The Epitome of Andreas Vesalius by L. R. LindReview by: Charles D. O'MalleyIsis, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jul., 1950), pp. 210-212Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/227199 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 14:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.252 on Fri, 9 May 2014 14:20:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2IO Reviews

by minor criticisms. So we cannot close our re- marks on her book better than by expressing the ardent desire that she will continue her inquiries on medieval philosophy and science and present us again and again with her fascinating publica- tions.

E. J. DIJKSTERHUIS

Oisterwijk, Holland

The Epitome of Andreas Vesalius. Translated from the Latin with preface and introduction by L. R. Lind. With anatomical notes by C. W. Asling. And a foreword by the late Logan Clendening. 36 + 103 pp., 23 pls. (Publication no. 21, Historical Library, Yale Medical Library). New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949. $7.50

The year 1543 is one of singular importance in the history of science, marking as it does the appearance of the monumental achievements of Copernicus and Vesalius. In August of that year Vesalius' Fabrica was finally published and at approximately the same time his Epitome of that work. In the words of the author, the Epitome was composed as a companion work to be used as a pathway beside the highway of the larger work. Yet the title is somewhat de- ceptive, for the Epitome is actually a glorified descendant of his earlier Tabutlae sex. Composed of a minimum of text and with great emphasis upon the pictorial representations, it was meant to be a handy guide for students, but it is by no means truly an epitome. It is therefore some- what startling to find it termed "a triumph of condensation" in the work under review. Rather, Vesalius believed that the Fabrica and Epitome would complement one another and thus serve as a complete anatomical course from elementary to advanced. Consequently he was deeply disappointed when the public neglected the vastly more important Fabrica for his Epit- ome, a fact presumably due to the much greater cost of the larger work and its exhaustive na- ture which presumed considerable knowledge of anatomy on the part of the reader, and hence its unsuitability for the general student.

The popularity of the Epitome can be judged today from its relatively greater scarcity than the Fabrica, resulting from the wear and tear of greater usage, and the larger number of editions and translations as well as the borrow- ings made from it for pirated editions of the Vesalian plates. Recently two editions of the Epitome have been re-issued, the Dutch Epit- ome of 1569 and a facsimile of the original Latin edition with an English translation and introduction by L. R. Lind and anatomical notes by C. W. Asling, the latter the subject of the present review.

Translation of any Vesalian text is a consid- erable chore, and the translator of the present edition is far too modest when he writes that Vesalius' style is "clear and brief," that it is

"among the best Latin styles written by Renais- sance thinkers," that "his choice of words is quite classical . . . yet realizing the great nec- essity for systematizing the terminology of science . . . he constantly admits new words and phrases." The true difficulties of transla- tion are somewhat indicated by the long note at the beginning of the first chapter on the Vesalian meaning of "similars" and "dissimilars" and the notes appended to each chapter, as well as, one might add, the words of Vesalius' near contemporaries. In short, it is not a question merely of translating words and phrases but of comprehending the precise meaning attached to them by Vesalius. Indeed, Vesalius was fre- quently at loss for words to express his precise meaning, and on such occasions resorted to diagrams or pictorial representation. In view of these obstacles the translator merits more praise than his modesty suggests for a task well done.

In the preface it is remarked that "The Epit- ome . . . is here presented for the first time in complete English translation." Yet with the ex- ception of the text accompanying the nude male and female figures, "The names of the external male and female figures," the text of the other plates has been left untranslated. It so happens that the illustrative plates are a very important and integral part of Vesalius' works, and more than one modern reader has gone astray by ob- serving merely the pictorial features of these plates. Frequently Vesalius found himself able to express some novelty only through the con- junction of word and drawing. In addition, there is a special and very important reason for understanding the text of the plates of the Epit- ome.

Since, according to Vesalius, the Epitome was to serve as an introduction to anatomy for the beginner, it was more advantageous to pursue the subject in what would today be called a topographical manner. Hence the Epitome is divided into two parts. The student begins at the middle of the series of plates, inspecting the nude male and female figures. Thence he works backward from the external surface and, as he continues this backward inspection of the plates, down through the successive body layers until he arrives at a figure little more than skeletal. Returning to the nude figures he then works forward, this time to expose the nervous system, the cardio-vascular system and the viscera. Since several plates are repeated in this latter section, the student is able to cut out and mount the plates to form a male and a female manikin in such manner as to portray the relative posi- tions of the various organs and sequence of the structural layers of the bodies. Occasionally copies of the Epitome have turned up with the manikins not only assembled but also colored by hand for clearer distinction of the various parts. While this sort of representation of bodies was not a novelty with Vesalius (Cf. Nicolaus de Sabio, 1539), his was one of the earliest and cer- tainly the most accurate and elaborate. A com-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.252 on Fri, 9 May 2014 14:20:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 2II

