1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />
<title>Introduction to Anatomy, by David Edwardes: a Project Gutenberg eBook</title>
<meta name="author" content="David Edwardes" />
<meta name="pss.pubdate" content="1961" />
<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
<link rel="spine" href="images/spine.jpg" />
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://dublincore.org/documents/1998/09/dces/" />
<meta name="DC.Title" content="Introduction to Anatomy" />
<meta name="DC.Language" content="en" />
<meta name="DC.Format" content="text/html" />
<meta name="DC.Created" content="1961" />
<meta name="DC.Creator" content="David Edwardes (****-****)" />
<meta name="DC.Creator" content="C. D. O’Malley (ed.) (****-****)" />
<meta name="DC.Creator" content="K. F. Russell (ed.) (****-****)" />
<style type="text/css">
/* == GLOBAL MARKUP == */
body, table.twocol tr td { margin-left:2em; margin-right:2em; } /* BODY */
.box { border-style:double; margin-bottom:2em; max-width:30em; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-top:2em; }
.box p { margin-right:1em; margin-left:1em; }
.box dl { margin-right:1em; margin-left:1em; }
h1, h2, h3, h5, h6, .titlepg p { text-align:center; clear:both; text-indent:0; } /* HEADINGS */
h2 { margin-top:1.5em; margin-bottom:1em; }
h2 .small { font-size:100%; }
h1 { margin-top:3em; }
div.box h1 { margin-top:1em; }
h3 { margin-top:2.5em; }
h4, h5 { font-size:100%; text-align:right; clear:right; }
h6 { font-size:100%; }
h6.var { font-size:80%; font-style:normal; }
.titlepg { margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; border-style:double; clear:both; }
span.chaptertitle { font-style:normal; display:block; text-align:center; font-size:150%; text-indent:0; }
.tblttl { text-align:center; text-indent:0;}
.tblsttl { text-align:center; font-variant:small-caps; text-indent:0; }
pre sub.ms { width:4em; letter-spacing:1em; }
pre { font-family:serif; }
table.fmla { text-align:center; margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; }
table.inline, table.symbol { display: inline-table; vertical-align: middle; }
td.cola { text-align:left; vertical-align:100%; }
td.colb { text-align:justify; }
p, blockquote, div.p, div.bq { text-align:justify; } /* PARAGRAPHS */
div.p, div.bq { margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; }
blockquote, .bq { margin-left:1em; margin-right:0em; }
.verse { font-size:100%; }
p.indent {text-indent:2em; text-align:left; }
p.tb, p.tbcenter, verse.tb, blockquote.tb { margin-top:2em; }
span.pb, div.pb, dt.pb, p.pb /* PAGE BREAKS */
{ text-align:right; float:right; margin-right:0em; clear:right; }
div.pb { display:inline; }
.pb, dt.pb, dl.toc dt.pb, dl.tocl dt.pb, dl.undent dt.pb, dl.index dt.pb { text-align:right; float:right; margin-left: 1.5em;
margin-top:.5em; margin-bottom:.5em; display:inline; text-indent:0;
font-size:80%; font-style:normal; font-weight:bold;
color:gray; border:1px solid gray;padding:1px 3px; }
div.index .pb { display:block; }
.bq div.pb, .bq span.pb { font-size:90%; margin-right:2em; }
div.img, body a img {text-align:center; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em; clear:right; }
sup, a.fn { font-size:75%; vertical-align:100%; line-height:50%; font-weight:normal; }
h3 a.fn { font-size:65%; }
sub { font-size:75%; }
.center, .tbcenter { text-align:center; clear:both; text-indent:0; } /* TEXTUAL MARKUP */
span.center { display:block; }
table.center { clear:both; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; }
table.center tr td.l {text-align:left; margin-left:0em; }
table.center tr td.j {text-align:justify; }
table.center tr td.ltab { text-align:left; width:2em; }
table.center tr td.t {text-align:left; text-indent:1em; }
table.center tr td.t2 {text-align:left; text-indent:2em; }
table.center tr td.r {text-align:right; }
table.center tr th {vertical-align:bottom; }
table.center tr td {vertical-align:top; }
table.inline, table.symbol { display: inline-table; vertical-align: middle; }
p { clear:left; }
.small, .lsmall { font-size:90%; }
.smaller { font-size:80%; }
.smallest { font-size:67%; }
.larger { font-size:150%; }
.large { font-size:125%; }
.xlarge { font-size:200%; line-height:60%; }
.xxlarge { font-size:200%; line-height:60%; }
.gs { letter-spacing:1em; }
.gs3 { letter-spacing:2em; }
.gslarge { letter-spacing:.3em; font-size:110%; }
.sc { font-variant:small-caps; font-style:normal; }
.unbold { font-weight:normal; }
.xo { position:relative; left:-.3em; }
.over { text-decoration: overline; display:inline; }
hr { width:20%; margin-left:40%; }
hr.dwide { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; width:90%; margin-left:5%; }
.jl { text-align:left; }
.jr { text-align:right; min-width:2em; display:inline-block; float:right; }
.jr1 { text-align:right; margin-right:2em; }
h1 .jr { margin-right:.5em; }
.ind1 { text-align:left; margin-left:2em; }
.u { text-decoration:underline; }
.hst { margin-left:2em; }
.hst { margin-left:4em; }
.rubric { color:red; }
.cnwhite { color:white; background-color:black; min-width:2em; display:inline-block;
text-align:center; font-weight:bold; font-family:sans-serif; }
.cwhite { color:white; background-color:black; text-align:center; font-weight:bold;
font-family:sans-serif; }
ul li { text-align:justify; }
u.dbl { text-decoration:underline; }
.ss { font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:bold; }
p.revint { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; }
dd.t { text-align:left; margin-left: 5.5em; }
dl.toc { clear:both; margin-top:1em; } /* CONTENTS (.TOC) */
.toc dt.center { text-align:center; clear:both; margin-top:3em; margin-bottom:1em; text-indent:0;}
.toc dt { text-align:right; clear:left; }
.toc dd { text-align:right; clear:both; }
.toc dd.ddt { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:4em; }
.toc dd.ddt2 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:5em; }
.toc dd.ddt3 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:6em; }
.toc dd.ddt4 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:7em; }
.toc dd.ddt5 { text-align:right; clear:both; margin-left:8em; }
.toc dd.note { text-align:justify; clear:both; margin-left:5em; text-indent:-1em; margin-right:3em; }
.toc dt .xxxtest {width:17em; display:block; position:relative; left:4em; }
.toc dt a,
.toc dd a,
.toc dt span.left,
.toc dt span.lsmall,
.toc dd span.left { text-align:left; clear:right; float:left; }
.toc dt a span.cn { width:4em; text-align:right; margin-right:.7em; float:left; }
.toc dt.sc { text-align:right; clear:both; }
.toc dt.scl { text-align:left; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; }
.toc dt.sct { text-align:right; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; margin-left:1em; }
.toc dt.jl { text-align:left; clear:both; font-variant:normal; }
.toc dt.scc { text-align:center; clear:both; font-variant:small-caps; text-indent:0; }
.toc dt span.lj { text-align:left; display:block; float:left; }
.toc dd.center { text-align:center; text-indent:0; }
dd.tocsummary {text-align:justify; margin-right:2em; margin-left:2em; }
/* BOX CELL */
td.top { border-top:1px solid; width:.5em; height:.8em; }
td.bot { border-bottom:1px solid; width:.5em; height:.8em; }
td.rb { border:1px solid; border-left:none; width:.5em; height:.8em; }
td.lb { border:1px solid; border-right:none; width:.5em; height:.8em; }
/* INDEX (.INDEX) */
dl.index { clear:both; }
.index dt { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left; }
.index dd { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left; }
.index dd.t { margin-left:6em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left; }
.index dt.center {text-align:center; text-indent:0; }
.ab, .ab1, .ab2 {
font-weight:bold; text-decoration:none;
border-style:solid; border-color:gray; border-width:1px;
margin-right:0px; margin-top:5px; display:inline-block; text-align:center; text-indent:0; }
.ab { width:1em; }
.ab2 { width:1.5em; }
a.gloss { background-color:#f2f2f2; border-bottom-style:dotted; text-decoration:none; border-color:#c0c0c0; color:inherit; }
/* FOOTNOTE BLOCKS */
div.notes p { margin-left:1em; text-indent:-1em; text-align:justify; }
dl.undent dd { margin-left:3em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; }
dl.undent dt { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; clear:both; }
dl.undent dd.t { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; }
/* POETRY LINE NUMBER */
.lnum { text-align:right; float:right; margin-left:.5em; display:inline; }
.hymn { text-align:left; } /* HYMN AND VERSE: HTML */
.verse { text-align:left; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:0em; }
.versetb { text-align:left; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:0em; }
.originc { text-align:center; text-indent:0; }
.subttl { text-align:center; font-size:80%; text-indent:0; }
.srcttl { text-align:center; font-size:80%; text-indent:0; font-weight:bold; }
p.lc { text-indent:0; text-align:center; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; }
