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)