that in a year six hundred women, 
 by actual count, have confessed to killing and 
 destroying their fruit. 
 
| 273 | 
 
 The midwife of Mademoiselle de Guerchi, 
 a woman named Constantin admitted that 
 the Iady had died in her house but denied 
 having given her any abortifacient. She said 
 she was told that the patient had taken 
 some medicine, but that when she first saw 
 her she was so very ill that there was nothing 
 to do but to try to alleviate her sufferings. 
 The Premier President and the lieutenant 
 criminel consulted Patin about the case. A 
 surgeon, named Le Large, was accused of 
 complicity, but managed to exculpate himself 
 though Patin thought his excuses very Iame. 
 The midwife was found guilty and hung at 
 the Croix du Trahoir, as Guy says en belle 
 companie. 
 
 The midwives were under regulation in 
 the sixteenth century, and their moral char- 
 acter as well as their professional qualifica- 
 tions were looked into very carefully. Patin 
 writes to Falconet (September 14, 1660) 
 that he had been appointed by the Premier 
 President to hold an examination for the 
 appointment of a midwife to the Hotel- 
 Dieu, not only to serve the patients there 
 but also to teach her profession in Its wards. 
 Thus the vast clinical material m the enor- 
 mous hospital was utilized for teaching pur- 
 poses at a time when clinical teaching was 
 
| 274 F 
 almost unknown elsewhere. Blondel, the 
 Dean of the Faculté de Médecine, officiated 
 with Patin at the examination, and a short 
 time afterwards they held another examina- 
 tion for the purpose of choosing a Iithoto- 
 mist to the Hotel-Dieu. 
 
 The clergy were as depraved as their 
 flocks. Their charges were openly bought 
 and sold, and those who had enough money 
 and influence would accumulate a number 
 of benefices which they shamelessly neglec- 
 ted except for the collection of the incomes 
 due from them. The lives of many of the 
 most prominent ecclesiastics were shock- 
 ingly immoral and fully justify the many 
 aspersions which Patin casts upon what he 
 sarcastically terms the sacred institution of 
 celibacy. The Jesuits though not so openly 
 immoral in their lives were ambitious and 
 constantly minglmg in political affairs. 
 The one bright spot im the religious life of 
 the time was afforded by the followers of 
 Jansen, the Port Royalists, and they 
 were looked upon with suspicion and hatred 
 by the authorities of the Roman Catholic 
 Church because of their alleged heterodoxy 
 but especially because of their open repro- 
 bation of the disorderly lives of their fellow 
 clergy and the earnest efforts which they 
 
| 275 | 
 made to purify the church. To the non- 
 medical student of the times, Patin’s letters 
 are full of mterest because of their con- 
 stant references to current events and to 
 the great personages who figured in them. 
 
 LOUIS XIV AND MEDICINE 
 
 Garrison’ directs attention to three ept- 
 sodes in the life of Louis x1v which had a 
 great effect on the medical profession in 
 France. In 1657 the King had an attack of 
 what was probably typhoid fever. His 
 recovery was attributed by many to the 
 antimony which was administered to him 
 by his physicians. The result was a great 
 increase in the vogue of antimony, so 
 much so that a few years later it was re- 
 stored to the official pharmacopceia. It is 
 needless to say that Patin did not agree in 
 this opmion. In his correspondence he 
 refers in a number of letters to the King’s 
 illness. He had been taken ill while with the 
 army and was conveyed from the camp in 
 Flanders to Calais. From contemporary 
 accounts there is but little doubt that his 
 illness was typhoid fever, although, of 
 course, that name was not given to it at that 
 
 7 Garrison, F. History of medicine, Introduction. 
 Philadelphia, 1921. 
 
| 276 | 
 
 time. He was very sick and consternation 
 prevailed throughout France. Prayers were 
 offered m all the churches, and Valot, 
 Guénault and Daquin were im constant 
 attendance at his bedside. “Here is a power- 
 ful Kmg of France in good hands! Would 
 you not say that charlatans are only 
 suffered and tolerated to maltreat princes!” 
 The Kimg recovered, and Patin writes 
 Spon that he has recetved an account of his 
 iIness from one who was with him: 
 
 I assure you that the King took only one 
 third of an ounce of vin émétique, because the 
 ounce had been put in three ounces of infusion 
 of cassia and senna, and inasmuch as the first 
 dose operated too much, he did not take the two 
 others, but it was necessary to bleed him, finding 
 him much worse and he has also been bled 
 many times since. So that the King does not 
 owe his recovery at all to this deathbearing 
 (mortifere) remedy. If the King had died one 
 would never cease to reproach them for having 
 poisoned him, and they put themselves in 
 great danger of such a reproach. 
 
 In spite of Patin’s judgment the great 
 majority of his subjects attributed the 
 King’s recovery to the “‘antimonialists”’ 
 and thought that their sovereign remedy 
 was the chief factor in the happy result. 
 
Ra Bead 
 
 The case certamly redounded to their 
 credit and greatly increased their reputation. 
 
 With the other two medical episodes in 
 the reign of Louis x1v, Patin’s correspon- 
 dence has no connection, but they are of so 
 much interest that I will briefly mention 
 them. In 1663 whenthe mistress of Louis x1v, 
 Louise de la Valliére, was confined she was 
 attended by Boucher, a man. This had 
 an immense influence in furthering the 
 cause of male midwifery. It is said that 
 Louis x1v watched the proceedings from 
 the concealment of some curtains. In 1686 
 the King suffered from an anal fistula of 
 which he was cured by an operation per- 
 formed by the surgeon, Félix. The happy 
 result brought about an mmmediate change 
 in the status of the French surgeons as 
 the King interested himself mm improving 
 it. It may be recalled as an mstance of 
 courtly servility that many of the courtiers, 
 although not suffering from any trouble of a 
 similar nature insisted on submitting them- 
 selves to a like operation in order to show 
 their submissive devotion to their royal 
 master, and that those who had not suffi- 
 cient nerve actually to subject themselves 
 to the dangers and discomforts of an 
 operation pretended to have done so and 
 
‘| 278 | 
 had dressings ostentatiously applied to 
 their anal region in order to deceive the 
 public. 
 
 Patin was a great admirer of Louis xiv 
 and in a letter to Falconet (August 26, 
 1667) he tells him with satisfaction that 
 the King realizing that many officers and 
 men in his army then campaigning in 
 Flanders lost their lives from lack of medical 
 care, had sent to Paris for three surgeons 
 to serve with the army. A physician was also 
 to accompany them to act as chief of the 
 medical service and to govern the hospital. 
 It should be recalled that at this epoch 
 there was no organized medical service with 
 the armies. The kings or great nobles who 
 went to war were accompanied by surgeons 
 just as in the time of Ambroise Paré. 
 
 PARIS AND THE COURT 
 
 Patin was born in 1601, he was therefore 
 a boy of eight when Henri tv was assassi- 
 nated by the monk, Ravaillac, at the instiga- 
 tion of the Jesuits, and his hatred of the 
 monks and Jesuits can be traced to the early 
 remembrance of the horror with which the 
 right-thinking people of France were in- 
 spired by it, and to the early influence of 
 the terror under which the Leaguers held 
 
‘| 279 F 
 France during the last quarter of the six- 
 teenth century. He came to Paris as a 
 young man and lived there until his death in 
 1672, never leaving the city except for a 
 few very short journeys. Although not one 
 of those courtly physicians who held lucra- 
 tive positions at Court about the person of 
 the King or some of the great nobles, the 
 “Letters” gives glimpses of the ailments 
 from which these grand people suffered. 
 In them he retails much gossip of their 
 doings and reflects the current opmions 
 about them. The death of Richelieu, closely 
 followed by that of Louis x111 m 1643, was a 
 matter of vital interest to so zealous a 
 guardian of the privileges of the Faculté 
 de Médecine, and the great hopes which 
 centered on Louis xiv, were shared by him 
 In common with all Frenchmen of the time. 
 The disorders incident to the Fronde, that 
 very disturbing family quarrel, figure at 
 length in his pages, interspersed with dis- 
 sertations on the newest books, or recent 
 acquisitions of fine editions of old ones for 
 his library. We would not expect, nor do 
 we find him taking any active part in the 
 stirring events which kept Paris m a tur- 
 moil throughout his life. He writes of them 
 as an interested spectator, manifesting 
 
‘| 280 
 
 ‘considerable partisanship in the expression 
 of his views but not precipitating himself 
 into the vortex. The longest letter of Patin 
 which we possess Is one written to Spon, 
 bearing dates on different days throughout 
 January, February and March, 1649, in 
 which he relates the events in the warfare 
 between the Parlement of Paris, and the 
 party of the Queen Mother and Mazarin, 
 whom he hated as much as he had his 
 predecessor, Richelieu. He writes with the 
 greatest freedom of all the great personages 
 who were mixed in it, and particularly 
 emphasizes the love of the Queen Mother, 
 Anne of Austria, for the Cardinal. To the 
 student of this epoch this letter is nvaluable 
 for its vivid word pictures and the excellent 
 summary it presents of the views of the 
 people of Paris, and their Parlement in their 
 memorable effort to overthrow the tyranny 
 of the Cardinal and his royal mistress. It 
 will be remembered that the Queen Mother 
 acting as regent for her son, Louis xiv, then 
 a mere boy had ordered the arrest of Blanc- 
 mesnil and Broussel, two of the most re- 
 spected members of the Parlement, and 
 especially respected for the stand they took 
 in opposition to Mazarin. At the news of 
 their arrest the citizens rose en masse: The 
 
‘| 281 | 
 
 Queen Mother, the young King, and Maz- 
 arin fled to St. Germain, and surrounding 
 the city with troops tried to reduce the 
 rebellious populace to their authority. The 
 Royal party patched up a reconciliation 
 between themselves and their former de- 
 clared enemy, the prince de Condé, and he 
 was given command of the royal troops. 
 The prince de Conti, Elboeuf and de 
 Longueville were the chief leaders of the 
 people’s party. 
 