p.t0, p.l { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.lb { margin-left:4em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.tw, div.tw, .tw { margin-left:1em; text-indent:-1em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t, div.t, .t { margin-left:5em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t2, div.t2, .t2 { margin-left:6em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t3, div.t3, .t3 { margin-left:7em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t4, div.t4, .t4 { margin-left:8em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t5, div.t5, .t5 { margin-left:9em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t6, div.t6, .t6 { margin-left:10em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t7, div.t7, .t7 { margin-left:11em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t8, div.t8, .t8 { margin-left:12em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t9, div.t9, .t9 { margin-left:13em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t10, div.t10,.t10 { margin-left:14em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t11, div.t11,.t11 { margin-left:15em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t12, div.t12,.t12 { margin-left:16em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t13, div.t13,.t13 { margin-left:17em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t14, div.t14,.t14 { margin-left:18em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.t15, div.t15,.t15 { margin-left:19em; text-indent:-3em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:left; }
p.lr, div.lr, span.lr { display:block; margin-left:0em; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; text-align:right; }
dt.lr { width:100%; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:1em; text-align:right; }
dl dt.lr a { text-align:left; clear:left; float:left; }
.fnblock { margin-top:2em; }
.fndef, p.fn { text-align:justify; margin-top:1.5em; margin-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.5em; }
.fndef p.fncont, .fndef dl { margin-left:0em; text-indent:0em; }
.fnblock dl { margin-top:0; margin-left:4em; text-indent:-2em; }
.fnblock dt { text-align:justify; }
dl.catalog dd { font-style:italic; }
dl.catalog dt { margin-top:1em; }
.author { text-align:right; margin-top:0em; margin-bottom:0em; display:block; }
dl.biblio dt { margin-top:.6em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:justify; clear:both; }
dl.biblio dt div { display:block; float:left; margin-left:-6em; width:6em; clear:both; }
dl.biblio dt.center { margin-left:0em; text-align:center; text-indent:0; }
dl.biblio dd { margin-top:.3em; margin-left:3em; text-align:justify; font-size:90%; }
p.biblio { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; }
.clear { clear:both; }
p.book { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; }
p.review { margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; font-size:80%; }
p.pcap { margin-left:0em; text-indent:0; text-align:center; margin-top:0; }
p.pcapc { margin-left:4.7em; text-indent:0em; text-align:justify; }
span.pn { display:inline-block; width:4.7em; text-align:left; margin-left:0; text-indent:0; }</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 59357 ***</div>
<div id="cover" class="img">
<img id="coverpage" src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Introduction to Anatomy" width="500" height="789" />
</div>
<div class="box">
<h1><span class="smallest">DAVID EDWARDES</span>
<br />Introduction to
<br />Anatomy
<br />1532</h1>
<p class="center smaller">A FACSIMILE REPRODUCTION
<br />WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND
<br />AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
<br />ON ANATOMICAL STUDIES IN
<br />TUDOR ENGLAND</p>
<p class="center"><span class="smaller">BY</span>
<br />C. D. O’MALLEY
<br /><span class="smaller">AND</span>
<br />K. F. RUSSELL</p>
<p class="tbcenter">STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
<br />Stanford, California
<br />1961</p>
</div>
<p class="center small"><i>English translation and Introduction</i>
<br />© C. D. O’Malley <i>and</i> K. F. Russell, 1961</p>
<p class="center smaller">PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
<br />AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
<br />BY VIVIAN RIDLER
<br />PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY</p>
<p class="tbcenter"><span class="smaller">TO THE MEMORY OF</span>
<br />CHARLES SINGER
<br /><span class="smaller">FRIEND AND MENTOR</span></p>
<h2 class="center">CONTENTS</h2>
<dl class="toc">
<dt><a href="#c1">INTRODUCTION</a> 1</dt>
<dt><a href="#c2">NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION</a> 25</dt>
<dt><a href="#c3">FACSIMILE REPRODUCTION</a> 31</dt>
<dt><a href="#c4">ENGLISH TRANSLATION</a> 53</dt>
</dl>
<p class="tb">Grateful acknowledgements are made for
assistance from the National Science Foundation in the
preparation of this work; to the British Museum for
permission to photograph the only copy of David
Edwardes’s <i>Introduction</i> known to be in existence; and
to the Wellcome Trust whose help made the publication
of this work possible.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_1">1</div>
<h2 id="c1"><span class="small">INTRODUCTION</span></h2>
<p>On 22 August 1485 the battle of Bosworth provided
its victor with the throne of England. Richard III
died sword in hand and was unceremoniously
buried in the Grey Friars at Leicester, and on that same
day the victor, Henry Tudor, was as simply crowned and
acclaimed by his troops as Henry VII. So began the Tudor
dynasty in England which was to last until the death of
Elizabeth in 1603, to be one of the most colourful periods
of English history and to witness the arrival of the Renaissance
in England. Later than its manifestation on the
Continent, but thereby reaping the benefits of continental
developments, English humanism as a result was soon to
become no mean rival. The development of English literature
is too well known for comment, while classical studies,
and especially those in Greek, were to rival their continental
counterpart by the end of the first quarter of the sixteenth
century. Science, however, and more particularly
medicine, were laggards.</p>
<p>In those closing years of the fifteenth century which
ushered in the new Tudor monarchy the art of healing
derived from two sources, the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge and the organizations of barbers and surgeons.
At Oxford medical teaching was organized by the fifteenth
century, and medicine constituted one of the four faculties
of the university together with theology, law, and arts. Yet
at Oxford, as at Cambridge, the medical curriculum was
long to remain medieval.<a class="fn" id="fri_1" href="#fni_1">[1]</a> Both schools had taken their
model from Paris, but whereas Parisian medicine had
<span class="pb" id="Page_2">2</span>
begun to stir and advance in the fifteenth century, the
English universities remained somnolent. At Cambridge
the degree of Doctor of Medicine required altogether
twelve years of study based upon lectures and discussions
drawn from medieval sources. While it is true that two
years of this time were to be spent in the practice of medicine—seemingly
a borrowing from the methods of Montpellier—there
was no provision for human anatomical study,<a class="fn" id="fri_2" href="#fni_2">[2]</a>
although this was recognized and demonstrated with some
slight annual regularity to the Parisian students from the
latter fifteenth century onward.</p>
<p>If we turn to the other source of healing, the organizations
of the barbers and the surgeons, in so far as anatomy
was concerned the situation was no better and, indeed, it
may be said to have been worse in view of the obvious
relationship which ought to have obtained between surgery
and anatomy. In London the fraternity of barbers existed as
early as 1308,<a class="fn" id="fri_3" href="#fni_3">[3]</a> and the craft of surgery as a body distinct
from that of the barbers is recorded in 1368.<a class="fn" id="fri_4" href="#fni_4">[4]</a> Both barbers
and surgeons sought to establish rules of professional conduct
for the members of their respective organizations as
well as a period of time and a curriculum to be satisfied by
aspirants to barbery or to surgery. Despite the efforts of the
surgeons to control the practice of surgery, relegating to
the barbers only the most simple and menial tasks, certain
of the more ambitious barbers sought to go beyond such
activities as beard-trimming, cutting, and phlebotomy,
and this determination gave rise in the first quarter of the
fifteenth century to the barber-surgeon[, no longer acting in
the normal occupation of the barber and clearly divorced
from his old trade.<a class="fn" id="fri_5" href="#fni_5">[5]</a></p>
<p>Throughout the fifteenth century the barber-surgeons and
surgeons appear to have remained on fairly amicable terms,
<span class="pb" id="Page_3">3</span>
presumably carrying on much the same sort of practice.
