In his new book, Peter Elmer explores medicine and the medical profession during the English Revolution and later seventeenth century. Elmer vigorously argues against previous work which has seen a link between medical change and religious puritanism in the period. Scholars, most famously Charles Webster in his work on the Hartlib Circle, have suggested that there was such a connection between scientific advances (including medicine) and religious attitudes. Elmer instead makes the case for there being widespread enthusiasm for change in the period, regardless of religious alignment. He argues ‘for the critical role of the period, rather than specific religious groupings, in creating a conducive atmosphere for the promotion of medical change’ (p. 6). His second aim in the monograph is ‘to put politics back into medicine’ showing how medicine was ‘shaped by the political debates and divisions of the period’ while also contributing ‘to contemporary understanding of political belief and practices’ (p. 6).

Elmer begins the book by analysing discussions of the body politic in the 1640s and 1650s. It has been suggested previously that use of this commonplace metaphor died out following the regicide of Charles I. Elmer argues that it continued to be employed throughout the Interregnum, showing the close association of medicine and politics in the period and that belief ‘in an organic and hierarchical state, shaped by popular understanding of the working of the human body, continued to inform a wide spectrum of opinion’ (p. 14). Elmer moves on in following chapters to explore ‘the relationship between the healing arts and the wider religious and political culture of early modern England, focusing on the role played by medical practitioners’ (p. 43). The Civil Wars and Interregnum appear to have been periods of politicisation in which medics played active roles in the conflict and took sides. During the 1640s and 1650s, medical practitioners serving the parliamentary state appear to have done so out of ideological attachment to the cause of ‘godly reform’ and disapproval of ‘Stuart absolutism’ (p. 46). This association between the profession and anti-Stuart sentiment may have existed because medicine was an alternative career path to entering the clergy. In other words, those unable to become ministers because of their disdain for Stuart church policies in the 1630s had ended up practicing medicine. During the republic in the 1650s, it was the turn of many royalists to turn to the study of medicine instead of theology. Medicine continued to be an alternative career option after Charles II returned. The ‘politicization of the practice of medicine in late Stuart England’ (p. 123) only continued to grow with ‘political and judicial office-holding for medical practitioners’ (p. 314) increasingly common. Elmer suggests that it is possible to discern different medical cultures associated with political groupings emerging during the age of party: a dissident, nonconformist Whig tradition (with many going to do their training in the Netherlands) and a ‘pro-Anglican and Tory medical establishment’ (p. 9).

Elmer throughout the book stresses that support for medical reform was not the preserve of puritanism. For example, he shows that interest in new medical theories, especially those linked to Paracelsus and Jan Baptist van Helmont, attracted royalists and Anglicans as well as radical groups. After the Restoration, there was notable sympathy within the court for chymists matched by hostility for the London College of Physicians, which was ‘an important refuge for nonconformist medical practitioners’ (p. 129). Courtly support was an important reason behind an (unsuccessful) attempt in 1665 to overthrow the regulatory power of the College and replace it with a new body, the Society of Chemical Physicians. The Society, had it been established, would probably have introduced a revolution in medical thought in England ‘based upon the radical tenets of Paracelsus, van Helmont and their iatrochemical followers’ and undermining ‘the historic dependence of the medical elite on Galenic humoralism’ (p. 8). Elmer notes astutely, however, that there was an association between Restoration iatrochemistry and radical circles which critics seized upon. Throughout the remainder of the century, support for chymical medicines was not monopolised by one group, and Elmer stresses that there is no evidence linking religious beliefs to stances on medical reform.

Elmer writes clearly, although at times the prose is a little dense. The book is generally well copy-edited but a few errors have crept in, including unfinished in-text cross-references, such as one to the ‘staunch commonwealth man John Palmer (for whom, see above ???-???)’ (p. 208). These problems aside, the book is an impressive achievement. It is based on outstanding archival research and contains a wealth of prosopographical information on the medical profession. The appendices are also valuable, including: a biographical index of medical and non-medical signatories in favour of creating a Society of Chemical (or ‘Chymical’ as Elmer uses for one appendix: p. 329) Physicians in 1665; lists of ejected ministers or their sons who were involved in medicine after 1660 either as practitioners, students, or apprentices to London apothecaries; and ‘Medical Mayors’ (p. 395). All told, this admirable work will be of interest to students of medical and seventeenth-century English history alike.