 One of the noblemen who took the part 
 of the Parisians in their struggle against 
 the despotism of Mazarin was the duc de 
 Beaufort, son of the duc de Vendéme. The 
 Dames des Halles, or marketwomen of 
 Paris, played a prominent part in many of 
 the political disturbances in that city, and 
 during the Fronde they made themselves 
 conspicuous on the popular side. Patin 
 writes Spon (May 14, 1649) the following 
 curious particulars about the young Duke 
 and his female admirers: 
 
 They talk of nothing here but of M. le duc 
 de Beaufort, for whom the Parisians, and 
 particularly all the women, have a very special 
 devotion. As he was playing tennis in a resort 
 in the Marais du Temple, four days ago, most 
 of the women of the Halles (markets) went 
 
«| 282 le 
 
 by platoons to see him play and offered vows 
 for his prosperity. As they made a great tumult 
 to get in and those in the place complained 
 about it, it was necessary for him to quit play- 
 ing and come to the door to put them off. This 
 he could not do without permitting a small 
 number of the women to enter, one after the 
 other, to see him play. Seeing that one of the 
 women regarded him with amiability he said 
 to her: “Eh, my gossip, you wanted to come 
 in. What pleasure do you get in watching me 
 play and seeing me lose my money?” She 
 answered him at once, ‘‘Monsieur de Beaufort 
 play hardily, you will not want for money, 
 my commére who is here with me and I, have 
 brought you two hundred écus, and if more is 
 needed, I am ready to go back and seek as 
 much again.” All the other women commenced 
 to cry also that their money was at his service, 
 for which he thanked them. He was visited that 
 day by more than two thousand women. Two 
 days later, passing by Saint Eustache, a troop 
 of women commenced to cry to him: “Mon- 
 sieur, do not consent to marry the niece of 
 Mazarin, whatever M. de Vendédme does or 
 says to you. If he abandons you, you will lack 
 nothing. We will give you a pension every year 
 of sixty thousand livres in the Halles.” He has 
 proclaimed that if they persecute him at Court, 
 in order to be in safe keeping he would lodge 
 in the center of the markets, where more than 
 
| 283 | 
 
 twenty thousand women would guard him. 
 This event caused more amusement than fear, 
 but here is worse. This prince, aged thirty-two 
 years, having overheated himself, drank of 
 wine and beer, and suffered much pain in the 
 kidneys, during which time he also vomited 
 many times. When this was known in Paris, 
 the people believed he had been poisoned at 
 Mazarin’s order. His house was soon filled with 
 an infinity of men and women. Even M. de 
 Vendéme, his father, who is here now, believed 
 he had been poisoned, and when the physicians 
 assured him that he had not, he warned them 
 that the poison was Italian, and that the 
 Italians were subtler poisoners than the French. 
 But at length he is cured and the Italians are 
 cleared of that of which they were suspected. 
 
 The people suspected, not without reason, 
 that many of the nobility who acted as their 
 partisans and by virtue of their rank and 
 military experience commanded them in 
 their conflict with the regular troops also 
 served the Queen Mother and Mazarin. De 
 Longueville left Paris on an expedition into 
 Normandy to raise troops and to procure 
 provisions. He left with the Parisians, as 
 hostages, his wife and eldest son. Patin 
 tells how during his absence Madame de 
 Longueville gave birth to another son, who 
 was appropriately christened Charles Paris 
 
| 284 | 
 
 de Longueville, comte de Samt Paul, his 
 godparents being the provost of the mer- 
 chants, the president of the Parlement, and 
 four aldermen of the city of Paris. The 
 baby grew up and Madame de Sévigné 
 describes his death in 1672, when he was 
 killed on the banks of the Rhine as Louis 
 XIV’s army was entering Germany. 
 
 The mistrust of the people was justified 
 by the discovery that a number of persons 
 of high position who had remained in Paris 
 were acting as spies and conveying informa- 
 tion to the Mazarinists, as those who 
 surrounded the young King were termed by 
 the Frondeurs. Apropos of these spies 
 Patin writes to Spon (February 20, 1649): 
 “‘All these miserable hangdogs, men of 
 quality and dignity make themselves spies 
 for a foreigner, a trickster, a comedian; 
 sell and betray their country and take the 
 part of an Italian who is only good to be 
 chased from it.’”’ Patin says that if Mazarin 
 was compelled to flee from France he 
 would not be able to go to Rome because 
 the Pope was Pamphilio, and Mazarin had 
 caused the murder of anephew of thelatter’s, 
 which the uncle would promptly avenge. 
 If he fled to Venice, where he was said to 
 have accumulated money and goods in 
 
| 285 | 
 
 preparation for a rainy day, the Pope would 
 deprive him of his cardinalate and perhaps 
 have him assassinated. Patin says that those 
 who know him well think he would do 
 better to go to Turkey, have himself 
 circumcised, and trust to the mercy of the 
 Grand Turk and his mufti rather than to 
 that of the Pope, Cardinal Pamphilio, or 
 Cardinal Pancirol, another prelate who had 
 great influence with the Pope and was an 
 avowed enemy of Mazarin. Later when the 
 Court was at Samt Germain because of 
 the rebellious attitude of the people, Patin 
 says that many would like to march on 
 Saint Germain, bring the King and his 
 Mother back to Paris, and execute the 
 Cardinal on the Place de Ia Gréve: 
 
 This to be done as an example to posterity, 
 and to teach Italians not to come here and 
 place themselves so easily at Court, to the 
 desolation and total ruin of a flourishing king- 
 dom, as the Marquis d’Ancre wished to do in 
 other times, but together with his wife and his 
 followers in the end had made a bad bargain 
 of it. Please God for the welfare of France 
 that it was likewise with Mazarin. Helas! but 
 we would be fortunate. 
 
 The so-called war was conducted with 
 but little spirit by the military leaders on 
 
q 286 | 
 
 either side. The great Turenne lent his 
 support to the Parlement side but took no 
 very great part in the affair. There were 
 many skirmishes but no real battles, and 
 food seems to have been brought into Paris 
 in sufficient quantities to prevent any real 
 distress. Patin writes that he has “thank 
 God! flour, bread, and wheat sufficient for 
 more than a month for me and my family, 
 with wine, money, and provisions for a 
 much longer time, and though I am in a 
 blockaded city, half besieged, I have no 
 need nor want.” Finally a peace was con- 
 cluded, which although it gave temporary 
 satisfaction to the people yielded them no 
 permanent advantages. Patin’s letter inter- 
 mixes with his account of these events much 
 bibliographic gossip and medical news. 
 
 Patin describes to Spon (August 20, 
 1649) most graphically the return of the 
 Court to Paris, and the reconciliation that 
 ensued: 
 
 Finally the Queen Mother has returned to Paris 
 bringing with her the King, at the solicitation 
 of the two princes of the blood (duc d’Anjou 
 and the duc d’Orléans), although she had no 
 desire to do so, and Mazarin even less. He (the 
 King) arrived. here Friday, the 18th of this 
 month, at eight o’clock in the evening, in a great 
 
‘| 287 F 
 
 coach which was very full. Among those with 
 him in it were M. Ie duc d’Anjou, M. Ie duc 
 d’Orléans, M. le prince de Condé, and Mazarin, 
 who was so ashamed that he hid-himself so that 
 one could scarcely see him. There were also the 
 Queen Mother, Madame la duchesse d’Orléans, 
 Mademoiselle, and Madame, Ia princesse de 
 Condé, la douairiére, and the maréchal de 
 Villeroi. Many of the city companies marched in 
 advance. They entered by the rue Saint-Denis, 
 went the length of the street until beyond the 
 (Fountain of the) Innocents, then entered the 
 rue de la Ferronnerie (in which the late King 
 Henri tv was killed), and passing the entire 
 length of the rue Saint Honoré entered into the 
 Palais Cardinal, and all this journey was made 
 among so many acclamations and so much 
 joy of the people that there could not have been 
 more. I, who am talking to you, who naturally 
 hate ceremonies, seeing the great commotion 
 that there was in the city, and the joy of every- 
 body in it, was there also, and saw more kinds 
 of people in greater numbers than I ever saw 
 before. The Queen Mother said in the evening, 
 while supping at the Palais Cardinal, that she 
 had never believed that the people of Paris had 
 loved the King so much. 
 
 Patin took but Iittle delight m the gor- 
 geous spectacles in which the mhabitants 
 of Paris have from time immemorial taken 
 
| 288 | 
 
 so great a pleasure. Writing to Spon’ he tells 
 him of the entry into Paris of the ambassa- 
 dors of Poland who were sent to ask the 
 Princess Marie to become their Queen: 
 
 The entry was made with such pomp as one 
 has never seen the like. They entered by the 
 Porte Saint Honoré to the Hétel de Vendéme, 
 so that they had passed across Paris from end 
 to end, also they were seen by an infinite 
 number of people who ran in the morning to 
 hold their place on the streets whereby they 
 would pass. All that day I was very busy with 
 people who had not strength to quit their beds, 
 but I assure you that in the other streets where 
 they did not pass, there was so great a solitude, 
 that it seemed to me like a city deserted by 
 famine or pestilence, from which I pray God he 
 will preserve you and me. I could have gone out 
 to the Porte Saint Antoine, where I could have 
 seen everything easily, but I did not wish to take 
 the trouble. These public spectacles scarcely 
 touch me, they render me melancholy. I, who am 
 naturally joyous and gay, instead of rejoicing 
 in them as others do, when I see all this crowd, 
 pity the vanity of those who cause it. It is true 
 that these shows are not made for philosophers 
 of the humor and capacity of which I would 
 wish to be, but they are for the vulgar who are 
 dazzled by this éclat and pass the time more pleas- 
 
 2November 16, 1645. 
 
‘| 289 } 
 antly because of it. That day I was longer than 
 usual in my study and employed myself there 
 sufficiently well. My neighbors said I did very 
 wrong in not having been at the ceremony, and 
 that it was the most beautiful thing in the 
 world. They reproach me that I have too little 
 curiosity and too much melancholy, and I say 
 they are too wasteful of their time. I appeal to 
 you about it. If you condemn me I promise you 
 that the first time the Pope will come to Paris, 
 I will go expressly to the rue Saint-Jacques 
 ahead of him, where I will await him in a 
 bookseller’s in reading some books, and it will be 
 only to please you, because if King Solomon 
 with the Queen of Sheba made their entrée 
 in all their glory, I know not if I would quit my 
 books for them. My study pleases me far 
 otherwise, and I keep myself there more will- 
 ingly than in the most beautiful palace of Paris. 
 
 When Christina, Queen of Sweden, made 
 her visit to Paris in September, 1656, Patin 
 seems to have departed from his usual 
 custom for he writes to Charles Spon 
 (September 13, 1656): 
 
 The Queen of Sweden has made her entrée 
 into Paris, where she has been received with 
 great magnificence. She entered by torchlight. 
 It was nine o'clock in the evening when she 
 passed over the Pont Notre-Dame. I never saw 
 so many people as there were in the streets 
 
‘| 290 
 when she passed. She was on horseback, imme- 
 diately behind a beautiful dais that they carried 
 before her. She had on a red jacket, a perruque, 
 and a hat over her ear. 
 
 Perhaps Patin condescended to witness 
 her entrance because of her patronage of 
 learning. 
 
 Patin’s correspondence in 1660 is full of 
 the joy which was felt throughout France 
 at the marriage of Louis x1v with the Infanta 
 of Spain. It was believed that thereby the © 
 long and wearisome wars, both civil and 
 foreign, in which the country had been almost 
 continuously engaged since the death of 
 Henri tv would be terminated. Nevertheless 
 Patin growls at the tumult which agitated 
 Paris on the occasion of the entry into the 
 capital of the young King with his bride. 
 Guy even meditated a temporary sojourn 
 away from his beloved city. He writes 
 Falconet (August 20, 1660): 
 
 We have here nothing but the noise of drums, 
 and of soldiers, and I believe, until the féte ts 
 over we shall not have better times. I have some 
 Latin to do, which is commenced but cannot be 
 finished in this noise. I would be at Lyons with 
 you for a week; we could converse together, 
 inter privatos partetes, of many things quae 
 litters non consignantur, and after the tumult 
 
‘| 291 F 
 
 had lessened here, I would return by Roanne to 
 Orleans by the Loire. . . . Our profession 
 makes slaves of us. I shall never have any 
 repose until I shall be buried and then they can 
 make an epitaph for me similar to that of the 
 Maréchal of France, named Trivulee, a Milan- 
 ese, who lies buried in the Church of Saint- 
 Nazaire at Milan, bic quiescit qui numquam 
 guievit (here rests one who until now never 
 rested). I have menaced my son, Charles, with it, 
 who is always studying and never rests. 
 