The surgeons, who took precedence on occasions of solemnities
and festivities, were perhaps somewhat better trained,
but nowhere is there any record that such training required
the study of human anatomy.<a class="fn" id="fri_6" href="#fni_6">[6]</a> One learned the trade by
apprenticeship to a surgeon and by consulting textbooks of
surgery. From surviving manuscripts it is possible to determine
what these textual guides were: primarily such as
those of the celebrated fourteenth-century surgeons, Gui de
Chauliac and Henri de Mondeville. It is true that late
medieval surgeons were accustomed to introduce the surgical
subject by a short anatomical preface, medieval in character,
the result of cursory and incomplete post-mortem examinations,
but hardly sufficient to permit a proper grasp of
anatomy even were that possible of attainment from literary
sources.</p>
<p>Hence the opening of the Tudor dynasty in England
witnessed a medicine and a surgery lacking the essential
and fundamental knowledge of the human structure. The
traditions of English medicine were medieval, and medieval
medicine had not concerned itself especially with
anatomy. If we compare continental medicine of the same
period the situation is found to be considerably different. In
the course of the fifteenth century anatomy was being practised—diffidently
to be sure, but nevertheless recognized and
employed in Paris where the first human dissection, in the
form of a brief autopsy, had been performed in 1407.<a class="fn" id="fri_7" href="#fni_7">[7]</a> The
first human anatomy mentioned in the <i>Commentaries</i> of
the Medical Faculty of Paris was performed in 1477-8 on
the body of an executed criminal,<a class="fn" id="fri_8" href="#fni_8">[8]</a> but the incident is recorded
without any suggestion of its being a novelty and so
raises the possibility that there may have been other dissections
in previous years. The practice of human anatomy
<span class="pb" id="Page_4">4</span>
was even earlier in Italy where there is record of an autopsy
in 1286,<a class="fn" id="fri_9" href="#fni_9">[9]</a> and in 1316 Mundinus, called the ‘Restorer of
Anatomy’, completed his <i>Anothomia</i> in which he describes
his systematic dissection of the human body.
Official decree permitted the practice of human dissection
in many cities, especially those with medical schools, and
such official recognition was granted at Bologna in 1405<a class="fn" id="fri_10" href="#fni_10">[10]</a>
and at Padua in 1429.<a class="fn" id="fri_11" href="#fni_11">[11]</a> Elsewhere similar recognition of
human dissection was obtained at Montpellier in 1340,<a class="fn" id="fri_12" href="#fni_12">[12]</a> at
Lerida in 1391,<a class="fn" id="fri_13" href="#fni_13">[13]</a> at Vienna in 1435,<a class="fn" id="fri_14" href="#fni_14">[14]</a> and at Tübingen in
1485.<a class="fn" id="fri_15" href="#fni_15">[15]</a> As a consequence, by the opening of the sixteenth
century a series of anatomical texts, based in varying degrees
upon human dissection, began to appear, such as those of
Benedetti, Achillini, and Berengario da Carpi.</p>
<p>The difference can be explained, at least in part, by the
fact that on the Continent the classical revival of the Renaissance
had caused or was causing medieval tradition to be
replaced by that of classical antiquity. The Renaissance
represented an effort to revive the spirit and interests of the
classical world, and classical antiquity had been much interested
in the structure of man. Especially important was
the recovery of the Greek language and literature since it
made possible the recovery of the writings of the great
classical physicians, notably Hippocrates and Galen, for
generally speaking classical Greece had shown more interest
in human anatomy than had classical Rome. This recovery
had occurred first in Italy, then moved northward
across the Alps and only in the early sixteenth century did
it reach England.</p>
<p>While even earlier some Englishmen had travelled to
Italy to study the classical revival at its source, and even to
study the more advanced Italian medicine of Padua, it may
be said that Thomas Grocyn was the first significant leader
<span class="pb" id="Page_5">5</span>
of the new classical movement in England, in particular
the recovery of Greek. He had managed to learn some
Greek even in England, but it was not until after a trip to
Italy in 1488, where he spent two years, that he returned
to instil Oxford with an enthusiasm for classical Greek
humanism.<a class="fn" id="fri_16" href="#fni_16">[16]</a> But if Grocyn is of importance as an English
pioneer in the recovery of Greek and Hellenic studies, of
far greater importance for the present subject was Grocyn’s
lifelong friend and ultimately the executor of his estate,
Thomas Linacre.</p>
<p>Linacre looms very large in the revival of classical medicine
which gave a general impetus toward a better and
more modern medicine. Born at Canterbury about 1460 he
was led ultimately by his studies to Oxford where he became
a fellow of All Souls College in 1484.<a class="fn" id="fri_17" href="#fni_17">[17]</a> Although by
this time he could make some beginnings of the study of
the revived classical literature, and even Greek, at Oxford,
nevertheless it was still desirable if possible to pursue such
studies in Italy, and with the opportunity offered him,
Linacre travelled to that land about 1487, remaining at
least until 1496,<a class="fn" id="fri_18" href="#fni_18">[18]</a> in which latter year he received the degree
of Doctor of Medicine from the University of Padua.<a class="fn" id="fri_19" href="#fni_19">[19]</a></p>
<p>Returned to England, Linacre taught Greek at Oxford.
Grocyn was his friend, Sir Thomas More his pupil, and
upon the arrival at Oxford of Erasmus, that great classical
scholar likewise became an intimate, all of them enthusiasts
and promoters of Greek studies.</p>
<p>However, as a physician Linacre had a special bent toward
the Greek medical classics. This was manifested by
the appearance in 1517 of his translation of Galen’s book
<i>On Hygiene</i>. In 1519 this was followed by the <i>Method of
Treatment</i>, in 1521 by the book <i>On Temperaments</i>, and two
years later by the <i>Natural Faculties</i> and <i>On the Use of Pulses</i>.
<span class="pb" id="Page_6">6</span>
In 1524 just after Linacre’s death a sixth translation, that of
Galen’s <i>Differences of Symptoms</i> and <i>Causes of Symptoms</i>,
appeared. As yet very few physicians in England knew
Greek, but they all knew Latin, and these accurate translations
into clear, straightforward Latin made a considerable
portion of Galen’s medical writings available for the first
time. The contrast between medieval medical writings and
those of Galen which had now been made available
seemed to emphasize that general Renaissance belief that
civilization had reached its peak in classical times and that
much could be gained by a return to classical teachings, in
this instance the teaching of classical physicians. It is true
that only the Galenic books on medicine had been translated,
but they were sufficient to whet the appetite for more,
and as the new generation of physicians arose, now trained
in Greek, if the pattern were followed, they would turn to
the Galenic writings on anatomy in the original language
as well as to those of Hippocrates.<a class="fn" id="fri_20" href="#fni_20">[20]</a> The first of this younger
generation who is recorded to have come under this Greek
medical influence and made this possibility a reality produced
two remarkable pioneer efforts: the first recorded dissection
of a human body in England about 1531 and the
first book on anatomy written in England, published in
1532, or, reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar,
1533.</p>
<p>The person responsible for these two milestones was
named David Edwardes, or, in the Latin form he employed,
Edguardus. However, very little is known of his life and
activities. He was admitted as a scholar to Corpus Christi
College, Oxford, on 9 August 1517, and the register of
admissions indicates that he was then fifteen years old and
a native of Northamptonshire.<a class="fn" id="fri_21" href="#fni_21">[21]</a> He became Bachelor of
Arts in 1522<a class="fn" id="fri_22" href="#fni_22">[22]</a> although for a time previous to this, in 1521,
<span class="pb" id="Page_7">7</span>
he appears briefly to have held the readership in Greek,
substituting for the regular reader, Edward Wotton, then
abroad.<a class="fn" id="fri_23" href="#fni_23">[23]</a> In 1525 Edwardes became Master of Arts,<a class="fn" id="fri_24" href="#fni_24">[24]</a> and
thereafter received a fellowship in the college. He is further
mentioned in the account book of the college for 1527-8 as
receiving 38<i>s.</i> 9<i>d.</i>,<a class="fn" id="fri_25" href="#fni_25">[25]</a> presumably for further teaching of Greek.</p>
<p>Corpus Christi College had been founded in 1515-16
chiefly through the magnanimity of Richard Foxe, Bishop
of Winchester, and was provided with its statutes in 1517.
