procatarctic and proegumenal and occasional and nineteenth century

So, we are holding the legal terminology to the side for now, but we also seemingly have three nice medical terms and are focusing on procatarctic, which also means immediate or exciting or external cause. But then I began to go through the citations given by the OED for procatarctic, and all of a sudden my confusion returned. Join me for a few quotations and see what I mean.

Procatarctic

In Philemon Holland's 1603 translation of Plutarch's Moralia he has this: "Procatarcticke causes of sicknesse, be such as are evident and coming from without, which yeeld occasion of disease, but do not maintene the same; as the heat of the Sunne, causing headache or the ague." In this first attested English usage of procatarctic, then, we are introduced to more terms--something that comes from "without" and which "yeelds occasion" of the disease. I think my confusion is now deepening. I understand what might be the "occasion" of something else, but I often see this as little different from a predisposition, which procatarctic is not supposed to be. The late 20th century medical term for it, I thought, was "opportunistic," such as "AIDS is an opportunistic disease, capitalizing on a weakness or vulnerability elsewhere to do its devastating work." But, then again, does the heat of the sun "cause" headaches and in what way? Maybe we can argue that it is only the occasion for headaches to develop, because not all people who are exposed to the sun get headaches. But then, if we use it this way, maybe it is because of a predisposition that this is the result. But predisposition isn't the same as cause, because, as we will see, predisposition is supposed to be the proegumenal cause. So, the 17th century confuses me.

And the confusion deepens, because a second OED definition has it: "by some applied to the primary cause." From 1658: "Procatarctick cause, that cause which foregoeth or beginnith another cause." The same author, Phillips, edited this definition in the 1696 version of his dictionary to add "and cooperates with others which are subsequent." This was in line with other 17th century definitions, such as the 1681 definition which had this: "Procatarctic, remote, not next cause of a disease." It is interesting, isn't it, that this 17th century definition then becomes the antithesis of the 19th century definition, where procaractic is equated with "immediate."

Then, in a medical book on dreams from 1695: "Pride may justly be said to be the chief Procatarctick, or remote original cause of Madness." I think that is a thought worth considering for longer than I am going to spend on it. Would such an author have paraphrased a famous Proverb: 'pride procatarcterith before a fall'? So, the 17th century medical usage of the term seemed to emphasize its original Greek meaning, as something which was the "first" or "remote" cause of something. However, the words was also rather fuzzy, and seemed also to include the concepts of predisposition as well as a more immediate cause, even though by the end of the century the focus was on its "remote" nature.

Enter the 19th Century

Well, all I can say is, 'thank God for the 19th century!' Because, the purpose of the 19th century, as we get further and further away from it every moment, was to classify and define the world. No limbs would stick lazily or crazily out of the 19th century Procrustean bed. Or, if they did, they would be lopped off. The 19th century would give us clear categories and definitions, would classify and classify and classify. The 19th century gave us progress in science and dominance of the world which, in the 20th century, resulted in longer lives and better drugs and less invasive surgery and even more control of the world. And, that is the function of a university in the 20th and 21st century (oh, there are other functions of a university in fact, but I won't get into that now)--to give the impression that the world as we know it is controlled or will be even more controlled as long as I get my next grant. What did the 19th century have to say about procatarctic? From a medical text in the 1830s: "In early times the cause of disease chiefly contemplated were proegumenal or predisposent and procatarctic or occasional. Thus, an hereditary taint..maybe be regarded as a proegumenal cause of gout, and catching cold..may form its procatarctic cause." Whoops. One more word--"occasional."

Conclusion

So, by the 19th century, we seem to have a full-blown attempt to try to organize or "classify" the concept of cause, too. As the quotation just provided shows, there was the basic distinction between procatarctic and proegumenal--to distinguish a predisposing from an "immediate" cause (though the quotation just given brings yet another word to describe procatarctic--"occasional," whatever that means). But where does synectic come from? And how actually did the systematization seem to happen? And, once we have sorted out all of this, do we really know what we are talking about?

I leave some of these questions for the next essay.

1369