 Five days later Pati writes Falconet 
 that he had been one of those who officially 
 represented the University of Paris at the 
 formal entry of the King and his bride. The 
 various faculties assembled at five o’clock in 
 the morning at the Church of the Mathurins 
 in their official robes and headed by the rec- 
 tor, who had to deliver a formal address to 
 the King, marched to the place assigned 
 to them in the faubourg Saint-Antoine. 
 “There were thirty-eight doctors of medi- 
 cine in their red robes, who were much 
 gazed at,” says Patin with evident pride. 
 
 Even an ordinary journey of the court 
 must have constituted a wonderful spec- 
 tacle. Patin® records that when Louis xiv 
 went to Dion the royal party traveled in 
 
 ® Letter to Falconet, October 25, 1658. 
 
‘| 292 } 
 one hundred and.ten carrosses each drawn 
 by six horses, besides which there were the 
 saddle horses and those which carried the 
 luggage. 
 
 Anne of Austria, mother of Louis x1v, died 
 of a cancer of the breast on January 20, 
 1666. She had been ill for a long time and 
 Patin’s letters contain many references to 
 the various charlatans who were called in 
 to try their remedies on her during the 
 last year of her life. In spite of the fact that 
 she manifested friendship for Mazarin, 
 Patin speaks with admiration of her man- 
 agement of affairs during the minority of 
 her son. Readers of Dumas will find inter- 
 esting the references made by Patin to the 
 trial and disgrace of Fouquet, and to many 
 of the other characters who figure in the 
 immortal pages of that writer of romance. 
 
 Patin sympathized with Fouquet. In his 
 Letters written during the period of his 
 trial he retails much information throwing 
 light on the sentiments of his contem- 
 poraries. Fouquet was tried before twenty- 
 two judges, nine of whom voted for his 
 death,.the balance for perpetual banish- 
 ment. Patin thought the King wished him 
 to receive the death penalty. Be that as it 
 may, the sentence was finally changed into 
 
‘| 293 } 
 
 imprisonment for life. In 1664 he was 
 sent to Pignerol, where he was closely 
 confined until his death in 1680. At the trial 
 of the Maréchal de Marillac in 1632, 
 Fouquet was the only one of his judges 
 who was brave enough to withstand the 
 desires of Richelieu and vote against the 
 infliction of the death penalty. He thus 
 meurred the great Cardinal’s displeasure 
 and only received the highest charges of the 
 state during the regime of Mazarin. It is 
 interesting that when he was himself in 
 peril of his life he also was fortunate in 
 finding those who bravely withstood the 
 wishes of Louis x1v. His chief defenders 
 at the trial were d’Ormesson and de 
 Roquesant. Patin hints in a letter to 
 Falconet (December 21, 1664) that Fou- 
 quet might be poisoned im his prison: 
 
 When one is within four walls one does not 
 eat what he wishes or sometimes eats more 
 than he wishes; and, moreover Pignerol pro- 
 duces truffles and mushrooms. Sometimes they 
 mix with them sauces which are dangerous for 
 us French, when they are served by Italians. 
 That which is good is that the King has never 
 caused anyone to be poisoned, and has an up- 
 right and generous soul, but can one say as 
 much for those who govern under his authority. 
 
| 204 | 
 
 Monsieur de Ia Roquesant was exiled into 
 Brittany because of his brave defense of 
 Fouquet. He was allowed to return to 
 Paris in 1667, and Patin showed his appre- 
 ciation of his honorable behavior by 
 refusing to take a fee when called in to 
 attend him. 
 
 Patin writes to Falconet (June 22, 
 1660) the followmg amusing account of a 
 little trip that he and his wife made to 
 Saint-Denis with his son, Robert, and his 
 bride: 
 
 Will you pardon me, Monsieur, if I write 
 you of the debauch I made today, Tuesday, 
 June 22nd? I let myself be taken by my wife 
 and our two newly wedded ones to Saint- 
 Denis, where I saw the fair, which was a poor 
 thing. The church is beautiful but a little dark. 
 In the treasury there are many toys and foolish 
 things, pro more gentis. At the tombs of the 
 kings I could not refrain from weeping, seeing 
 sO many monuments of the vanity of human 
 life. Some tears escaped me, likewise, at the 
 grave of the great and good King Francois 1, 
 who founded our Royal College. It is necessary 
 that I confess to you my weakness, I even 
 kissed it and that of his father-in-law Louis x11, 
 who was the father of his people and the best 
 king we ever had in France. There are no 
 tombs erected as yet for the Bourbons. . . . 
 
| 205 F 
 
 In the choir, on the right hand, beneath the 
 grand altar, they have put during the last few 
 days the duc d’Orléans, who died at Blois, 
 February 2nd, on the seventh day of a con- 
 tinued fever, with a fluxion of the chest and 
 four doses of vin émétique, of which Guénault 
 ordered the three last, saying it was the true 
 method of curing him. . . . My wife was 
 ravished with these bagatelles, and took for so 
 many truths the little tales which were told 
 her by a monk authorizing them with his wand. 
 I was already informed of these foolishnesses 
 when I was at Saint-Denis at the funeral of 
 King Louis x11, with our Dean, M. de la 
 Vigne, in 1642. 
 
 PUBLIC EXECUTIONS 
 
 Although Patin does not seem to have 
 been possessed by the same morbid desires 
 which led Charles Selwyn to attend, on 
 every possible occasion, the executions of 
 criminals; he nevertheless seems to have 
 had a keen relish for the details of such 
 events, and in his letters we find descrip- 
 tions of terrible crimes and often much 
 more terrible punishments interspersed with 
 grave dissertations on professional . topics 
 or tranquil recitals of bibliographic data. 
 Pic, though not attempting any explana- 
 
‘| 296 | 
 
 tion, points out that mention of executions 
 and crimes are comparatively rare in Patin’s 
 correspondence until the year 1654 from 
 which time they increase ad nauseam. 
 
 Thus he writes to Spon, on repeated 
 occasions of the murder of a valet de chambre 
 in the house of the duc d’Orléans in Paris, 
 and of the subsequent execution of two men 
 and a woman for the crime. The woman 
 was hanged but the two men were broken 
 alive on the wheel and old Guy recites 
 with vivacity their sufferings before death 
 kindly termmated them. On one occasion 
 he writes of an execution which must have 
 given him a thrill of exultation: 
 
 At five o'clock yesterday, at the gate of 
 Paris, they hung a chemist (who called himself 
 a Provencal gentleman) for forgery. He was 
 from Avignon. He said he prepared his antimony 
 in furnaces where he made the false money. 
 He was caught in the act and has been hanged 
 from the end of a beam. 
 
 The joy at seeing an antimonialist being 
 hung for counterfeiting must have been 
 great to Guy. 
 
 He writes Spon (May 19, 1648) that “on 
 that day they had broken on the wheel two 
 
‘| 207 
 highwaymen, one of whom confessed that 
 he killed more than thirty men.” 
 
 Patin was filled with an unholy joy 
 whenever an ecclesiastic was found guilty 
 of any criminality and his letters contain 
 many references to such cases, accompanied 
 by comments such as he writes in telling 
 Belin, fils (May 7, 1660) of a priest who 
 was hanged and burned on the preceding 
 Tuesday, “who was a bad rascal . 
 There are two others yet in the Chatelet 
 who are no better . . . The holy and 
 sacred celibacy of priests fills the world with 
 prostitutes, cuckolds, and bastards.” 
 
 There was a Breton priest, Jean Cricant, 
 whose execution Patin in a letter to Charles 
 Spon (September 19, 1657) relates with 
 some exultation. This man had been secre- 
 tary and almoner to the bishop of Auxerre, 
 but had seduced a nun and brought her to 
 Paris, where he lived with her and gained 
 a scanty living by practicing quackery. 
 Patin had a patient with epilepsy to 
 whom he had told the truth, that his case 
 was incurable. The ex-priest promised to 
 cure him by means of certain pills. The 
 remedy made the poor patient worse and 
 he brought suit against the quack to recover 
 the money he had paid him. He laid bare 
 
] 298 | 
 the evil life of the man, and consequently 
 the quack and the nun were brought to 
 trial for their immorality. The man was 
 hanged and burned at the Gréve, and the 
 nun was sent to the Madelonnettes. 
 
 On August 4, 1670, a young man, named 
 Pierre Sarrazin, attacked with a sword a 
 priest who was saying mass at Notre-Dame, 
 wounding him in two places. A few days 
 later Patin writes about the affair to 
 Falconet. He says he was a Huguenot of 
 Caen, and that he believes him to have been 
 out of his mind. Sarrazin was tried at once 
 and on the very next day was burnt at the 
 Gréve, after having first been paraded in 
 front of Notre-Dame. Patin says he gave 
 vent to no expressions of piety or religion, 
 nor of regret at dying. 
 
 To Falconet he writes (June 16, 1650) 
 of a robbery and murder committed by a 
 band of men of whom five had been cap- 
 tured and broken on the wheel, two were 
 yet In prison, and nine had escaped: 
 
 I am much vexed that they have not the nine 
 others, in order that they should undergo the 
 punishment they merit. Is not the devil un- 
 chained in Christendom that such crimes are 
 committed by such men in the center of Paris? 
 Do they do worse in Turkey, where they do not 
 
‘| 200 F 
 preach the Evangel of the Messiah, and where 
 there are no monks? As for me, I believe the 
 end of the world will come soon when I see so 
 many iniquities. 
 
 He tells Spon (January 11, 1655): “They 
 have just broken alive at the Croix du 
 Trahoir a wicked hangdog and great thief 
 named Delussel, enfant de Paris, aged 
 twenty-eight years. I have never seen so 
 many people gathered on the streets of 
 Paris as there were to see him pass.” 
 
 Nevertheless, to yudge from the following, 
 Patin did not like the sickening sights which 
 were presented by the prisons of those days. 
 He writes to Spon (April 24, 1657) that a 
 young man had been tried for a theft at 
 the Chatelet, and sentenced to be hanged. 
 When the sentence was pronounced he fell 
 In an apoplexy. “Messieurs du Chatelet 
 asked me to go and see him, but I could 
 not decide to do it, the prison horriftes me 
 so much. I was once sickened for three 
 months by it and have not the heart to 
 return there.” 
 
 Writing to Belin, fils (October 8, 1655) 
 Patin tells him that during that week he 
 had made a public dissection, before a large 
 audience, of a woman twenty-five years old 
 who had been executed for counterfeiting. 
 