The founder, strongly interested in the newly revived
classical learning had provided for a chair of Greek, which,
as has been mentioned, was briefly held by Edwardes in an
interim capacity, while the first president of the college,
John Claymond, was likewise a strong advocate of the new
learning.</p>
<p>Perhaps not sufficient stress has been placed upon the
contribution made by physicians, at least in England, to
the revival of Greek studies, although it is sometimes difficult
to determine which of the two disciplines, medicine or
Greek, was the impulsion to the study of the other. Both
Linacre and Wotton were serious students of Greek before
they undertook medical studies, but once embarked upon
medicine, both of them having studied at Padua, not only
did they become especially conscious of the failings of
medieval medicine in contrast to the classical, but the
philosophical and literary aspects of Galen’s writings must
have caused them to retain a concern with Greek literature
as a whole even though their primary consideration had
come to be a single facet of the body of that literature.
Furthermore, the scientific nature of their interest permitted
no equivocation in their knowledge of the language. Translations
of Galen or Hippocrates required an exactitude
beyond that of purely literary treatises. But whatever the
<span class="pb" id="Page_8">8</span>
relevancy of such remarks, it is certainly of significance that
among the first teachers of Greek in England were Linacre,
Clement, and Wotton, all physicians, and for our present
purpose as it relates to David Edwardes, it should be noted
that two of these men, Clement and Wotton, were
associated with Corpus Christi College.</p>
<p>In addition to the stress upon Greek studies which must
inevitably have led Edwardes to the classical Greek writers
upon medicine and conducted him along the pathway
already marked out by Thomas Linacre, there were in the
college certain possibly more direct influences towards an
interest in medicine which have already been alluded to. In
short, John Clement, the early lecturer of Greek<a class="fn" id="fri_26" href="#fni_26">[26]</a> was a
physician and friend of Linacre as well as a fellow in the
College of Physicians of London which Linacre had inaugurated
in 1518, while still another student of medicine
was Edward Wotton, Reader in Greek and later physician
to Henry VIII, for whom Edwardes had briefly substituted.</p>
<p>Still another incentive toward medical study may have
been a requirement in chapter 25 of the original statutes. In
accordance with this all fellows of the college who held
the degree of Master of Arts were required to assume holy
orders, unless deputed to the study of medicine. It has been
suggested that recipients of this exception were originally
expected to attend to the medical needs of the other inmates
of the college,<a class="fn" id="fri_27" href="#fni_27">[27]</a> and it seems likely that Edwardes was one of
these <i>medicinae deputati</i>.</p>
<p>Our next record indicates that he had removed to the
University of Cambridge where in 1528-9, and upon payment
of 3<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i><a class="fn" id="fri_28" href="#fni_28">[28]</a> and after lecturing publicly upon Galen’s
<i>De Differentiis Febrium</i>, he was incepted in medicine with
recognition of ‘seven years study of medicine’, presumably
at Oxford.<a class="fn" id="fri_29" href="#fni_29">[29]</a></p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_9">9</div>
<p>In his only known book, to be considered later, Edwardes
informs us that his first practice of medicine had been ‘at
Bristol, having left my teachers only shortly before and
begun to swim without any support’,<a class="fn" id="fri_30" href="#fni_30">[30]</a> although it is not
clear whether this represented a brief interlude between
Oxford and Cambridge or after he had received his degree
of Doctor of Medicine. Whatever the case may have been,
the few remaining autobiographical references are to his
practice in and around Cambridge. As a member of
the Faculty of Medicine, it is possible that Edwardes was
criticized for devoting an excessive amount of time to his
private practice, since in 1530-1 permission was granted
him to be excused from a statutory requirement of attendance
at ‘all congregations, masses and exequies’.<a class="fn" id="fri_31" href="#fni_31">[31]</a> Nevertheless
he participated in the examinations of at least two
students, one in 1537-8<a class="fn" id="fri_32" href="#fni_32">[32]</a> and the other in 1540-1.<a class="fn" id="fri_33" href="#fni_33">[33]</a></p>
<p>Edwardes’s little book, to which reference was made
above, was published in London in 1532 [O.S.] by Robert
Redman. It is composed of two treatises of which the first,
entitled <i>On Symptoms and Prognostications</i> (<i>De Indiciis et
Praecognitionibus</i>), deals with uroscopy and medical prognostication,
and since it represents merely the continuation
of a medieval tradition it is of little importance except, as
has been said, for its few autobiographical details. In his
practice of medicine Edwardes appears to have represented,
as we might expect, a combination of the old and the new.
While giving support to uroscopy and displaying some
sympathy toward folk medicine, he also gave allegiance to
Hippocrates and Galen, and like his continental colleagues
of this period he was not averse to the introduction of a
word or even several lines of Greek into his text, so indicating
his enthusiasm for and his ties with the classical revival.
Furthermore, he was certainly one of the first English
<span class="pb" id="Page_10">10</span>
physicians to appreciate Linacre and terms him ‘the most
learned physician of his age’.<a class="fn" id="fri_34" href="#fni_34">[34]</a></p>
<p>The second treatise, <i>A Brief but Excellent Introduction to
Anatomy</i> (<i>In Anatomicen Introductio Luculenta et Brevis</i>), is, as
has been mentioned, the first work published in England
which was devoted solely to anatomy, and therefore despite
its brevity it deserves some consideration in the general
history of medicine and even greater consideration in that
of English medicine. Turning our attention now to this
treatise on anatomy it should be first noted that although
printed in the same volume with the work on medical
symptoms and sharing a common title-page with that
work, the treatise on anatomy has a separate dedication to
Henry Howard (1517?-1547), Earl of Surrey. It had been
at the request of Henry VIII that this young nobleman took
up residence at Windsor and lived there from 1530 to 1532
as the companion of Henry’s son, the Duke of Richmond.
Since Edwardes had dedicated the first treatise to the Duke
of Richmond on 21 December 1532, it is not difficult to
comprehend his choice of the duke’s companion for the
second dedication which bears the date 1 January 1532, or,
according to the Gregorian calendar, 1533. There is nothing
remarkable about this latter dedication, which contains
the usual flattery, except for the final passage. There
the author remarked upon the ignorance of anatomy among
physicians, sometimes with lethal results. He recognized
that the subject of anatomy was a difficult one, hence his
treatise has been written with brevity and clarity. Later, as
he promised, if opportunity were to be granted to him he
would write a more elaborate work.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hereafter, if God permit, I shall compose a complete book
of anatomy in which I shall further the opinions of all the
learned, to which my own opinion will be added. I could have
<span class="pb" id="Page_11">11</span>
done this at present but not, however, with the same effort or
with the form of an introduction preserved. It remains that this
little book, which we have enlisted in the service of the commonwealth,
may be pleasing to you, for it recognizes the existence
of those very few unlearned physicians by whose mistakes
many perish, from which this fact will be gathered, that no
parts of the body should be unknown to physicians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This promise of a more extensive work in which the author
was to include his independent anatomical observations,
presumably based on further human dissection, appears not
to have been fulfilled or, at any rate, there is no record of
any such later and more extended anatomical treatise by
Edwardes.</p>
<p>The text of this <i>Introduction to Anatomy</i> fills no more than
fifteen small pages, and its very brevity must have made it
virtually useless; even the author says that it ‘is indeed a
slight work’. The plan of presentation is that which had
been popularized by Mundinus and was required by the
relative speeds with which the different parts of the body
succumbed to putrefaction during the course of dissection.
