The holistic tradition of Hippocrates and Galen ended in the nineteenth century with the arrival of disease specificity. Thus, the correction of imbalances provoked by noxious air, inappropriate behavior, the environment, air, water, food, emotions, exercise, rest, and evacuations gave way to the biomedical model, reductionist medicine, and positive scientific authority. By the late nineteenth century, medicine had incorporated Rudolf Virchow’s cellular pathology (1858), Joseph Lister’s surgical antisepsis (1865), Louis Pasteur’s bacteriology (1860s), and Robert Koch’s discovery of the tuberculosis germ (1880s). But John Harley Warner maintains that in Barker’s era, therapeutic action was an essential part of professional identity, as physicians struggled with skepticism regarding medical therapy and the relative merits of nature healing versus the need for therapeutics such as bleeding, purging, and mercurials. Charles Rosenberg emphasizes the importance to the physician–patient relationship of “exhibiting” a drug. To evaluate the validity of Barker’s knowledge and treatments, the twenty-first-century reader must avoid presentism, whiggish history, and the post hoc fallacy, and must consider confirmation bias. Was Barker using the best available evidence in 1820? Were his decisions evidence-based?
Keats, Myth, and the Science of Sympathy
