Popular Science Review - The Herbalist

Home Authors Books Subjects Events Software Features Links Newsletter Gifts Blog Write Review What's New

Review - The Herbalist [Heal Thyself] - Benjamin Woolley

Nicholas Culpeper is a name that many know as an early advocate of herbal medicines, but his full story has much more to it. Benjamin Woolley has a difficult job. The fact is, we don't know much about Culpeper - there just isn't a lot of biographical information. Even so, Woolley manages to fill over 370 pages.

I can sympathise with his plight - in writing my own biography of Roger Bacon, The First Scientist, I had a similar problem, which I solved by exploring the fascinating medieval science that Bacon wrote about so impressively. Though Woolley, of course, covers Culpeper's work, he frankly hasn't got a rich seam there either - because Culpeper's contribution wasn't all that significant.

Instead, a fair chunk of the book is a biography of William Harvey, Culpeper's contemporary, who first realised how blood circulated within the body. Equally, there is lengthy coverage of the UK's civil war - important context for Culpeper's life, but here covered in considerably more detail than is needed for that.

Does it work? Yes. While there are some pages that it's easy to skip, it is fascinating, not so much for Culpeper's work as the insight into just how unscientific the medical profession was in the 17th century. They were yet to overthrow the thrall of ancient authority, relying heavily on Galen's ancient Greek pronouncements, and basing their often horrendous cures on untested and unsubstantiated theory rather than any observed results.

Also in hardback (US is hardback):

Reviewed by Jo Reed

DISCLAIMERS

This site has no connection with Popular Science magazine or other sites and publications with a similar name.

Much of the content of this site is written by popular science writers or friends of popular science writers. Inevitably many of the reviews in such a small community are written by or about someone we know. We always aim to be impartial in our reviews, but there is a connection which we need make clear, as there is no intention to deceive. The content of any review or article is solely the opinion of the author and should not be read or understood on any other basis. The site exists to promote popular science writing and popular science authors and for this reason should be considered promotional material, just as the editorial reviews in an online bookshop or the blurb on the back of a book should be considered promotional.

The website should not be eaten or used where it can come into contact with water.

Disagree with our review? Want to comment on a feature? Contact us at info@ popularscience.co.uk - have your say!

Part of the site