Thus Edwardes first describes the lower venter, that is, the
abdomen, abdominal cavity, and pelvis, next the thorax,
and finally the brain and nervous system. Within his very
brief presentation no mention is made of the extremities
while, relative to the limits of the discussion, a preponderance
of attention has been devoted to what were considered
the organs of nutrition and blood manufacture.</p>
<p>The anatomical nomenclature is mildly astonishing,
especially when one considers the time and place of composition.
But if one considers that Edwardes was sufficiently
learned in Greek to act as Reader in Greek at his college for
a short period, it will not be too amazing to find him somewhat
scornful of the terms employed by those he calls
<span class="pb" id="Page_12">12</span>
‘Barbarians’, that is, the European school influenced by Moslem
medical writers, chiefly through the <i>Canon</i> of Avicenna,
which employed an anatomical terminology drawn from
Latin and from curious hybrid forms partly Latin, partly
Greek, partly Arabic and in some parts from Hebrew.
Edwardes, on the contrary, employs classical Greek terminology
as, for example, omentum rather than the medieval <i>zirbus</i>
and mesenteric in preference to <i>meseraic</i>. In so far as his
description extends, his nomenclature is as ‘modern’, if not
more so, than that of some of the more learned anatomists
on the Continent. Yet, while his vocabulary may be more
modern his anatomy is not. Indeed, in the introduction he
remarked, as has been mentioned, that in the future he
hoped to write a more extensive work ‘to which my own
opinion will be added’. By implication, then, in this first
brief treatise he had drawn upon earlier authorities, and
while we might expect that this student of Greek would
turn to Galen and Hippocrates this is true only in part. The
liver as he describes it is medieval, the three-chambered heart
is Aristotelian, derived from those ‘Barbarians’ he scorned.</p>
<p>While the treatise is noteworthy as the first work written
in England solely devoted to anatomy, the text intrinsically
is of little further value except for one statement referring to
the emulgent, or renal veins. ‘In the body of that one whom
we dissected very recently the left branch had a higher place
of origin. Very often, however, the opposite occurs, so that
the right emulgent vein is carried higher in the body.’ Here
we have the first reference to human dissection in England,
in which, moreover, the anatomist observing through his
own eyes rather than those of past authorities, noted a variation
from the commonly given description of the emulgent
veins, a description derived from Galen’s anatomical studies
on animals.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_13">13</div>
<p>Little more can be said about Edwardes. He seems to
have died about 1542,<a class="fn" id="fri_35" href="#fni_35">[35]</a> and perhaps this explains why the
larger work was never to be published. Perhaps, had he
remained at Oxford, he might have established an anatomical
tradition, and so provided the influence which his
book was not to have. Today only one copy of this little
treatise is known, that in the library of the British Museum,
and no consideration appears to have been paid to it from
Edwardes’s day to the present. However, its virtual extinction
was not the result of hard usage by students such as that
which determined the almost complete annihilation of
Vesalius’ <i>Tabulae Anatomicae</i>. As has been said, no contemporary
mentioned Edwardes, despite the fact that his
book was published in London. The edition must have
been a small one, and copies were not likely to have been
preserved as other and better works on anatomy began to be
imported from the Continent.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the universities continued their drowsy course
so far unaffected in any way by the efforts of an alumnus of
one of them. The barber-surgeons and surgeons appear to
have been equally unproductive of anything new, still leaning
upon earlier continental writers. Yet a few individuals
recognized the need for improvement. Well before the surgeons
of England received official encouragement for anatomical
study the surgeons of Edinburgh had asked for
and obtained bodies for dissection. On 1 July 1505 the
magistrates of Edinburgh granted a Seal of Cause to the
Guild of Surgeons and Barbers, and this was confirmed by
James IV on 13 October 1506. Among the clauses regulating
the practice of the barbers and the surgeons is one
giving them the body of one felon each year for an anatomy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... and that we may have anis [once] in the yeir ane condampnit
man efter he be deid to mak antomell of, quhairthraw we
<span class="pb" id="Page_14">14</span>
may haif experience, ilk ane to instrict vtheris ... and that na
barbour, maister nor seruand, within this burgh hantt [practise]
vse nor exerce the craft of Surregenrie without he be expert and
knaw perfytelie the thingis abouewritten.<a class="fn" id="fri_36" href="#fni_36">[36]</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Edinburgh, therefore, was the cradle of anatomical study in
the British Isles. In England Thomas Linacre had founded
the College of Physicians of London in 1518 with the idea
of its being a select body of physicians to raise medical
standards and maintain them through its power of licensing
to practice. The need of more modern surgical texts was
indicated by the publication in 1525 of a translation of the
work of the late fifteenth-century German surgeon, Hieronymus
Brunschwig, which contained a brief section on
anatomy, but there appears to have been no attempt to produce
a new and up-to-date surgery in England. The fact
was that the more advanced books from continental Europe
proceeded to smother any continuance of independent
native efforts, and in the field of anatomy this makes the
early appearance of David Edwardes’s little treatise an
astonishing chronological anomaly in the history of English
anatomical writing. The importance of anatomy was now
to be recognized, but it would be a long time before another
native English treatise on the subject was published.</p>
<p>The introduction of the officially recognized, and even
encouraged, study of human anatomy into England was the
result of influences brought to bear from several sources: the
desire of King Henry VIII to improve the practice of medicine
and surgery in England and possibly, too, with
thoughts for a higher quality of military surgery; and the
desire, as well, of some of the more thoughtful surgeons, of
whom Thomas Vicary was probably one. So it was that
in 1540 the Company of Barbers was united with the
Fraternity of Surgeons to form what was called the United
<span class="pb" id="Page_15">15</span>
Company of Barber-Surgeons of which Thomas Vicary
was named Master in 1541, an event handsomely commemorated
in a painting commissioned from Hans Holbein
the younger.<a class="fn" id="fri_37" href="#fni_37">[37]</a></p>
<p>In the Charter by which the union was officially sanctioned,
a statement is to be found which was to be of
particular importance to the advancement of anatomical
knowledge:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the sayd maysters or governours of the mistery and comminaltie
of barbours and surgeons of London, and their successours
yerely for ever after their sad discrecions at their free liberte and
pleasure shal and maie have and take without contradiction
foure persons condempned adiudged and put to deathe for
feloni by the due order of the kynges lawe of thys realme for
anatomies without any further sute or labour to be made to the
kynges highnes his heyres or successours for the same. And to
make incision of the same deade bodies or otherwyse to order
the same after their said discrecions at their pleasures for their
further and better knowlage instruction insight learnyng and
experience in the sayd scyence or facultie of surgery.<a class="fn" id="fri_38" href="#fni_38">[38]</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is of interest to note that very soon after the Charter had
been granted, Thomas Vicary approached the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen of London to make sure that the Barber-Surgeons
should receive the bodies of the felons for anatomical
study. It would seem that the Court of Aldermen were
not sure how they should direct their Sheriffs, for the
Minutes of the Court for 14 December 1540 state:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... Item, Master Laxton & Master Bowes, Shreves of this
Citye, prayed the Advyse of this howse for & concernying the
Delyuerye ouer of one of the dedde bodyes of the Felons of late
condempned to dethe within this Citye, And requyred of the
seyd Master Shreves by Master Vycary & other the surgeons of
this Citye for Annotamye, Accordyng to the fourme of an
<span class="pb" id="Page_16">16</span>
Acte of parlyament thereof lately made. And Agreyd that the
same Acte be first seen & then Master Shreves to work ther
after.<a class="fn" id="fri_39" href="#fni_39">[39]</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>With human dissection material assured, the United
Company proceeded to appoint a Reader of Anatomy, the
first perhaps being Thomas Vicary, and although the intervening
records of the company are not complete, it is
known that in 1546 Dr. John Caius, lately returned from
Padua, where he had been acquainted with and even lived
for a time with the celebrated anatomist Andreas Vesalius,
was appointed and held the position of Reader of Anatomy
for the next seventeen years. In his brief autobiography
Caius refers to these dissections which he performed ‘for
almost twenty years’, and adds, ‘By the wish of the most
illustrious prince Henry VIII, King of England, I performed
them in London before the surgeons; among the
physicians at that time there was no dissection.’<a class="fn" id="fri_40" href="#fni_40">[40]</a> It may be
assumed, however, that by ‘physicians’ Caius was referring
to those of London rather than to those of the universities.