‘| 300 F 
 DEMONIAC POSSESSION 
 
 During the seventeenth century in France 
 there was a great deal of discussion of the 
 subject of demoniacal possession, a subject 
 upon which Guy writes with great éclat and 
 with a remarkable modernity of judgment 
 and spirit. At the beginning of the century 
 Martha Brossier, had succeeded in achiev- 
 Ing great notoriety, pretending to be 
 possessed by a demon and to have the 
 power of exorcism. She seems to have been 
 a nervous, hysterical young woman who 
 traveled about France with her father using 
 her psychopathy as a means of procuring a 
 livelihood. She fmally came to Paris and 
 displayed her occult phenomena, particu- 
 larly at the Church of Sainte Genevieve. 
 The Bishop of Paris appointed a commis- 
 sion of physicians to examine her, and they 
 reported that she was a neurasthenic and 
 a fraud, and that they could find no evi- 
 dence of any supernatural agency in her 
 acts. The Parlement of Paris finally 
 ordered her imprisoned. She was released 
 and taken to Rome by a couple of 
 ecclesiastics who hoped to exploit her for 
 their benefit on that particularly favorable 
 soil, but the cardinal d’Ossat, having 
 
‘| 301 | 
 
 heard of her previous career cut short their 
 project by causing her to be imprisoned 
 m a convent. Simon Pietre wrote a 
 treatise on the Brossier woman which 
 he published under the name of Michel 
 Marescot in which he showed the falsity of 
 her claims. 
 
 Another famous case of supposed de- 
 moniac possession was that of Urbain 
 Grandier, curé of the Church of St. Peter 
 at Loudun, executed in 1634 as a sorcerer, 
 and in support of whose claim to super- 
 natural powers many books were written. 
 Guy, in a letter to Spon (November 16, 
 1643), says that his execution was brought 
 about by the malice of Cardinal Richelieu, 
 concerning whom Grandier had published a 
 libellous pamphlet. 
 
 Patin!® relates the end of the son of 
 Laubardemont, the maitre des requétes who 
 presided at the trial of Grandier: 
 
 The ninth of this month, at nine in the 
 evening, a carosse was attacked by robbers. 
 The noise caused the citizens to run forth from 
 their houses, as much perhaps from curiosity 
 as from charity. There was firing on one part 
 and on the other. 
 
 10 etter to Falconet, December 22, 1651. 
 
{ 302 
 
 One of the robbers was stretched on the pave- 
 ment and a lackey of theirs arrested, the rest 
 ran away. The wounded man died the next 
 morning without making any statement, not 
 complaining or stating who he was. At last he 
 was identified. They know that he was the son 
 of the maitre des requétes, named Laubarde- 
 mont, who condemned to death in 1639 the 
 poor curé Urbain Grandier, and had him burned 
 alive, under the charge of having sent the devil 
 into the society of the nuns of Loudun, whom 
 they taught to dance in order to persuade the 
 foolish that they were possessed by the devil. 
 Is not this a divine punishment in the family of 
 this unfortunate judge, to expiate, in some 
 sort the cruel death of that poor priest, whose 
 blood cries for vengeance. 
 
 Readers of Alfred de Vigny’s celebrated 
 romance “‘Cing Mars” will recall the very 
 different ending of Laubardemont’s son 
 in that book. Otherwise de Vigny’s story 
 of the Grandier affair is very close to the 
 facts as we know them, with the exception 
 of the insanity of the nun, which is not 
 recorded im history. Patin had a friend who 
 was closely concerned in the scandal, 
 namely, Claude Quillet, who was one of the 
 curious characters of the time. After prac- 
 ticing medicine with considerable success 
 he became a priest: 
 
| 303 | 
 
 Born at Chinon in 1602 he died at Paris 
 in 1661. He was summoned to Loudun 
 at the time of the outbreak of hysteria 
 among the nuns to assist at their examina- 
 tion. Later when some of the nuns at Chinon 
 attempted a somewhat similar hysterical 
 manifestation Quillet wrote some satirical 
 verses in Latin about them. These offended 
 Cardmal Mazarin and Quillet found it wise 
 to join the suite of the Marechal d’Estrees, 
 the French ambassador at Rome, and 
 remain for a time in voluntary exile. 
 
 While at Rome Quillet composed his 
 famous poem “Callipaedia, or the Art of 
 making Beautiful Children,’ which was 
 published at Leiden in 1655. It enjoyed 
 great popularity and was translated mto 
 French and English. 
 
 Patin says he often talked with him and 
 found him both witty and wise. 
 
 Patin in a letter to Charles Spon (June 
 14, 1657) tells of visiting a patient one 
 evening at whose house he found a choice 
 - gathering of wits and literary men, includ- 
 ing M. de Montmaur, Marolles, Sorel, the 
 author of Francgion and of the Berger 
 Extravagant, and the Abbé Quillet. He 
 says that many good things were said, 
 “about the pope, cardinals, and monks”’ 
 
[ 304 | 
 and he sends Spon a copy of a verse which 
 one of the company retailed: | 
 
 O la belle fiction, 
 
 O la rare invection 
 
 Que ce feu du purgatoire! 
 
 Le pape n’était pas sot, 
 
 Qui nous donna cette histoire 
 Pour faire bouillir son pot. 
 
 They had a mutual friend in Gassendi, 
 at whose house they must have frequently 
 encountered one another. Patin says the 
 Abbé (he was usually known by his eccle- 
 siastical, not his medical title) was “a 
 great red fellow with a short neck.” 
 
 In de Vigny’s novel the Abbé Quillet 
 figures as the hero’s tutor. He is repre- 
 sented as actually taking the part of 
 Urbain Grandier. 
 
 Patin states that in all these possessions 
 modernes those concerned are always women 
 or girls, bigots or nuns, priests or monks, 
 and that it is not a devil of hell that is 
 responsible for them but a devil of the flesh, 
 engendered by the holy and sacred celibacy, 
 or it is rather hysteromania than a true 
 demonomania. He accuses the monks of 
 having favored such demonstrations in 
 order to increase the demand for holy 
 water, otherwise greatly diminished by the 
 
‘| 305 F 
 writings of Luther and Calvin. He adds as 
 proof that one sees no such cases in Holland, 
 Germany or England, where there are but 
 few monks and priests. The best of all 
 writings on the subject he thinks ts the book 
 by Johan W. Weyer, John Wier or Joannes 
 Wierus, “‘De praestigiis daemonum,” but 
 Guy gives a long sort of catalogue raisonné of 
 books on the subject, by which it is plain to 
 see he had devoted considerable time to the 
 study of the literature of the matter. He 
 refers among others to the writings of 
 Bodineau, Caesalpius, Charpentier or Car- 
 pentarius, Duncan, Riolan and Pietre. He 
 
 adds: 
 
 A certain Thyrocus, a German loyolite 
 (Jesuit) has written much on this business, but 
 there is nothing of value im all that he has 
 written. You would say that these master monks 
 had assumed the task of making known the 
 devil, and showing his claws to the world, in 
 order that one would have recourse to their 
 spiritual toys and holy grains. 
 
 It is curious to compare the views of 
 Patin on the subject of witchcraft with 
 those of his English contemporary, Sir 
 Thomas Browne. 
 
 Besides the works of Sir Thomas Browne, 
 Patm was familiar with those of other 
 
‘| 306 | 
 
 English authors. Writing to Belin, fils, 
 (October 28, 1658) he says: “Bacon was a 
 chancellor of England who died in 1626, 
 and was a great personage, a mind curious 
 and elevated. All that he wrote is good.” 
 
 Saumaise, the literary antagonist of Mil- 
 ton, was a friend of Patin’s who refers to 
 his book against Milton. Patin speaks of 
 him as l’excellent et l’incomparable personage. 
 
 In one of his Ietters!! Patin excites our 
 curiosity by telling Spon of a wonderful 
 invention by an Englishman, the son of a 
 Frenchman, which is able to run a coach 
 from Paris to Fontainebleau, “without 
 horses by wonderful springs. They say this 
 new machine ts being prepared in the Tem- 
 ple. If the design succeeds it will save much 
 hay and oats, which are of an extreme 
 dearness.”” 
 
 LAST DAYS 
 
 Concerning the Iast years of Guy Patin’s 
 life we have but little information. After 
 the Faculté de Médecine, March, 1660, had 
 solemnly declared its approval of antimony, 
 Patin seems to have lost his interest in Its 
 affairs, or at least to have retired from active 
 participation in them. Of one hundred and 
 
 11'To Spon, January 20, 1645. 
 
‘| 307 | 
 
 two of its members, ninety-two had voted in 
 favor of the repeal of the decree against it. 
 It must have been a bitter blow to the old 
 man when the institution, of whose fame and 
 interests he had been such a zealous parti- 
 zan, declared itself so decisively in opposi- 
 tion to his cherished prejudice. He con- 
 tinued his correspondence with his friends 
 in Lyons but the tone of the letters is even 
 more embittered than in earlier years, and 
 the depression of his spirits is marked. The 
 death of his eldest son, the exile of Charles, 
 and the triumph of his professional rivals 
 all depressed and worried his advancing 
 years. The last letter of Patin in the collec- 
 tion published by Reveillé-Parise is dated 
 January 22, 1672. He died a little over two 
 months later, March 30, 1672. Nothing ts 
 known of the nature of his last ilIness. He 
 was buried on April 1, 1672, in the Church 
 of St.-Germain I’Auxerrois, at eleven o’clock 
 in the morning. 
 
| 308 | 
 
 (1161 ‘stueg Suljeg And :olg oliolg wor) 
 TIVYANNY SNILVG OL NOILVLIAN] 
 
 ‘sipunjoid 9q UA 
 
 std AMI 4S Modanonoag $ sauLoCy sv] Sauungus viof j1 n0'affioz 
 10d vf SIOMIXUDT] UIVUMIa 1uIV9 fq 7 ua usqou up safrooad 
 sauneg IUD” ELIT [coy p snot daiutond Apaspua y vaso} af now 
 gain up ayvaagD mp gis uofivd v| ua spar ‘sily y P eve Wp 
 AY nm +f 9) ud juadoy AnaBOCT << 2uvL] ap jrhoy anny 7 uv 
 hoy up anafrfoug Q anager] upeprypy sapiafuor Bs - oe 
 ‘uty J MAD) , Wy seamoy ayqou gun flap ap suauiadsayy if bs aN ee 
 2 antes honouoy uv soyfsfo p zoud say of olf Ee 
 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES 
 
 The following ts a list of the most important 
 material bearing on Guy Patin, which has been used 
 in the present study: 
 
 CaspareEtT. Un docteur bibliophile condamné aux 
 galéres perpétuelles. Gaz. d. hop. Par., 1854, xxviii, 
 93. [An interesting account of Charles Patin.] 
 