plete understanding of the Vesalian procedure in this respect can be gained only by reading the text accompanying the figures and especially the precise instructions for assembling and mount- ing the figures, given on the final two plates. It is therefore to be regretted that the translation of these texts was not included in the present edition, among other reasons because some stress has been placed in the present volume upon the pedagogy of Vesalius. While it is true that some attention is called to the use of several plates from the Fabrica, yet it would have been worth- while to give the translation of the text of the plate in which Vesalius explains the reason for this usage. Incidentally, it should be noted that with the larger figures on the plates are included numerous smaller figures in reduced versions from the Fabrica. And while discussing the gen- eral subject of the plates, it should also be pointed out that Vesalius desired his pictorial representations to be as large as possible, and one of his criticisms of his plagiarists was the fact that they reduced the size of the plates. Indeed, it is in the present work (p. xxxiv) that he speaks of "rascally printers" who reduce his plates "ineptly into small space," "creatures born for the destruction of letters." It is there- fore to be regretted that in the present edition the facsimiles have been so reduced in size as to make it almost impossible to read portions of the original text and so materially to lessen the significance of the reproductions.

At the end of each chapter there is a general interpretation of the chapter, followed by notes discussing points of anatomy and identification. Of these the most valuable are the identification of the muscles, always a harrying and vexing problem due to Vesalius' maddening numerical method of designation, and the "Comparative table of cranial nerves." All of this represents very considerable labor and should be very useful for others working in the same field. In the original edition of the Epitome the Greek form of various anatomical terms is given in the margin of the page wherever such terms come into discussion. These have been gathered to- gether at the end of the translated text, main- tained in sequence chapter by chapter, and in parallel columns given in their Latin and Eng- lish equivalents. While once again this represents a useful vocabulary for students of the period and subject, the arrangement produces duplica- tion of terms. It might have been better to ar- range them alphabetically or, better yet, place them in their proper positions in the margins of the translated text. Among other things, this would have required a larger page and in turn possibly produced larger facsimiles.

There are several points in respect to the brief biography of Vesalius which precedes the trans- lation in which it appears that the authors have fallen into error. On p. xvii, it is doubtful that Vesalius' slight knowledge of Greek and his somewhat spurious knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic would permit the attribution of "philol-

ogist." Similarly, his attainments elsewhere do not seem sufficient to justify the significance of "artist, philosopher and poet." After leaving Paris in I536, he is next to be found not "in Brussels" but rather in Louvain where he con- tinued his studies and performed his memorable theft of a malefactor's remains from the gibbet and so constructed his first skeleton. On p. xviii, there is no proof that the Fabrica represented "almost five years" of work. Also the skeleton prepared at Basel does not exist today complete as suggested. Vesalius originally entered Charles V's service as a military surgeon and later became a court physician, a somewhat meaning- less title, in I543, not "I544." How much work was accomplished on a "pathological anatomy" during his service in Spain under Philip II is questionable. On p. xix, it is not correct that Vesalius' writings "from the early revision of Rhazes to the examination of Falloppius are characterized by a rigorous subjection . . . to the evidence of observation, not to the authority of books or predecessors." Moreover, to speak of the "early revision of Rhazes" is to dignify a slight student effort far beyond its merits. While Vesalius was "almost the first" to write "upon pathological and comparative anatomy and on anthropology," such a statement needs qualifi- cation respecting the pioneer but nevertheless relatively small contribution. On p. xx, it should be noted that the plates of the Tabulae were not all executed by Calcar but merely the skele- tal figures. It is doubtful that Vesalius' writings can be described properly by the phrase "con- cise description," and the "true magnitude" of his contribution to the Giunta edition of Galen is likewise open to doubt. On p. xxi, it seems un- fortunate to compare "his excellent Latin style" to that of Erasmus the anti-Ciceronian. Further- more, to say that "he was never their vassal," in speaking of patronage and princes, is to mis- understand Vesalius' letter of advice on dedica- tions, addressed to Jean Sturm, and to fail to consider the choice and timing of the dedications to his various works. The sentence "Galileo and Servetus suffered under the Inquisition, but not Vesalius," respecting his anatomising, is to at- tempt a comparison where no comparison is possible. On p. xxii, respecting the artist Calcar, there is no probability that Calcar executed the drawings for the Fabrica and Epitome. On the other hand, we know definitely that Vesalius did make some of the drawings. On pp. 8-9, it is noted that "the derivation of the anatomical name is often given by the device of descriptive anatomy"; thus "the 'second cartilage' of the larynx 'resembles the ring which the Thracians fit on their right thumb when shooting arrows' in spite of the fact that the term 'cricoid' was already available." The conclusion drawn is that in the Epitome this method was used as a "picturesque device" to introduce new terms, a pedagogical novelty. Hence the work was not "for barber-surgeons and bonesetters, for whom sheer rote memorization . . . would serve," but

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.252 on Fri, 9 May 2014 14:20:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2I2 Reviews

"for the medical student, . . . offering a basic understanding." Against this theory, it should be noted that the method was also employed in the Fabrica, and was due rather to the fact that Vesalius had no other way at his command to describe new things. On p. IO, it should be added that in his letter to Falloppius, Vesalius recognized the existence of the third ossicle but that it had been discovered much earlier by Ingrassia and was also mentioned by Falloppius in his prior work addressed to Vesalius. On p. 12, it is not quite correct to write of tibia as applying to both bone and leg. Vesalius used the term for leg, but for the bone he frequently employed os tibiae. On p. 88, it is erroneous to write that Falloppius was a student of Vesalius since no evidence has ever been uncovered to support this view.

