as the general effect upon the circulation is concerned, it made
little difference whether the bleeding was done near a diseased
part or remote from it. But in the sixteenth century this
question was the all-absorbing one among the doctors. At one time
the faculty of Paris condemned "derivation"; but the supporters
of this method carried the war still higher, and Emperor Charles
V. himself was appealed to. He reversed the decision of the Paris
faculty, and decided in favor of "derivation." His decision was
further supported by Pope Clement VII., although the discussion
dragged on until cut short by Harvey's discovery.

But a new form of injury now claimed the attention of the
surgeons, something that could be decided by neither Greek nor
Arabian authors, as the treatment of gun-shot wounds was, for
obvious reasons, not given in their writings. About this time,
also, came the great epidemics, "the sweating sickness" and
scurvy; and upon these subjects, also, the Greeks and Arabians
were silent. John of Vigo, in his book, the Practica Copiosa,
published in 1514, and repeated in many editions, became the
standard authority on all these subjects, and thus supplanted the
works of the ancient writers.

According to Vigo, gun-shot wounds differed from the wounds made
by ordinary weapons--that is, spear, arrow, sword, or axe--in
that the bullet, being round, bruised rather than cut its way
through the tissues; it burned the flesh; and, worst of all, it
poisoned it. Vigo laid especial stress upon treating this last
condition, recommending the use of the cautery or the oil of
elder, boiling hot. It is little wonder that gun-shot wounds were
so likely to prove fatal. Yet, after all, here was the germ of