 CHEREAU, A. Quelques lettres médites de Guy 
 Patin. Union Méd., Patin, 1876, 3rd ser., xxi, 949; 
 XXII, 12; 49; 129; 165; 237; 300; 381; 453; 533; 
 621; 697. [Under the numbers 9347 and 9358 du 
 fonds francais in the department of manuscripts 
 the Bibliothéque nationale possesses two portfolios 
 of original letters of Guy Patin. These number 
 342, and were written between 1630 and 1670, 117 
 are addressed to the Belins of Troyes, 169 to 
 Charles Spon of Lyons, and fifty-four to the Salins, 
 father and son who practiced at Beauvais, one to 
 Bachey, a physician of Beaume, and one to the son 
 of Claude Saumaise. Besides these letters in the 
 Bibliothéque nationale, Reveillé-Parise published 
 478 letters written by Patin to Falconet of Lyons. 
 At the date when Chereau wrote (1876) it was not 
 known where the originals were to be found. 
 Chereau also states that from time to time unpub- 
 lished letters of Guy Patin’s are found in private 
 collections or offered at public sales. They are 
 regarded as rarities and bring high prices. Chereau 
 
 | 309 | 
 
{310 
 
 publishes thirty-three letters m the course of these 
 
 articles in the Union Médicale.] 
 
 CuHEREAU, A. Bibliographie Patiniana—Catalogue 
 chronologique, analytique et explicatif des ouv- 
 rages composés par Guy Patin, et de ceux a la 
 publication desquels il a contribué. Gaz. bebd. de 
 méd. et dechir., Par., 1879, 2nd ser., xvi, 549; 
 565; 481. [After commenting on the curious 
 fact that Patin’s real literary output was so small 
 compared with. his intense interest in all literary 
 matters, Chereau proceeds to list his writings as 
 far as he had been able to identify them. 
 
 1. Cabinet des cantiques spirituels. Propres pour 
 élever ’Ame 4 Dieu, recueillis des plusieurs Péres 
 religieuses par G. P. B. Troisiéme part. A Paris, 
 chez Anthoine de Sommaville, au Palais, en la 
 galerie des Libraires, prés Ia Chancellerie. 1623. 
 Avec privilége du Roy. [One of the religious Canticles 
 in this book is signed with Patin’s initials and another 
 with those of his father.] 
 
 2. Théses written by Patin and disputed before 
 the Faculté de Médecine de Paris. 
 
 A. First thése quodlibétarre; December 19, 1624: 
 Estne feminae in virum mutatio advvaros? Is the 
 transformation of a woman into a man impossible? 
 [Concluded in the affirmative.] 
 
 B. Second thése quodlibétaire; November 27, 
 1625: An praegnanti periculose laboranti abortus? 
 [Concluded in the affirmative.] 
 
 C. Thése quodlibétaire proposed by George 
 Joudounyn on December 16, 1627, but written by 
 Patin and presided at by the latter. It was entitled: 
 Ergo pntpopavia balneum? Are baths useful in utero- 
 mania? [Concluded in the affirmative.] 
 
Bhd 
 
 D. Patin presided again, December 17, 1643, at 
 the thesis of the bachelor, Paul Courtois, for whom 
 he not only chose the subject, but wrote the thesis 
 entitled: Estne totus homo d naturd morbus? Do all 
 the diseases of man come from nature? 
 
 E. March 14, 1647, Guy Patin presided at the 
 thése cardinale of Jean de Montigny. To the thesis 
 of Montigny, Patin added a disquisition of his own 
 entitled: Estne longae ac jucundae vitae tuta certaque 
 parens sobrietas? Is sobriety the most sure Mother of 
 a long and agreeable life? [This was the thesis which 
 got him into so much trouble with the apothecaries 
 because of the fury with which he attacked them and 
 their preparations. In it he said that antimony was 
 diabolicon inter remedia monstrum; vin émétique was 
 venenato stibio infectum; bezoar, idolum fatuorum; 
 theriac, compositio luxuriae; mithridatum, berbarum 
 deforme chaos; and confection of hyacinth and 
 alkermes were diamargaritum et Arabum pigmenta. 
 He said that these precious remedies were of no more 
 use to cure diseases than lime or cinders, and that 
 they were made by ignorant charlatans and birds 
 of prey. The Apothecaries brought a process against 
 him and it was in court on this occasion that he made 
 his own defence with an eloquence which won him 
 great applause and an acquittal.] 
 
 F. On December 8, 1670, Jean Cordelle read a 
 thesis entitled: Esitne sanguis per omnes corporis 
 venas et arterias jugiter circumfertur? Is the blood 
 carried without interruption by all the veins and 
 arteries of the body? [Patin defended the negative 
 side in a thesis which was published. Chereau 
 quotes a sample of the opprobrious language used 
 by Patin, and justly states that it affords a pathetic 
 
‘| 312 | 
 
 spectacle to find a man of Patin’s professional stand- 
 ing attempting to deny a fact which had been so 
 clearly proven forty-two years previously. ] 
 
 G. In 1671 Patin presided at another thése 
 cardinale of Jean Cordelle, and wrote for the occa- 
 sion a thesis against the use of theriac as a remedy 
 in pestilential fevers: Estne theriaca pestilenti febre 
 jactatis venenum? 
 
 3. In 1628 there was published an edition of: the 
 works of Ambroise Paré on the title-page of which 
 was the following statement: “Les oeuvres d’Am- 
 broise Paré . . . Reveués et corrigées en plusieurs 
 endroits, et augmentée d’un fort ample Traicté des 
 Fiebvres, tant en général, qu’en particulier, et de la 
 curation d’icelles, nouvellement trouvé dans les 
 manuscrits de l’autheur. Paris, Nicolas Buon, 1628.”’ 
 On November 4, 1631, Patin wrote to Belin: ““The 
 Paré of the last edition, wellbound, costs eight livres, 
 without rebate. It is augmented in this last impres- 
 sion by a new treatise on fevers, which has been 
 added at the end of the book, and is made bya physi- 
 cian intus et in cute mibi noto, without having put 
 his name to it.” [Chereau argues from the style of 
 the treatise that the anonymous author was no 
 other than Patin.] 
 
 4. In 1628 there was published at Paris an edition 
 of the works of André du Laurens, translated into 
 Latin from the French. The translator was. Guy 
 Patin and he also enriched the works of Henri Iv’s 
 famous physician with numerous notes. 
 
 5. Enchiridion anatomique, compile et dress en 
 bon ordre par M. Jean Vigier, corrigé et augmenté en 
 cette derniére edition (par Guy Patin). Paris, J. 
 Jost, 1630. [A small manual of anatomy.] 
 
| 313 | 
 
 6. Traité de:Ia conservation de Ja santé par un 
 bon régime a légitime usage des choses requises pour 
 bien et heureusement vivre. Paris, 1632. [This 
 treatise on popular hygiene was published as an 
 addendum to a work entitled ‘‘Le médecin charita- 
 ble” by Philibert Guybert. It first appeared in the 
 seventeenth edition of Guybert’s book with a sepa- 
 rate title page and pagination. The book was trans- 
 lated into Latin by G. Sauvagneon of Lyons and 
 published with the title ‘Medicus officiosus.”’] 
 
 7. In 1635 an edition of the works of de Baillou 
 was published at Paris, for which Patin compiled a 
 copious analytical table of contents. 
 
 8. In 1637 Patin edited an edition of the “Ora- 
 tiones et Praefationes”’ of Jean Passerat, which was 
 published at Paris. 
 
 9. In 1641 a syndicate of publishers of Paris pub- 
 lished the works of Daniel Sennert. [Patin had not 
 only stimulated them to the enterprise but edited 
 the book and wrote the preface. Sennert had died four 
 years previous to its publication.] 
 
 10. In 1614 Patin published a manuscript by P. 
 Chanet, a physician of Ia Rochelle entitled ‘‘Consi- 
 derations sur Ia sagesse de Charron.” [The author had 
 left the manuscript in Patin’s charge.] 
 
 11. Several pamphlets on behalf of the Faculté de 
 Médecine in its contest with Renaudot. [These were 
 anonymous but Chereau identified them by the 
 records of the Faculté, which show that Patin was 
 deputed to write them.] 
 
 12. In 1648 Charles Guillemeau sustained a thesis, 
 Estne bippocratica medendi methodus omnium certis- 
 sima, tutissima praestantissima? Is not the Hip- 
 pocratic method the most certain, surest, and most 
 
‘1 314 | 
 
 excellent to cure the sick? [When Guillemeau pub- 
 lished his thesis he asked Patin to add to it certain 
 “‘Observations”” and he did so, we may be sure, 
 with delight.] 
 
 13. In 1648 he supervised the publication of the 
 “Encheiridium anatomicum et pathologicum” of 
 Riolan, and in 1653 his “Opera anatomica vetera 
 recognita et auctiora.”’ [As Chereau says these are 
 the chief literary evidences of Patin’s interest in 
 anatomy, although in 1623 he was appointed Archi- 
 diacre of the schools of medicine in the University 
 of Paris, a position equivalent to that of chef des 
 travaux anatomiques, and in 1654 he was made Pro- 
 fessor of anatomy and botany in the Collége de 
 France.] 
 
 14. When Sauvagneon published the “Medicus 
 officiosus,” a Latin translation of the work of Phili- 
 bert Guybert with Patin’s “Traité de la conservation 
 de Ia santé,” he added to ita little treatise by Nicolas 
 Ellain entitled ‘‘Avis sur la peste.’’ At his request 
 Patin wrote a number of notes on Ellain’s work. 
 
 15. Sauvagneon also added to the ‘“‘Medicus 
 officiosus”’ a translation of a little treatise entitled, 
 “‘Quelques notes sur un livre de Galien: ‘De missione 
 sanguinis,’ livre traduit en francais et commenté par 
 Louis Savot.” To this he also got Patin to add some 
 notes and ‘observations. 
 
 16. Gérard Denisot, who died in 1594, was not 
 only a distinguished physician of the Faculté de 
 Médecine but also a poet. At his death his library 
 was purchased by an advocate named Joly. Among 
 its contents he found the ms. of an elegant poetic 
 version of the “Aphorisms” of Hippocrates in 
 Greek and French verse, written by Denisot. This 
 
ye 
 
 ms. Joly presented to the Faculté de Médecine, 
 accompanying the gift by a letter of presenta- 
 tion written in Greek. The gift was made during 
 the décanat ot Patin, in 1652. Patin translated 
 Joly’s letter into Latin and added to it some anno- 
 tations about Denisot. The letter m Greek with 
 Patin’s translation was published in 1656 in a book 
 entitled ‘“‘Divers opuscules tirés des Memoires 
 de M. Antoine Loysel . . . publies par Claude 
 Solyeee. + Par., 1656.” 
 
 17. In the “Elogia”’ of Papyre Masson, published 
 in 1656, those on Simon Pietre and Francois Miron 
 were written by Patin. 
 
 18. Van der Linden of Leiden dedicated the edi- 
 tion of Celsus, which he published in 1657, to Patin, 
 thanking him im the dedication for the great assis- 
 tance he had lent him in the work. [Chereau does 
 not state that Patin wrote any part of the book, but 
 says that he lent Van der Linden all the various 
 editions of Celsus which he possessed, many of them 
 enriched by ms. notes by Fernel, and other savants.] 
 
 19. A Jesuit priest wrote a life of Galen, “Vita 
 Claudii Galeni, Pergameni, medicorum principis, 
 expropriis operibus collecta, per R. P. Phil. Labbeum 
 . . . ad V. C. Guidonem Patinum .. . Paris 
 1660.” [How Patin came to be willing to publish 
 anything written by one of the Order he so heartily 
 detested is not explained, but the fact remains that 
 he did. Patin wrote Falconet (May 28, 1660): ““The 
 Father Phil. Labbe, a Jesuit, native of Bourges, has 
 made a little volume of the life of our Galen, all 
 taken from his works. He has given and dedicated it 
 to me in ms. I am going to have it printed m octavo, 
 and then we can send it to all our friends.”’] 
 
‘| 316 & 
 
 20. Patin contributed many valuable notes and 
 additions to the third edition of “‘La bibliographie 
 médicale de Van der Linden,”’ published at Amster- 
 dam in 1662. 
 
 21. Patin was a great admirer of Gaspard Hoff- 
 mann. [When Hoffmann died, in 1648, he left an 
 unpublished ms. which Patin purchased from his 
 daughter for fifty écus. Although he got the ms. 
 in 1649 Patin did not succeed in getting it pub- 
 lished until eighteen years later, when it appeared 
 with the title, “Apologia pro Galeno, sive xphZto 
 maéeiQn libri duo. ex bibliotheca Guidonis Patini.’’] 
 Foucart. Gaz. d. bop. Par., 1847, 28., 1x, 403. [A 
 
 short account of his life with no originality.] 
 
 Monrtanlier, H. Gaz. d. bop. Par., 1864, xxxvil, 93; 
 101; 113. [Gives an outline of his biography from 
 the ordinary sources, and reviews many of his 
 idiosyncrasies.] 
 
 PaTin, CHARLES. Lyceum Patavinum, sive Icones 
 et vitae professorum Patavii MDCL, xxxil, 
 publice docentium. Pars trios, theologos, philoso- 
 phos et medicos complectens. Patavil, 1682. 
 
 Pic, PrERRE. Guy Patin, avec 74 portraits ou docu- 
 ments, Paris, G. Steinheil, Editeur, 1911. 
 
 Lettres choisies de feu Mr. Guy Patin, Docteur 
 en médecine de Ia Faculté de Paris, & Professeur 
 au Collége Royal. Dans Iesquelles sont contenués 
 plusieurs particularités historiques sur la vie & 
 la mort des scavans de ce siécle, sur leurs écrits & 
 plusieurs autres choses curieux depuis I’an 1645 
 jusque 1672. Augmentées de plus de 300 lettres 
 dans cette derniére édition; et divisées en trois 
 volumes; volume 1, A Cologne, chez Pierre du 
 Laurens. MDCXCL. 
 
ony 
 
 REVEILLE-ParisE, J. H. Lettres de Guy Patin, 
 nouvelle édition augmentée de lettres inédites, 
 précédée d’un notice biographique, accompagnée 
 de remarques scientifiques, historiques, philoso- 
 phiques et littéraires, avec un portrait et le fac- 
 simile de l’écriture de Gui Patin, 3 vols. Paris, J. 
 B. Balliére, 1846. 
 
 St. LupGere, Moreau DE. Gaz. d. bop. Par., 18309, 
 and ser., 1, 293. [Brief résumé of Patin’s life and 
 opinions of no originality.] 
 
 TRIAIRE, PAu. Lettres de Guy Patin, 1630-1672, 
 nouvelle édition collationnée sur les manuscrits 
 autographes, publiée avec I[’addition des lettres 
 inédites, Ia restauration des textes retranchés ou 
 altérés, et des notes biographiques, bibliograph- 
 Iques, et historiques. Paris, Librairie Honoré 
 Champion, 1907. [Only one volume has been pub- 
 lished of this which promises to be the most com- 
 plete and scholarly of all the editions of Patin’s 
 letters. | 
 

 
INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 
 
 Adam, 90 
 Addée, 254 
 Ader, Guilbert, 149 
 Aesop, 81 
 Agrippa, 179 
 d’Aiguillon, duchesse, see de Vignerot, M. 
 Akakia, Martin, 57 
 Akakia (Sans-Malice) (family), 57 
 Alain, 248 
 Alaric, 141 
 Alleman, Albert, 49 
 Altius, see Hautin, J. 
 Alva, duke of, 158 
 Amory (bishop of Coutances), 170, 213 
 d’Ancre, marquis, 108, 283 
 Andromachus, 145 
 d’Anjou, duc, 263, 284, 285 
 Anne of Austria, 3, 9, 15, 65, 69, 214, 217, 261, 264, 278, 
 290 
 Antoine, Cardinal, 170 
 Apuleius, 150 
 Arbinet, Daniel, 54 
 d’Arc, Jeanne, 97 
 Aristotle, 91, 101, 107 
 Arnauld, 79, 83, 182 
 Artaméne, 141 
 Artémius, 230 
 Arundel, duke of, 142 
 Auvergnat, 148 
 d’Auxy, G., 27 
 d’Avaux, 205, 206 
 Avenzoar, 103 
 Avicenna, 103 
 319 
 
[ 320 | 
 
 Bacon, 88, 304 
 
 Bachey, 307 
 
 de Bagny, 92 
 
 Bahis, 228 
 
 Baillou, 201, 311 
 
 Balliére, J. B., 315 
 
 Baralis, 160, 216, 248 
 
 Barberini, 92 
 
 Barré, Catherine, 118 
 
 Bartholin, T., xvi, 143 
 
 Bartholo, 248 
 
 Bassompierre, 8 
 
 Bauhin, Gaspard, xvi, 74 
 
 Bayle, vill, 29, 127, 203, 269 
 
 Bazin, 80 
 
 Beaufort, duc de, 11, 265, 279, 280 
 
 Beauvaires, 155 
 
 Beda, Eli (des Fougerais), 155, 206, 223, 224, 227, 228 
 
 Belin, Claude, 100, 101, 106 
 
 Belin, Claude 1 (pére), x, xvi, 48, 50, 54, 58, 62, 70, 73, 75s 77+ 
 79; 81, 90, 93, 100, 112, 122, 136, 137, 144, 147, 187, 190, 
 196, 201, 222, 235, 237, 246, 249, 260, 307, 310 
 
 Belin, Claude 11 (fils), x, xvi, 48, 50, 52, 54, 70, 74, 80, 88, 95, 
 100, 101, 118, 145, 166, 173, 200, 236, 250, 257, 261, 295, 
 297, 304 
 
 de Bellay, 51 
 
 de Bergerac, Cyrano, 185 
 
 Beza, 81 
 
 Bichat, 231 
 
 de Biron (the maréchal), 108 
 
 Blancmesnil, 10, 278 
 
 Blondel, 204, 272 
 
 Bodin, 86 
 
 Bodineau, 303 
 
 de Ie Boé, Franciscus (Sylvius), 101, 104, 105, 200, 220 
 
 Boileau, 227 
 
 Bolduc, 149 
 
 Borelli, 104 
 
 Bossuet, 22 
 
 Boucher, 275 
 
4] 321 | 
 
 de Bouillon, 11 
 
 Boujonier, 248 
 
 Bourbon, Nicolas, xvii, xviii, 201 
 
 Bourbon (family), 292 
 
 Bourdelot, Edmund, 213 
 
 Bourdelot, Pierre Michon, 212, 213 
 
 de Bourges, 34 
 
 de Bourze, Abbé, 130 
 
 de Bouteville, 7 
 
 Bouvard, Charles (du Chemin), 56, 68, 85, 189, 214, 215, 233, 
 248 
 
 de Bragelonne, Viconte, 17 
 
 Brayer, 205, 248 
 
 Brissot, Pierre, 236 
 
 de Ia Brosse, Guy, 191, 222 
 
 Brossier, Martha, 298, 299 
 
 Broussel, 10, 278 
 
 Browne, Sir Thomas, 87, 303 
 
 Buchanan, 52 
 
 Bude, Guillaume, 172 
 
 Buon, Nicolas, 310 
 
 Bussy-Rabutin, 127 
 
 Cabaret, 307 
 
 Caesalpinus, 303 
 
 Caius, John, 158 
 
 Calvin, 80, 81, 303 
 Campanella, 52 
 Carpentarius, see Charpentier. 
 Casaubon, 51, 52, 75 
 Catullus, 150, 268 
 
 Cayas, 132 
 
 Celsus, 313 
 
 de Chalais, 6 
 
 de Ia Chambre, 59 
 
 Chanet, P., 311 
 
 Chapelain, 130 
 
 de Chapelle, 7 
 
 Charles, 199 
 
 Charles 1 (England), 67, 211 
 
[ 322 } 
 
 Charles 11 (England), 211 
 
 Charles 11 ( Spain), 21, 22 
 
 Charles v, 172 
 
 Charles vin, 148, 150 
 
 Charles 1x, 56, 57, 210 
 
 Charles x, 44 
 
 Charpentier (Carpentarius), xvi, 72, 171, 248, 303 
 
 Charron, P., 51, 52, 86, 311 
 
 Chartier, Jean, 53, 54, 155, 202, 203, 213 
 
 Chartier, Philippe, 213 
 
 Chartier, René, 104, 155, 213 
 
 Chartier (family), 213 
 
 de Charton, marquis, 10, 269 
 
 de Chaulnes, Mme., 258 
 
 Chereau, A., 109, 113, 119, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313 
 
 de Chevreuse, duchesse, 6 
 
 Choart, Mile., 160 
 
 Christina, 95, 99, 212, 267, 287 
 
 Cicero, 91, 251 
 
 Cing-Mars, 5, 8, 189, 259 
 
 Citois, 65 
 
 du Clédat, 155 
 
 Clément, Jacques, 108 
 
 Coconas, 267 
 
 Colbert, 18, 20, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130 
 
 Colot, Ph., 167, 168 
 
 Colot (cousin), 168 
 
 Colot (family), 167, 169, 239 
 
 de Comberville, 130 
 
 Concini, 2, 3, 4 
 
 Condé, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 197, 212, 216, 217, 264, 265, 
 270, 279, 285 
 
 Condé, princess de, 285 
 
 Constantin, 271 
 
 Conti, 11, 14, 15, 265, 270 
 
 Cordelle, Jean, 309, 310 
 
 Cordus, Valerius, 136 
 
 Corneille, viii, 232. 
 