Such criticism may seem unnecessarily carp- ing. Yet many of these errors are such as have been handed on from writer to writer, their ac- ceptance being the result of a sort of hero wor- ship upon which the seal was placed by Roth whose study remains, after a half century, still the best biography of Vesalius. Indeed, the greatness of Vesalius' achievement makes it all the easier to accept further magnification of his attributes. At the same time, Vesalius' signifi- cance should require that we gain more precise information about him, although here we are faced with the problem of much writing but little worth. In this respect it should be noted that in the brief bibliography which follows the in- troduction, two significant works are missing: Alphonse Wauters, "Quelques mots sur Andre Vesale," Mem. couronnes par l'Academie Royale de Belgique, Vol. 55, and Charles Singer, A prelude to modern science, Cambridge, 1946, and that it would have been desirable to omit J. M. Ball. Andreas Vesalius, the reformer of anatomy. Taking into account all that has been said in this review, and much of it critical, yet the present edition of the Epitome is distinctly desirable, and the authors are to be congratu- lated. The translation is adequate, the notes are helpful, and there is a facsimile of the original text, although woefully reduced in size and diffi- cult to read. This last, of course, must be blamed upon the publisher.

CHARLES D. O'MALLEY

SIR CHARLES SHERRINGTON: The En- deavour of Jean Fernel, with a list of the edi- tions of his writings. x + 223 pp. Cambridge: University Press, I946.

In his now classic Gifford Lectures, Man on His Nature, the distinguished dean of the world's neuro-physiologists, Sir Charles Sherrington, first introduced his audience to the sixteenth-century physician and scientist, Jean Fernel (I497-I558),

thereby reviving interest in one whom the sev- enteenth century - until the reputations of Har- vey and Sydenham eclipsed his - considered

the foremost of modern physicians. In this earlier work Sir Charles used Fernel's notions of psycho-physiology, "simple as a fairy-tale," to provide a contrasting background against which to weigh the findings of modern science con- cerning the relation of body and mind.

The Endeavour of Jean Fernel is a lesser book in size and scope and confines itself to the career and the accomplishments of the great figure whose acquaintanceship Sir Charles was loath to abandon. It is the only modern study of this important figure in the history of science, with an account of his life and intellectual develop- ment, and a summary of his scientific opinions. A penetrating evaluation of Fernel's work is followed by a translation of the chief biograph- ical source concerning Fernel, the short Life by Guillaume Plancy, and by a listing of Fernel's principal works and a supplementary account of editions not included in Jean Goulin's bibliog- raphy.

Fernel is the first since Galen to write a work devoted solely to the functions-as treated apart from the anatomy and the distempers of the body; and the first to call such a work a "physiology." The work on physiology (I542)

was followed by a Pathology - not the first specialized treatise of this sort (a credit line for this goes to the inferior work of Antonio Beni- vieni published in I507), but the first to be so named; after this came a Therapeutics. The three works were published together for the first time in I554 under the title Medicina and con- stitute Fernel's most important work, many times reprinted thereafter, usually with the addi- tion of lesser treatises like the important dialogue De Abditis Rerum Causis.

In the rules adopted by the Company of Mercers for the guidance of the professors of the newly established Gresham College (I598),

the Professor of Physic was urged to "follow Fernelius his method, by reading first physiol- ogie, then pathologie, and lastly, theraputice; whereby the body of the said art may better be imprinted by the good method in the studious auditors, rather than be disjointed and delivered out of order by exposition of some part of Galen or Hippocrates." Here is further evidence, be- sides that given by Sherrington, that partly on account of the rational order in which the ground was covered, Fernel's three treatises be- came the most influential textbooks of the cen- tury following his death. We can well under- stand why the pathology outlived the physiol- ogy. In an interesting note, Sir Charles shows that as late as the i8th century Hermann Boer- haave continued to recommend Fernel's Pathol- ogy, though he insisted that nothing in physi- ology written before the work of Harvey could still be used. One cannot help wondering - and here Sir Charles could have told us more - how much one can attribute to Fernel's great reputation and influence the resistance Harvey's discovery encountered among the conservatives of the Paris Faculty. By such men, among

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.252 on Fri, 9 May 2014 14:20:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions