Talk:Vesalius

Beginning of article on Vesalius for July Write-a-Thon 2008

Biography: life, work and times) on the Flemish anatomist/physiologist, Andreas Vesalius. --Anthony.Sebastian 12:55, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

Fonts

Anthony, I see that you give different literal quotations. They are all in a different font/size/color. Is there a system to it?--Paul Wormer 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A few additions

Hi Anthony--

I've been doing some reading over the past year, and I thought we might make some additions to the Vesalius article, but wasn't sure where to begin. Do you mind if I just dive into your section on "Vesalius' Work"?

If you're interested, I've been reading Cunningham's Anatomical Renaissance. I thought his section on Galen's self-presentation was particularly interesting. Furthermore, I thought we should balance your treatment of his anatomical achievement a bit-- by mentioning, for example, that Vesalius continued to give (and draw!) the Galenic number of lobes of the liver even though he should have been able to see the correct number for himeself. I think I read a discussion of this in 'The Western Medical Tradition: 800 BC-AD 1800', ed. Conrad et al., but I'll have to check.

Hope you're well, Brian P. Long 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Your input not only welcomed, also encouraged. Let's have the best encyclopedia entry on the Copernicus of Anatomy. Anthony.Sebastian 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian, O'Malley (1964) writes:

His strongest blow against Galen was the denial of the belief in the liver's multiple, usually five, lobes, a criticism based upon both observation of the human liver and comparative anatomy. According to Vesalius the number of lobes increases with the descent in the chain of animal life. In man the liver has a single mass, and as one examines the livers of monkeys, dogs, sheep, and so on these multiple lobes not only become clearly aparent but once again prove Galen's dependence upon nonhuman materials. (Fabrica 1543, p. 506)

Apparently Vesalius corrected the text, but never changed the drawing. Referring to Vesalius's earlier work, Tabulae anatomicae, O'Malley writes:

Of course Vesalius's scientific principle did not lead him immediately to see and observe correctly all the structures of the body, and in those instances where he believed Galen correct, although he had not yet tested all of them, he was content to refer the students to the appropriate Galenic passage. On the other hand, he now denied that the liver had five lobes. "There is no truth," he said, "in what others say about the five lobes of the liver," and referring to Galen by name he declared that his explanation of the movements of the head was false. Nevertheless, dissection of the sheep's head together with the human caused Vesalius to fall into one of the errors he criticized in Galen-that is, to project animal anatomy upon the human. In this specific instance he retained belief, which he was later to deny in the Fabrica, in the existence of the rete mirabile at the base of the human brain.

Vesalius’ "ignominious" death

The quote from Nuland: "Vesalius did not shrink from attacking Galenic theory at every opportunity, which earned him as many enemies as disciples, subverted his career, and eventually resulted in his ignominious death." appears to me to be a very distorted statement. Compare with the account in O'Malley which presents his death as the unfortunate result of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and having little or nothing to do with being the result of his "enemies" and a "subverted career". I'd suggest that perhaps Prof Nuland is not the best source to rely upon. John R. Brews 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

John, I deleted the "ignominious death" sentence. Anthony.Sebastian 01:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A good move. I wonder about Prof Nuland's other assessments, particularly point E? I suspect that "the work of its artist, Jan van Calcar, a protege of Titian, is what is most commented on today" is accurate for some audiences, but certainly not for historians of medicine, nor historians of the various debacles in the struggle for knowledge against superstition. John R. Brews 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of Vesalius’ text

I changed the summary statement in Part E to "Although Vesalius's text brought about great changes and remains of interest to historians, the work of its artist, Jan van Calcar, a protege of Titian, is what is most commented on today by the general public." This statement is less absurd than the original, but as I cannot access Nuland's text, I don't know if it represents his opinion. John R. Brews 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuland's comments

Much of what is attributed to Nuland in the article can be found word for word in Lecture 3: Vesalius and the Renaissance of Medicine of the on-line document Doctors: The history of scientific medicine through biography. Apparently Dr. Nuland said exactly the now deleted sentence that "Vesalius did not shrink from attacking Galenic theory at every opportunity, which ... subverted his career , and eventually resulted in his ignominious death."

This remark is counterfactual, and places Nuland's ability to digest the historical literature in question.

The point E that I amended above, the sentence "...the work of the artist Ja van Calcar...is what is most commented on today", was originally the exact words of Nuland in the document referred to. It seemingly sugests that Vesalius’ Fabrica is of interest today mainly for the artistic quality of its illustrations. I find that hard to believe. At a minimum, this comment suggests that Nuland is not good at summarizing matters. It should be clarified that the lettered points are in fact a verbatim quote from Nuland, and not a summary by the CZ author. That requires reinstating point E as Nuland wrote it.

Something has to be done to indicate that Nuland's views are not always consonant with those of other scholars, nor with the historical record, and he is given to wild statements on occasion. John R. Brews 13:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have returned Nuland's lettered points to be a verbatim quote. I added a mild disclaimer to point E. I've also recast all the references to a template form and added a few missing details to the citations. John R. Brews 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Official OK for dissection

Anthony: You indicate in the section Vesalius#Vesalius_as_Galen_resurrected that The Anatomical Renaissance suggests Vesalius succeeded where Galen had not due to a relaxation of regulation regarding dissection. Apparently in 1482 the Pope allowed dissection of criminals, but popular opinion still opposed the practice, and access to corpses was sternly regulated. Some say that Vesalius prevailed mainly because the Venetians opposed regulation by the Church, and so supported Vesalius. Some say that it was only after 1540 that Vesalius had a significant access to cadavers for dissection. There seems to be some controversy over this matter, as indicated in this heated rebuttal by Andrew D White in the Boston Medical Journal of 1891 and this more recent appraisal that says it was not the Church but secular opinion enforced by local authority that restricted matters.

So the question comes up as to how reliable is The Anatomical Renaissance on this matter. How free was Vesalius to pursue dissection? Did Vesalius steal corpses from the gallows in France? Did he work in secrecy by candlelight? Was his work primarily in the few years after 1540? John R. Brews 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Another source is here that suggests that in fact Vesalius did use cadavers from the gallows but suggests this was simply a matter of expedience, not censorship (p. 215). John R. Brews 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC) On page 14: "...dissection in the service of medical teaching and study was rare...Relatively few criminals were executed in this period and fewer still were eligible for dissection, which in most cities was confined to the bodies of foreigners of low standing. Until at least the early 16th century...anatomy was not deemed an important component of medical training..."etc etc John R. Brews 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A review of The Anatomical Renaissance in Medical History suggests Andrew Cunningham is somewhat selective in his choice of facts to insist upon his "theory of a religious motivation for the study of anatomy" and in an attempt to "impose a ‘big idea’ upon refractory evidence" . John R. Brews 16:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to O'Malley, Vesalius was fortunate, both in Louvain, 1536-1537, and in Padua, before but especially after 1539, to have more-or-less ready access to the cadavers of criminals from sympathetic 'judges'. Vesalius was not above grave-robbing, and not above encouraging his students to do the same. On theb "relaxation of regulations", it surely occurred despite protests. Here's what I could find in my copy of O'Malley:

“We do not know the precise sequence of Vesalius's activities in Louvain [in 1536-37]. We do know, of course, that he was completing his studies in the faculty of medicine, and it is quite possible that when he took up those studies something was known of his exploits in Paris. Certainly he would have brought back, if possible, a copy of Guinter's Institutiones to demonstrate both what he had already accomplished and the high opinion in 'which he was held for these accomplishments by the famous Parisian professor.

“It may have been for some such reason that he was given the rather unusual permission to conduct the anatomical demonstrations to which he later referred in the Fabrica, a performance that seems to have attracted spectators from other parts of the university as well as from the medical school.

“Although we do not know how many dissections Vesalius performed in Louvain, it seems likely that the indulgent professor who permitted them was that Armenterianus to whom Vesalius later dedicated his revision of Guinter's Institutiones, possibly because of an esteem growing out of this situation. Nor ought we to forget Vesalius's expression of gratitude to the burgomaster [mayor] Adrian of Blehen, who generously made cadavers available upon request. It was certainly an unusual privilege for a student not yet a baccalaureate.”

—O’Malley, 1964, page 69



“Although the extensive text of the Fabrica has long and properly been recognized as the monographic foundation of modern anatomy, little or no recognition has been given to it as a classic in the field of pedagogy, and it will not be amiss at this point to consider Vesalius's practice and views on the teaching of anatomy as they are offered in the Fabrica. Between the end of 1537 and the beginning of 1539 he had presented three important methods of instruction: personal dissection, superior illustrative material, and a dissection manual-that is, his edition of Guinter's Institutiones tailored to his purpose. “

“Beyond this he could not go, at least for formal instruction, without a greater supply of dissection material. This supply seems to have become available during 1539, thanks to appreciation of his work by the authorities and the appointment of a sympathetic judge of the criminal court, Marcantonio Contarini, who provided the bodies of executed criminals,5 and even made the time of execution dependent upon the anatomist's needs.

“In 1546, after Vesalius had entered imperial service, but hearking back to his Paduan days, he remarked reminiscently, "I shall no longer bother to petition the judges to delay an execution to a time suitable for dissection." 6

“Nor should we overlook Vesalius's own initiative in the procurement of cadavers-of course illegally-as he became more confident of his position. Yet even with such assistance as he received, he must always have suffered from a shortage of dissection material, especially when we recall that there were no satisfactory preservatives. The very fact that Vesalius mentions keeping bodies in his home for several weeks-certainly an extremity that must have been exceedingly unpleasant-is a fair indication of the paucity of material.

“How many cadavers were available to him cannot be ascertained; it is clear, however, that most of them were male and that his experience with the female cadaver was relatively limited.7 This was no doubt owing in part to the fact that much of his material was supplied by the executioner and that the greater number of criminals were male.

“With increased opportunity for human dissection from 1539 onward, Vesalius was in a position to verify his suspicion, which had grown almost to certainty, that Galenic anatomy was based on nonhuman sources. As a result he propounded two doctrines which were thenceforth fundamental to his teaching: first, because of its source, much of Galenic anatomy was fallacious; and second, knowledge of human anatomy was to be acquired only from human sources.

These doctrines were personally presented to his students, and the Fabrica was composed to present them outside the University of Padua.”

—O’Malley, 1964, pp. 112-113



5. "The very conscientious podesta of Padua who has supplied me with an abundance of material for dissection, for he is himself a studious and diligent observer of the structure of the human body," Fabrica (1543), p. 650. Marcantonio Contarini, of the famous Venetian family whose most distinguished member was Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, was the son of Carlo Contarini. As a young man he engaged in the military defense of Padua, and in 1516 he became a city advocate. In 1523 he was podesta of Vicenza and in 1527 became governor of Siena. In 1533 Contarini was sent as ambassador to the imperial court, and in 1536 to Rome. He left this latter post toward the end of 1539 to become podesta of Padua. Four years later he was sent on a special mission to the emperor and in 1546 to Candia where he died in the same year.

His great interest in philosophy gained him the name of "the philosopher," and he must have been a friend of Marcantonio Genua, the Paduan philosopher and friend of Vesalius who encouraged the composition of the Fabrka.

During the period of Vesalius's residence in Padua, the podesta were Francesco Venier, 16 September 1537 to 14 September 1539, Marcantonio Contarini, I4 September 1539 to 29 May 1541, Andrea Mocenigo, 29 May 1541 to the first half of April 1542, Giann-Andrea Badoer, I May 1542 to 16 September 1543; Andrea Gloria, "Serie dei podesta e capitani di Padova dal 1509 al 1797," Riv. Periodica d. Lavori d. I. R. Accad. Sci. Lett. Art! di Padova, 1861, 9:172-173.

6. Ep.Ch.Rt., p. 194.

7. Although it is impossible to estimate how many human male bodies were available to Vesalius in Padua for dissection, the relatively greater scarcity of female cadavers permits a rough count. In addition to the body of a prostitute who had hanged herself in Paris, which Vesalius had helped Guinter dissect-see above, p. 60-and the young girl at Brussels in the entourage of the Countess of Egmont, in whose post-mortem examination Vesalius had participated-see above, p. 63-at Padua, the youngest female cadaver was that of a girl of six, "stolen from her tomb by one of my students for the preparation of a skeleton," and for inspection of the hymen, since, according to Vesalius, this was one of the few bodies of virgins to which he had had access; see above, p. 201. The dissection was naturalIy a private one, as was also that of a "woman beat to death by her husband," Fabrica (1543), p. 540 , and that of a prostitute who had "committed suicide by hanging herself," ibid., p. 538. Four other female cadavers were employed for public dissection. "Last year we obtained .•. a smallish woman of somewhat advanced years and, as I conjectured, dead from starvation," ibid., p. 539. A second body was that of the monk's mistress-see p. 11 3-and the third was that of a woman who had sought to escape execution by declaring herself pregnant; see above, p. 143. The fourth was that of a woman "whose right eye had become defective in youth although the left was sound," ibM., p. 324 [424]. Vesalius had also twice, albeit hurriedly, dissected the foetus utero at Padua, Ep.Ch.RI., p. 143, and in Pisa two more female bodies were available to him in January 1544, that of a nun and of a hunchback girl, see above, p. 201, although these last two were after the publication of the Fabrica.

Ep.Ch.Rt. Andreas Vesalius. Epistola, rationem modumque propinand; radicis Chynae decocti…praeter alia quaedam, epistola cuiusdam ad Iacobum Sylvium sententiam recensens, veri/atis ac potisshnum humanae fabricae studiosis peru/ilem: quum qui bactenus in illa nimium Galena creditum sit, facile commons/ret., Basel, 1546. Ep.V.S.

Anthony.Sebastian 02:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

←unindent:

John, I also offer this excerpt from Harvard historian of science:

…by I299 Italians had begun regularly to dismember corpses, albeit in another context entirely— that of the anatomical dissection and the medical postmortem. The first unambiguous record of an Italian autopsy dates from 1286, when the chronicler Salimbene described the actions of a doctor in Cremona, who was inquiring into the nature of a mysterious epidemic.13 By the early fourteenth century, postmortems also were being performed in forensic and private contexts, and medical professors at the university of Bologna had introduced the practice of dissecting human corpses into the study and teaching of anatomy, for the first time since the early Hellenistic period. 14 Over the course of the fourteenth century, both dissection and autopsy spread rapidly among the cities of northern and central Italy, where they were taken up enthusiastically not only by medical faculties, but also by municipal colleges of physicians and surgeons. [emphasis added]

I will send you Park's refs 13 & 14 separately. Anthony.Sebastian 01:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice article

Great work Anthony and John, this article is looking good! David Finn 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)