 Cortaud, 202 
 
 Courtois, Paul, 192, 309 
 
1 323 
 
 Cousinot (2), 248 
 
 Cousinot, Jacques, 56, 64, 65, 233, 234, 248 
 Cramoisy, 140 
 
 Cramoisy (fréres), 141 
 
 Crassot, 52 
 
 Cresse, 231 
 
 Cricant, Jean, 295 
 
 Crollius, Oswald, 221, 235 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, 16, 67, 84 
 
 Cyrus, the grand, 141 
 
 Dame Quickly, 158 
 Danesius, 171 
 
 Daquin, A., 66, 227, 228, 274 
 David, 149 
 
 Davies, J., 92 
 
 Delalain, Paul, 53, 130 
 Delorme, Marion, 258 
 Delussel, 297 
 
 Denisot, Gérard, 312, 313 
 Desault, 231 
 
 Desfonandrés, 223, 227, 228 
 Digby, Sir Kenelm, 88, 221 
 Dodart, Denis, viii 
 Duchesne, Joseph (Quercetanus), 224 
 Dumas, 17, 290 
 
 Dumoulin, Pierre, 125 
 Duncan, 303 
 
 Duport, 52 
 
 Duprat, 172 
 
 Dupuytren, 231 
 
 Duret, Jean, 171, 201, 248 
 Duret, Louis, 101, 102, 106, 171, 200, 248 
 Duval, Guillaume, 62, 201 
 
 Elboeuf, 279 
 
 Ellain, Nicolas, 52, 312 
 Erasmus, $1, 52, 71, 74, 77, 86 
 Erastus, Thomas, 101 
 
 d’Esmery (Particelli), 9, 158, 206 
 
| 324 | 
 
 d’Espernon, 266 
 Esprit, 227, 228 
 d’Estouteville, 33 
 d’Estrees, 301 
 Eugéne, 23 
 
 Eve, 150 
 
 Evelyn, John, 92, 145 
 
 Fagon, 63 
 
 Falconet, André, xi, 28, 36, 40, 49, 50, 51, 55, 59, 68, 70, 71, 
 72, 76, 80, 89, 91, 93, 96, 98, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 117, 
 I1Q, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 129, 132, 135, 139, 144, 149, 
 153, 154, 159, 160, 163, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175s 
 179, 204, 208, 214, 217, 228, 220, 231, 232, aaecneeee 
 243, 244, 253, 255, 262, 266, 268, 270, 271, 276, 288, 
 289, 291, 292, 307, 313 
 
 Falconet, Camille, xii 
 
 Falconet, Charles, xi, 105 
 
 Falconet, Noél, xi, xii, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, III, 112 
 
 Félix, 275 
 
 Fernel, 51, 52, 60, 73, 91, 101, 102, 106, 110, III, 112, 163, 
 200, 209, 210, 211, 313 is 
 
 Figaro, 248 
 
 Fizes, 64 
 
 Foesius, 104 
 
 Fontenelle, viti 
 
 Forcoal, Abbé, 253, 254 
 
 Formy, xiv 
 
 Foucart, 314 
 
 des Fougerais, Eli Beda, see Beda, Eli. 
 
 Fouquet, 17, 18, 99, 125, 127, 130, 140, 158, 290, 291, 292 
 
 Framboisiére, 221 
 
 Franco, 238 
 
 Francois I, 171, 292 
 
 Galen, 30, 55, 76, 91, IOI, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 143, 149, 
 160, 163, 199, 201, 312, 313, 314 
 
 Galigai, Leonora, 2 
 
 Garrison, F. H., 273 
 
‘l 325 | 
 
 Garnier, 122, 259 
 
 Gassendi, 52, 93, 95, 150, 152, 176, 302 
 
 Gay, xvi 
 
 Gigeri, 125 
 
 Godeau (pére Grasse), 84, 86 
 
 de Gondi, Paul (de Retz), 10, 12, 15, 16 
 
 Gorens (elder), 201 
 
 de Gorris, 152, 155, 156, 173 
 
 Gourmelen, E., 57, 102, 201 
 
 Govin, 168 
 
 Grandier, Urbain, 299, 300, 302 
 
 de la Grange, 206 
 
 Grotius, $1, 52, 75 
 
 Guénault, 35, 59, 60, 66, 67, 80, 155, 179, 203, 206, 212, 217, 
 218, 227, 228, 274, 203 
 
 de Guercheville, Mme., 216 
 
 de Guerchi, Mile., 270, 271 
 
 Guillemeau, Charles, 59, 68, 163, 215, 248, 249, 311, 312 
 
 Guise (2), 108 
 
 de Guise, Henri, 26, 27 
 
 Guybert, Philippe or Philibert, 137, 311, 312 
 
 Gyrault, 168 
 
 Hamon, 85 
 
 Harvey, William, 29, 105, 142, 143 
 
 de Hauranne, Jean Duvergier (Saint Cyran), 83, 84 
 
 Hautin, Jean (Altinus), 78, 248 
 
 Heinsius, 51, 52 
 
 Heliot, Nic., 255 
 
 Henault, 164 
 
 Henri 11, 60, 108, 164 
 
 Henri 111, 1, 26, 27, 108, 210 
 
 Henri Iv, xi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 30, 44, 67, 79, 105, 108, 131, 
 161, 224, 276, 285, 288, 310 
 
 Henrietta Maria, 22, 67 
 
 Héroard, 68, 199, 215 
 
 Herodotus, 150 
 
 Heurnius, 101, 102 
 
 Hippocrates, xi, 30, 31, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 110, 113, 149, 
 160, 199, 213, 225, 236, 312 
 
| 326 
 
 Hobbes, Thomas, 89 
 
 Hoffmann, Gaspard, 74, 76, 101, 131, 142, 314 
 Hollier, 101, 102, 110, 113 
 
 Homer, 124 
 
 Horace, 91, 150 
 
 Horstius, 132 
 
 de Houdan, 27 
 
 Hureau, Germain, 54 
 
 Ignace, Pére, 90, 141, 172 
 
 James I, 211 
 
 Jansen, 83, 272 
 
 Javot, 167, 168 
 
 de Jeanson, Jean (Patin’s wife), 113 
 Job, 149 
 
 Johnson, Samuel, 246 
 
 Joly, Claude, 313 
 
 Jost, J., 310 
 
 Joubert, Laurent, 101, 200 
 Joudounyn, George, 36, 308 
 Juvenal, 91, 150 
 
 Labbé, R. P. Phil., 313 
 
 Laénnec, 231 
 
 La Fontaine, 18, 232 
 
 Lambert, Jean Baptiste, 252 
 Lamoignon, 73, 76, 124, 174, 218 
 
 La Mole, 267 
 
 Le Large, 271 
 
 Larrey, 231 
 
 Laubardemont, 299, 300 
 
 de Launay, 248 
 
 du Laurens, Andrée, 52, 79, 159, 310 
 du Laurens, Pierre, 315 
 
 Leclerc, J. Francois (Marquis de Tremblay, Pére Joseph), 184 
 Lefevre, 190 
 
 Lienard, 252, 253 
 
 Lipsius, Justus, 51, 52, 75, 86 
 
 Littré, 46 
 
‘| 327 F 
 
 de Longueville, 11, 14, 15, 279, 281 
 
 de Longueville, Charles Paris (comte de St. Paul), 281 
 
 de Longueville, Mme., 281 
 
 Lotichius, 132 
 
 Louis x11, 197 
 
 Louis x11, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 41, 56, 67, 68, 184, 199, 200, 212, 213, 
 Id, 218, 217, 222, 263, 277, 202,203 
 
 Louis xv, 1, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 41, 56, 63, 64, 65, 128, 
 190, 214, 222, 230, 231, 263, 267, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 
 282, 288, 289, 290, 291 
 
 Louis xv, 64 
 
 Louvois, 19 
 
 Loysel, Antoine, 313 
 
 Lucian, 107, 268 
 
 Luther, Martin, 164, 168, 303 
 
 de Luynes, 3, 4 
 
 Macroton, 217, 228 
 
 Mademoiselle, see d’Orléans, Mlle. 
 
 de Maintenon, Mme., 129 
 
 de Maisons, 205 
 
 Malgaigne, 78, 238 
 
 de Malherbe, 150 
 
 Malmedy, 147 
 
 Manessier, Claude, 27 
 
 Marescot, Michel, 52, 57, 79, 248, 299 
 Marie, Princess, 286 
 
 Marie Thérése, 16, 21 
 
 Marillac (family), 250 
 
 Marillac (guarde des sceaux), 7, 69, 216, 217 
 Marillac (marshall of France), 69, 216, 217, 291 
 Marillac (master of requests), 250 
 Marlborough, 23 
 
 Marolles, 301 
 
 Marot, Clement, 86 
 
 Martial, 268 
 
 Martin, Jean (2), 201 
 
 Martin, L., 164 
 
 de Marville, Vigneul, 251 
 
 Masson, Papyre, 313 
 
| 328 | 
 
 Matthews, Brander, 234 
 
 Mauvilain, 155, 230, 232 
 
 Mayenne (du Maine), 3, 268 
 
 Mayerne, Théodore Turquet de, 103, 211, 212 
 
 Mazarin, ix, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 51, 60, 65, 66, 67, 
 68, 69, 72, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 110, 158, 199, 205, 213, 
 215, 217, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 278, 
 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 290, 291, 301 
 
 de’ Médici, Catherine, 56, 57 
 
 de’ Médici, 2, 65, 68, 79, 165, 199, 264, 267 
 
 Meibomius, xvi 
 
 Merlet, 181, 204, 226, 235, 248 
 
 de Mesmes, 91, 92 
 
 Metiries, 169 
 
 Meusnier, 262 
 
 Michon, Pierre, see Bourdelot. 
 
 Milton, John, 177, 304 (+ 
 
 Minivielle, 30, 32, 33, 161 
 
 Miron, 72, 113, 188, 313 
 
 Mithridates, 145 
 
 Moliére, 67, 203, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 
 
 Mommets, Madelon, 135 
 
 Mommets, P., 135 
 
 Monaldeschi, 267 
 
 de Monceaux, 27 
 
 de Montaiglon, xiv 
 
 de Montaigne, Michel, xv, 51, 52, 86, 178, 179 
 
 Montanier, H., 314 
 
 de Montespan, Mme., 129 
 
 de Montigny, Jean, 243, 309 
 
 de Montluc, Blaise, 180 
 
 de Montluc, Jean, 80 
 
 de Montmaur, 301 
 
 Montmor, 152 
 
 de Montmorency, 8 
 
 Moreau, 33, 54, 66, 68, 91, 150, 151, 181, IOI, 214, 215, 235, 
 248, 252 
 
 Moreau (elder), 139 
 
 Moreau (family), 56, 57 
 
 Morlet, 261 
 
1 329 
 
 Mulot, 258 
 Muret, 51, 52 
 
 Naudé, 17, 51, 52, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99 
 de Navarre, duchesse, 267 
 
 de Navarre, Henri, 27 
 
 Nero, 145 
 
 Orange, Prince of, 23 
 
 d’Orléans, duchesse, 285 
 
 d’Orléans, Gaston, 6, 7, 8, 16, 64, 197, 284, 285, 293, 294 
 d’Orléans, Mile., 16, 285 
 
 d’Orléans, Philippe, 22 
 
 d’Ormesson, 291 
 
 d’Ossat, 298 
 
 Ovid (Ovidius Naso), 193 
 
 Pallu, Victor, 181, 182 
 
 Pamphilio, Cardinal, 282, 283 
 
 Pancirol, Cardinal, 283 
 
 Paracelsus, 101, 103, 150, 206, 211, 220, 224 
 
 Paré, Ambroise, 56, 57, 62, 77, 78, 79, 102, 146, 209, 210, 238, 
 
 239, 240, 276, 310 
 Particelli, see d’Esmery. 
 Pascal, 84, 85 
 Passerat, Jean, 52, 75, 163, 311 
 
 Patin, Charles, xvii, 74, 108, 109, 113, 119, I2I, 122, 123, 124, 
 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 175, 289, 305, 
 
 307, 314 
 Patin, Francois (Guy’s father), 26, 27, 28 
 Patin, Francois (Guy’s son), 74, 113, 114, 120 
 
 Patin, Guy, vii, viii, Ix, x, xl, XII, XII, Xv, XVI, XvIi, xviii, I, 
 
 Hue. -G440, 17, 1, 20, 21,/23,'24, 25, 20, 27,.28, 20, 32, 34, 
 35, 30, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 50, 62, 
 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 
 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 
 102, 103, 104, 104, 106, 107, 109, IIO, III, 112, 113, 114, 
 109010, 117, 118, I10, 120, +121, 122, 123,/ 12455124, 120, 
 Sewet20,°141, 132, 135; 136, 137, 138,430, 140, 14%, 142, 
 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 
 
‘[ 330 F 
 
 Patin, Guy, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 
 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 
 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 
 19Q, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 
 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 210, 220; aanpeean ena 
 224, 226, 227, 228, 220, 230, 231, 232, 234) 2460 ae, 
 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 240, 250, 251, 
 242, 243, 245; 256, 257, 258, 240, 260, 201, 202 seas 
 267, 260, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275; 270; a7ou agonaens 
 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 
 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 
 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 
 
 Patin, Mme., see de Jeanson, J. 
 
 Patin, Pierre (Pierrot), 74, 113, 119 
 
 Patin, Robert, xvii, 74, 110, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 173, 
 232, 292 
 
 Patin (family), 25, 28 
 
 Le Paulmier, Julian (Palmerius), 78, 209, 210, 211 
 
 Pecquet, Jean, 143, 166, 167 
 
 Pelicier, Guillaume, 200 
 
 Pellison, 18, 232 
 
 Pére Grasse, see Godeau. 
 
 Pére Joseph, see Leclerc, J. F. 
 
 Perreau, 48, 155, 204 
 
 Petrus Aurelius; 83 
 
 de Ia Peyrére, Isaac, 90 
 
 Peyrihle, xviii 
 
 Philip 11, 20 
 
 Philip rv, 21 
 
 Pic, Pierre, xv, xvi, xvill, 36, $2, $3, 128, 129, 130, 190, 251 
 
 Pietre, Anne, 56 
 
 Pietre (family), 56 
 
 Pietre, Jean, 55, 57, 137, 156, 201, 205 
 
 Pietre, Nicolas, 52, 57, 91, 137, 148, 163, 181, 201, 248, 
 255, 303 
 
 Pietre, Simon (elder), 56, 57 
 
 Pietre, Simon (younger), 57, 148, 150, 171, 248, 255, 299, 313 
 
 Pijart, 155 
 
 Pineda, 149 
 
 de Pionne, 20 
 
ABS 
 
 Plato, 91 
 
 Pliny, 178, 179 
 
 Plutarch, 28 
 
 Potier, Michel, 151 
 Praepositus, Nicholas, 136 
 Primerose, 105, 142 
 
 Quercetanus, see Duchesne, J. 
 Quillet, Claude, 300, 301, 302 
 
 Rabelais, Francois, 51, 52, 86, 131, 251 
 
 Rainssant, 155 
 
 Rampole, 180 
 
 Ravaillac, 2, 67, 111, 276 
 
 des Reaux, Tallemant, 82, 167 
 
 Renaudot, Eusebius, 195 
 
 Renaudot, Isaac, 195 
 
 Renaudot, Théophraste, 53, 85, 155, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 
 190, IOI, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 230, 242, 246, 311 
 
 Renou (Renodaeus), 102, 136, 161 
 
 de Retz, Cardinal, see de Gondi, Paul. 
 
 Reveillé-Parise, J. H., viii, xi, xiv, xv, 25, 164, 229, 305, 307, 
 315 
 
 Rhazes, 103 
 
 de Riant, Mme., 163 
 
 Ricci, xviii 
 
 Richelieu, Cardinal (Armand), ix, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 43, 64, 
 68, 69, 92, 165, 177, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 
 194, 199, 216, 256, 257, 258, 259, 264, 277, 278, 291, 299 
 
 Richer, 226 
 
 Riolan, Jean (fils), 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 55, 56, 66, 68, 78, 79, 91, 
 105, 110, 113, 143, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, IQI, 201, 
 maa td. 235, 242, 303, 312 
 
 Riolan, Jean (pére), 52, 56, 101, 110, III, 112, 150, 165, 201 
 
 Riolan (family), 56 
 
 de Rohan, 3 
 
 Rondelet, Guillaume, 198, 200 
 
 de Ia Roque, Tamisey, xiv 
 
 de Ia Roquesant, 291, 292 
 
 Ruffin, A., 168 
 
‘1 332 | 
 
 Samt Cyran, see de Hauranne, J.D. 
 St. Francis, 140 
 
 Saint Jacques, Hardouin, 204 
 
 de St. Ludgere, Moreau, 315 
 
 St. Luke, 241 
 
 St. Margaret, 140 
 
 Saint Stephen, 169 
 
 Saint Vincent de Paul, 149 
 Sainte-Beuve, vii, xiv, XV 
 
 de Sales, 51 
 
 de Salins, 86 
 
 Salins (the), 307 
 
 de Sallo, Denis, 129, 130 
 
 Salmasius, see Saumaise, C. 
 Sanche, 215 
 
 Sanctorius, 104, 105 
 
 Sarpi, Paolo, 52 
 
 Sarrazin, Pierre, 82, 296 
 
 Saumaise, Charles (Salmasius), 32, $1, 2, 177, 178, 304 
 Saumaise, Claude, 307 
 
 Sauvagneon, G., 311, 312 
 
 Savot, Louis, 312 
 
 Scaliger, Joseph, 51, 52, 71, 74, 75 
 Scaliger, Julius Caesar, 51, 52 
 Scarron, 164 
 
 Scheffer, xvi, 132 
 
 Scudéry, George, 141 
 
 Scudéry, Madeleine, 18, 141 
 Seguin, Michel, 41, 52, 59, 205, 234, 235, 248 
 Seguin (family), 56, 57 
 
 Selwyn, Charles, 293 
 
 Senac, 64 
 
 Seneca, 73, 124, 268 
 
 Senelles, 62 
 
 Sennert, Daniel (Sennertus), 165, 311 
 de Sévigné, M., 17, 18, 282 
 Sganarelle, 203 
 
 Shakespeare, 148 
 
 Sheba, Queen of, 287 
 
 Simon, 91 
 
‘| 333 | 
 
 Siri, Vittoris, 259 
 
 de Soissons, 182 
 
 Solomon, 149, 287 
 
 Songeur, Guillot le, 188 
 
 Sorbiére, 167, 172 
 
 Sorel, 301 
 
 le Soubs, 155 
 
 Spon, Charles, x, xi, 32, 34, 35, 65, 71, 73, 76, 83, 84,112,114, 
 139, 140, 141, 164, 168, 169, 172, 181, 182, 183, 221, 232, 
 252, 287, 295, 301, 307 
 
 pon, accues, IX, X, XI, XVI, 25,27, 20, 32, 47, 48, 50, $25 $3, 
 55, 59, 65, 66, 67, 70, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 
 eras. 114. 115, 116,187, 110, 121, 122,1123,7130,:140, 
 143, 144, 146, 148, 151, 152, 157, 158, 159, 164, 166, 171, 
 176, 177, 179, 186, 188, 192, 193, 194, 198, 202, 203, 204, 
 BOs, 200,210, 212, 213, 219,-223, 224, 226, 232, 238,/240, 
 244, 245, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 258, 250, 262, 265, 
 274, 278, 279, 282, 284, 286, 294, 297, 2909, 302, 304 
 
 Steinheil, xv, 314 
 
 Steno, 105 
 
 Stuart, 177 
 
 Sue, 121 
 
 Sully, 2, 3,5 
 
 Sylvius, see de Ie Boé, Franciscus. 
 
 Tagault, 101, 102, 201 
 
 Tartufe, 231 
 
 le Tellier, 266 
 
 Terence, 33 
 
 Théophraste, 230 
 
 Thélde, Johann, 207, see also Valentine, B. 
 
 de Thorigny, Lambert, 160 
 
 de Thou, 5, 51, $2, 200, 257, 258 
 
 Thyrocus, 303 
 
 de Tilladet, 266 
 
 Tobias, 34 
 
 Tomés, 228 
 
 de Tournes, 77 
 
 de Tremblay, marquis, see Leclerc, J. Francois. 
 
 Triaire, xiii, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, Xvill, 25, 78, 100, 136, 165, 167, 
 186, 187, 188, 189, 196, 222, 315 
 
‘| 334 F 
 
 Trivulce, 289 
 Trousseau, 231 
 Turenne, 9, 15, 284 
 Turnebus, 171 
 
 Valentine, Basil, 103, 206, 207, see also Thiélde, J. 
 Valleriola, Francois, 149 
 
 de Ia Valliére, Louise, 275 
 
 de Valois, Marguerite, xi, 105, 267 
 
 Valot, 60, 66, 67, 68, 158, 227, 254, 274 
 
 Van der Linden, xvi, 313, 314 
 
 Van Helmont, 103, 104, 105, 179, 219, 220, 221 
 Varandeus, 200 
 
 Vauban, 19 
 
 Vautier, 59, 65, 68, 69, 199, 200, 201, 205, 215, 216, 217, 249 
 Vehler, xi 
 
 de Vendéme, 279, 280, 281 
 
 Vesling, 142 
 
 Veson, 66 
 
 de Ia Vigne, 48, 191, 201, 235, 248, 255, 292, 293 
 de Vigny, Alfred, 300, 302 
 
 de Vignerot, Marie (duchesse d’Aiguillon), 258 
 de Villeroi, 118, 285 
 
 Virgil, 91, 124 
 
 Vitry, 3, 4, 270 
 
 Volckamer, xvi, 74 
 
 Voltaire, viii, 12, 41 
 
 Vossius, 75 
 
 de la Vrilliére, 170 
 
 Weyer, Johan W. (Wier, John; Wierus, Joannes), 303 
 Wickersheimer, 43 
 
 Willis, 104 
 
 Wurtemberg, duke of, 132 | 
 
 Xenophon, 150 
 
 Paut B. Hoeser, INc., 67-69 East 59th Street, New York 
 

 

 

 
auevee. 
 
 Fip-epils 
 Vis 2G es 
 
 Shi el ad 
 ne, 
 
 Pram, We 
 
 ites 0 1 
 Tie i ee 
 
 “8 
 Lt 
 5 
 : 
 
 i ia I 
 
 
 
i eie Bi 
 
 SUSE oy MENRNBIS! wie! 
 
 
 
PSCC 
 3 0112 039883910