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)

Nice article

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