Nevertheless, his remark helps to explain the lack of anatomical
works which might have competed with those of
the Continent. The physicians, although better trained in
languages than the surgeons and, we may assume, literary
exposition, were as yet not interested in the subject of
anatomy.</p>
<p>Nevertheless it does seem somewhat incredible that the
physicians were so late in taking up the practice of human
dissection. While it is always dangerous to exceed the
limits of evidence, this peculiar situation in regard to the
College of Physicians of London requires that attention be
called to a statute of the college reproduced by Munk who
gives it the date 1569-70.<a class="fn" id="fri_41" href="#fni_41">[41]</a> According to this authority, the
terms employed in the statute, reproduced below in translation,
<span class="pb" id="Page_17">17</span>
suggest that human anatomical dissection was already
being employed by the physicians of the college at the time,
although it seems impossible to determine whether or not
the reference is to a period earlier than 1565 when Elizabeth
granted them four bodies annually for anatomical purposes.<a class="fn" id="fri_42" href="#fni_42">[42]</a>
However, it seems unlikely that the college, which was so
concerned with the enforcement of laws concerning medicine
would itself perform an illegal action and therefore
that Elizabeth’s grant to the college most likely introduced
it to human dissection. Furthermore, one wonders just how
frequently the college employed its new right, and in this
respect it is interesting to note that there is no reference
either to Elizabeth’s grant or to any dissection at all in the
<i>Annals</i> of the college as written by John Caius.<a class="fn" id="fri_43" href="#fni_43">[43]</a></p>
<p>Although the study of human anatomy was now officially
recognized and regularly pursued, at least in London,
it would be incorrect to believe that native English anatomical
writings would be forthcoming to continue the course
modestly established by David Edwardes. The apathy or
even hostility of physicians toward anatomical studies was
an obstacle experienced earlier on the Continent and referred
to by Vesalius who contributed no small share to the
growth of anatomy’s respectability in the eyes of physicians.
However, the time lag between the Continent and England
had resulted in a disregard of anatomical studies by English
physicians at the very times when continental physicians
had begun to interest themselves in the subject and publish
anatomical studies. As a result it was inevitable that for
such Englishmen as were interested in anatomy it was easier
to import the more advanced and elaborate continental
texts, and dependence on such alien works was for long to
be the regular pattern. But even with these advanced, contemporary
works available, the practice continued among
<span class="pb" id="Page_18">18</span>
the surgeons of republishing old and obsolete anatomico-surgical
treatises of late medieval times. If such a practice
was dictated by an elementary knowledge, certainly the
continuance of it would not lead to any development.</p>
<p>In 1544 a Flemish engraver named Thomas Lambrit,
better known under his pseudonym of Geminus, engraved
on copper a series of anatomical figures plagiarized from
the <i>Fabrica</i> and <i>Epitome</i> of Vesalius. Geminus displayed the
plates, which are of considerable artistic merit, indeed,
the first of high quality to be produced in England, to King
Henry VIII. That monarch, aware of the need of anatomical
books to bolster the anatomical teaching now in progress,
urged Geminus to publish his engravings. Never one
to scorn the chance of gain, Geminus proceeded to follow
this royal advice in the succeeding year (1545) and added
to his plates a dedication to the king and the text of
Vesalius’ <i>Epitome</i>.<a class="fn" id="fri_44" href="#fni_44">[44]</a> For some peculiar reason the completely
innocent John Caius has occasionally been blamed as the
impetus to this plagiarized publication despite the fact that
Geminus states plainly in his preface that Henry VIII was
responsible for his decision to publish.</p>
<p>While the illustrations plagiarized from Vesalius may
have been of some pedagogical value, the text of the
<i>Epitome</i> certainly was no anatomical manual, and the fact
that it was in Latin, which many if not most of the surgeons
could not read, gave it even less value.</p>
<p>It was perhaps at least partly for these reasons that
Thomas Vicary appears to have issued in 1548 an anatomical
text in English entitled <i>A Profitable Treatise of the Anatomie
of Mans Body</i>. No copy of it is known to exist today,
and its existence is realized only through mention of it on
the title-page of an edition published in 1577 by the surgeons
of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and a reference to it in
<span class="pb" id="Page_19">19</span>
1565 by another surgeon, John Halle, who refers to Vicary
as ‘the firste that euer wrote a treatyse of Anatomye in
English (to the profite of his brethren chirurgiens and the
helpe of younge studientes) as farre as I can learne’.<a class="fn" id="fri_45" href="#fni_45">[45]</a>
However, to refer to the ‘profite’ and ‘helpe’ to be obtained
from Vicary’s treatise is to reveal the deplorable
state of anatomical studies in England at the time and to
cause one to wonder if Halle had read by way of contrast
the continental writings of that period. It seems very likely
that what has been termed Vicary’s anatomy was nothing
other than a copy of a manuscript, presently in the Wellcome
Historical Medical Library in London, dated 1392
and merely a compilation of Lanfranc, Henri de Mondeville,
and Gui de Chauliac, the most recent of them dead
in 1367. Thus not only was Vicary’s work not based upon
dissection, except for a secondhand account of crude fourteenth-century
autopsy, but it represented a definite case of
retrogression.</p>
<p>The next anatomical publication in England was a new
edition in 1553 of Geminus’s plagiarized anatomical plates,
but this time with an English text by Nicholas Udall, best
known as the author of the first important English comedy,
<i>Ralph Roister Doister</i>, and utterly lacking in knowledge
of anatomy. In consequence one may correctly hazard that
this work, published with commercial rather than pedagogical
motives, would not contribute much to knowledge
of anatomy in England, even though the text was
now in English. It is true that Vesalius’ descriptions of his
illustrations were put into English, the first translation into
English of any portion of the <i>Fabrica</i>, but the text which
now replaced the <i>Epitome</i> of the earlier edition of 1545, like
Vicary’s work, is predominantly indebted to that same
fourteenth-century manuscript compiled from the writings
<span class="pb" id="Page_20">20</span>
of late medieval surgeons. Finally, the sheets of this work
were reissued in 1559 with a new preface written by Richard
Eden which aimed to delude the public into the belief
that the publication had been revised.</p>
<p>About this time, too, a small series of anatomical fugitive
sheets with superimposed flaps made their appearance
in England. One, at least, had two leaves of English text to
explain the woodcut and is nearly always discovered bound
into the 1559 reissue of Geminus’s book. The fugitive
sheets, like their continental predecessors and followers,
added very little to anatomical knowledge and must have
been for popular consumption.</p>
<p>If we turn now for a moment to give consideration to
continental activity during the same period, there is no
difficulty in observing the superiority of publications
abroad. In 1543 the <i>Fabrica</i> of Vesalius was published, in
1545 the <i>De Dissectione</i> of Rivière and Estienne, in 1555 the
revised and much improved second edition of the <i>Fabrica</i>,
in 1556 <i>Composicion del Cuerpo Humano</i> of Valverde, and in
1559 the <i>De Re Anatomica</i> of Colombo. It is little wonder
that these foreign texts overwhelmed the English market
and prevented any initiative which might have led to the
publication of any but the most rudimentary manuals, presuming
that there was in England anyone who had pursued
the study of anatomy sufficiently to be in a position
to compete with the continental authorities. On the other
hand, the superiority of the foreign publications owed part
of that superiority to the fact that they were the work of
much better educated physicians who had undertaken the
study of anatomy, whereas in England the subject was yet
very largely under the control of the less learned and less
articulate surgeons who thought of anatomy more as a
limited body of technical information required for surgery
<span class="pb" id="Page_21">21</span>
rather than a field of knowledge to be studied for itself and
capable of indefinite expansion. David Edwardes had sought
to set medicine on the right course, but to no avail. While in
time the Faculties of Medicine in the two universities would
pay some lip-service to anatomy, yet some considerable time
was to pass before they became genuinely interested in the
subject.</p>
<p>In 1549 a royal examination of the Oxford statutes led
to a declaration that they were ‘antiquated, semi-barbarous
and obscure’, and new ones were substituted. In regard to
medicine it was declared that before receiving the degree of
Bachelor of Medicine the student must see two anatomical
dissections, and himself perform two dissections before receiving
his licence to practice. Before receiving the degree
of Doctor of Medicine he was required to observe two or
three more dissections.<a class="fn" id="fri_46" href="#fni_46">[46]</a> This, however, seems more likely
to have been the ideal than the reality and echoes a similar
but normally unfulfilled requirement in fifteenth-century
Paris. It is more likely that the frequency with which anatomy
was conducted at Oxford would have depended upon
the particular interest of the Professor of Medicine, such as
Walter Bayley (1529-93) who became Regius Professor of
Medicine in 1561 and who at his death left his ‘skeleton of
bones in Oxford’ to his successor in the chair.<a class="fn" id="fri_47" href="#fni_47">[47]</a> However,
no Reader in Anatomy was appointed at Oxford until
1624. Indeed, the founder of the readership, Richard Tomlins,
recognized the situation in his grant by noting that the
study of anatomy was</p>
<blockquote>
<p>more particularly necessary for the faculties and Artes of
Phisicke and Chirurgery, the perfection whereof doth much
avayle to the safety health and comfort of the whole Commonwealth
in the conservation of theire persons: And that there is
as yet in neither of the Vniversities of this Kingdome (thoughe
<span class="pb" id="Page_22">22</span>
otherwise the most florisshing of the whole Christian world)
any such Anatomy Lecture founded or established.<a class="fn" id="fri_48" href="#fni_48">[48]</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If we may believe John Caius, writing after the middle of
the century, the first early enthusiasm for Greek studies had
worn off among physicians. Caius, himself a very competent
Grecist, wrote in advocacy of the study of Greek
medicine in the Greek language, that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>as each is more capable in his own tongue so he is consistent and
always remains himself which contributes much to clarity, since
each tongue has its own idioms and inexpressible terms which
when translated do not retain the same emphasis or a like grace.
In short, translators some times do not understand certain
things, elsewhere they fall asleep, do not retain exactness of
diction, restrain freedom, and since we are all human and so
desirous of variety, from time to time they slip so that not only
may there be obscurity but even ambiguity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nevertheless, wrote Caius, in his day ‘everyone turns to the
Latin editions and no one touches the Greek’.<a class="fn" id="fri_49" href="#fni_49">[49]</a></p>
<p>It is certainly true that after that first generation of men
like Linacre, there was little interest in England in the
original language of Galen and Hippocrates. The surgeons,
certainly, knew no Greek, and the physicians were not
interested in anatomy. There was to be little controversy,
therefore, as to the meaning of any of Galen’s anatomical
terms and less likelihood of investigating and disputing
Galenic assertions. Acceptance without demur of the
translation was a long step toward unquestioned acceptance
of the content of the original. Hence it appears that by the
middle of the sixteenth century the authority of Galen in
Latin dress, or of his commentators, was not very likely to
be opposed. On the Continent it had been instances of
questions and opposition which had brought about anatomical
<span class="pb" id="Page_23">23</span>
advancement by resort to the only arbiter of doubts
and questions, that is, the cadaver.</p>
<p>With conditions as they have been portrayed it is no
wonder, therefore, that little initiative was displayed in
England. The most popular of the foreign works in England,
as on the Continent, appears to have been the <i>De Re
Anatomica</i> of Colombo which held its position until well
after the opening of the seventeenth century. It was excellent
for its time, not certainly the equal of the <i>Fabrica</i>, but on the
other hand much cheaper to purchase, less bulky to hold,
and not so detailed as to be confusing. It was probably this
particular work in its several editions which more than any
other prevented the appearance of a native English anatomical
text.</p>
<p>In 1578 John Banister published a book entitled <i>The
Historie of Man, sucked from the Sappe of the most approued
Anathomistes</i>. The title indicates the character of the work,
drawn from continental authorities, and especially from
Colombo, despite the fact that Banister was Reader in Anatomy
to the United Company and therefore in a position to
undertake independent researches. Indeed, a contemporary
painting shows Banister in his capacity as Reader standing
beside an open copy of Colombo’s <i>De Re Anatomica</i>.<a class="fn" id="fri_50" href="#fni_50">[50]</a></p>
<p>It is clearly apparent that English anatomy in the Tudor
period remained far behind that of the Continent, at least
on the basis of such books as were published in England,
and thereby renders that modest but early effort of David
Edwardes all the more curious.</p>
<p>Edwardes, it must be recalled, had presented his brief
treatise in the same form which was being employed on the
Continent, and we may assume that it represented his
method. What he did was to ignore medieval writers and
return directly to Galen, the supreme authority of that age,
<span class="pb" id="Page_24">24</span>
the ‘Prince of Physicians’. Coupled with this, he had begun
to dissect, first, it may be assumed, for better comprehension
of Galen but ultimately by Edwardes or his successors,
discrepancies between the text of Galen and the observed
anatomy would at once have indicated the classic error and
the path to knowledge. Such was the course of continental
development, but English anatomy of the period was faced
by an insurmountable obstacle.</p>
<p>Whereas the medical faculties of continental universities
came to accept anatomy, such was not to be the case with
English medicine until well into the seventeenth century.
As a result, anatomy was not an end in itself but rather a
limited field of knowledge learned in so far as it might be
usefully applied in surgery.</p>
<p>There were, of course, some Englishmen whose training
and knowledge were superior to the quality demonstrated
in English texts, men who had had Paduan training such
as Caius and Harvey. But even Caius remained a Galenist
when continental anatomy had become Vesalian, and
Harvey, despite his thoroughly scientific attitude in respect
to physiology, remained very conservative in his approach
to purely anatomical problems, seeking authority not only
in Galen but in the even more ancient Aristotle.</p>
<p>Under these conditions it seems remarkable that such
great contributions were made to physiology in seventeenth-century
England. The contributions of Harvey, Boyle,
Hooke, and Lower form an amazing contrast to the static
and even retrograde position of anatomy in the preceding
century. In 1565 John Halle, a distinguished surgeon, published
his <i>Anatomy or Dissection of the Body of Man</i> which
was largely a translation of the surgery of Guido Lanfranc
who died in 1315, yet fifty-one years later Harvey had
arrived at the circulation of the blood.<a class="fn" id="fri_51" href="#fni_51">[51]</a></p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_25">25</div>
<h2 id="c2"><span class="small">NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION</span></h2>
<div class="fnblock">
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_1" href="#fri_1">[1]</a>Maurice Davidson, <i>Medicine in Oxford</i>, Oxford, 1953, pp. 15 ff.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_2" href="#fri_2">[2]</a>H. D. Rolleston, <i>The Cambridge Medical School</i>, Cambridge, 1932,
pp. 1 ff.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_3" href="#fri_3">[3]</a>J. F. South, <i>Memorials of the Craft of Surgery in England</i>, ed.
D’Arcy Power, London, 1886, pp. 14-15; Austin T. Young, <i>The
Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of London</i>, London, 1890, p. 24.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_4" href="#fri_4">[4]</a>South, op. cit., pp. 15-18.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_5" href="#fri_5">[5]</a>Ibid., pp. 20 ff; Young, op. cit., pp. 40 ff.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_6" href="#fri_6">[6]</a>South, op. cit., pp. 81 ff.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_7" href="#fri_7">[7]</a>Ernest Wickersheimer, ‘Les premières dissections à la Faculté de
Médecine de Paris’, <i>Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Ile-de-France</i>,
1910, xxxvii. 162-3.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_8" href="#fri_8">[8]</a><i>Commentaires de la Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Paris (1395-1516)</i>,
Paris, 1915, p. 286.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_9" href="#fri_9">[9]</a><i>Cronica Fratris Salimbene</i> (Monumenta Germaniae Historica:
Scriptores), Hanover, 1905-13, p. 613.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_10" href="#fri_10">[10]</a>Robert von Töply, in Puschmann, <i>Handbuch der Geschichte der
Medizin</i>, Jena, 1903, ii. 199.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_11" href="#fri_11">[11]</a>Ibid., p. 201.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_12" href="#fri_12">[12]</a>Ibid., p. 209.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_13" href="#fri_13">[13]</a>M. Roth, <i>Andreas Vesalius Bruxellensis</i>, Berlin, 1892, p. 13.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_14" href="#fri_14">[14]</a>Töply, loc. cit., p. 212.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_15" href="#fri_15">[15]</a>Ibid.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_16" href="#fri_16">[16]</a>Montagu Burrow’s, ‘Memoir of William Grocyn’, <i>Collectanea,
Second Series</i> (Oxford Historical Society), Oxford, 1890, pp. 332 ff.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_17" href="#fri_17">[17]</a>J. N. Johnson, <i>The Life of Thomas Linacre</i>, London, 1835,
pp. 1-12.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_18" href="#fri_18">[18]</a>G. B. Parks, <i>The English Traveller to Italy. The Middle Ages (to
1525)</i>, Stanford, Calif., 1955, pp. 457-60.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_19" href="#fri_19">[19]</a>R. J. Mitchell, ‘Thomas Linacre in Italy’, <i>English Historical Review</i>,
1935, l. 696.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_20" href="#fri_20">[20]</a>This sequence was followed in Paris where in particular Guinther
of Andernach and Jacobus Sylvius were proceeding from their study of
Galen’s medical writings to those of an anatomical nature.</div>
<div class="pb" id="Page_26">26</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_21" href="#fri_21">[21]</a>Thomas Fowler, <i>The History of Corpus Christi College</i>, Oxford,
1893, p. 381; <i>Register of the University of Oxford</i>, ed. Boase, Oxford, 1885,
ii. 128, where he is mentioned as ‘David Edwardys, disciple of the
dyalectic art’.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_22" href="#fri_22">[22]</a>Ibid.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_23" href="#fri_23">[23]</a>Fowler, op. cit., pp. 58 and n., 85 n., 369 and n.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_24" href="#fri_24">[24]</a><i>Register</i>, p. 128.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_25" href="#fri_25">[25]</a>Fowler, op. cit., p. 370 n.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_26" href="#fri_26">[26]</a>Ibid., p. 369.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_27" href="#fri_27">[27]</a>Ibid., p. 372.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_28" href="#fri_28">[28]</a><i>Grace Book</i> Β, ed. Mary Bateson, Cambridge, 1905, pt. ii, pp. 148,
150.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_29" href="#fri_29">[29]</a><i>Grace Book</i> Γ, ed. William George Searle, Cambridge, 1908, p. 242.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_30" href="#fri_30">[30]</a><i>De Indiciis et Praecognitionibus</i>, London, 1532, Ei<sup>r</sup>.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_31" href="#fri_31">[31]</a><i>Grace Book</i> Γ, p. 254.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_32" href="#fri_32">[32]</a>Ibid., p. 326.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_33" href="#fri_33">[33]</a>Ibid., p. 353.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_34" href="#fri_34">[34]</a><i>De Indiciis et Praecognitionibus</i>, C₃<sup>r</sup>.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_35" href="#fri_35">[35]</a>There is record of the probate of his will in that year in the Vice-Chancellor’s
Court in the University of Cambridge with mention of his
wife Alice. The actual will, however, appears to be no longer in existence.
Information kindly supplied by Miss H. E. Peek, Archivist of the University
of Cambridge.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_36" href="#fri_36">[36]</a>J. D. Comrie, <i>History of Scottish Medicine</i>, London, 1932.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_37" href="#fri_37">[37]</a><i>The Paintings of Hans Holbein</i>, ed. Ganz, London, 1956, nos. 218,
219.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_38" href="#fri_38">[38]</a>Young, op. cit., p. 588.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_39" href="#fri_39">[39]</a>Guildhall, Repertory 10, f. 186, 14 Dec. 1540.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_40" href="#fri_40">[40]</a><i>De Libris Propriis</i>, p. 90, in <i>The Works of John Caius</i>, M.D., ed.
Venn, Cambridge, 1912.</div>
<div class="pb" id="Page_27">27</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_41" href="#fri_41">[41]</a>William Munk, <i>The Roll of the Royal College of Physicians of
London</i>, London, 1878, iii. 351. The statute is cited from Goodall’s
MS., <i>On College Affairs</i>, pp. 55-56: ‘Among our elders the Anatomical
Lecture was considered of such importance that according to everyone’s
recollection very few Fellows sought to be excused from that duty except
for very grave reasons. However, lest it happen that frequent dispensations
of that sort should become usual and customary and thence, so it was
feared, lest such a useful institution should gradually perish, they decided
to prevent it through the statutes, by slight penalties in the beginning and
afterward increased and more severe according to the danger. We desiring
to follow their prudent regulation, lest hereafter we admit Fellows into the
Society influenced by a like hope of always declining this duty and not
giving their attention seriously to that task: We establish and Order that
for those refusing the duty of the ordinary anatomical lecture and wishing
to be released wholly from that duty, the penalty of paying the College
twenty pounds, unless because of very serious obstacles approved by the
President and a majority of the Fellows in plenary session. In cases of
lesser importance in which there is not sought a continuing exemption
but a deferment from lecturing for a time, we leave to the judgment of the
President how far this ought to be granted to the applicants; but the
deferment granted may not exceed seven months. In which case also we
wish that deferment from the first lecture may not be granted in favor of
the succeeding lecturer, but that he be held to observe the time ordered for
him by the President, as if there were no such deferment.’</div>
<div class="pb" id="Page_28">28</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_42" href="#fri_42">[42]</a>Charles Goodall, <i>The Royal College of Physicians of London</i>,
London, 1684, pp. 34-37: ‘Elizabeth by the grace of God, Queen of
England, France & Ireland, defender of the faith &c. Greetings to all
those reached by the present letter. Our father of noble memory Henry
VIII, formerly King of England, among certain other decrees for the
well-being and usefulness of his kingdom of England, especially watching
over the health of his subjects, through his Letters Patent instituted in
perpetuity a College of certain grave men of medicine who practised
medicine publicly in his City of London and its suburbs within seven
miles of that city. In the name of the President of the College and the
Fellowship of the faculty of medicine of London, he incorporated them in
the corporate and political body, and he granted to the same President and
College of Fellowship aforesaid and to its successors diverse liberties
and privileges. Our same father not only confirmed those Letters Patent and
all things contained in them through his <i>Senatus Consultum</i> or Parliament
held in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of his reign, but also he increased
and amplified the same statute in many ways. Since our said father
granted this pious design for the well-being of the commonwealth,
assuredly day by day there will be manifestly great advancement if to the
aforesaid President, College or Fellowship and their successors forever we
grant what is especially necessary for those professing medicine, certain
human bodies annually for dissection. Know that we, not only deservedly
renewing the famous institution of our said father, but also considering
the responsibility of our royal office to provide as much as possible for the
assured health and security of our subjects, of our special grace and from
our certain knowledge and genuine affection for our people, we grant
presently and for our heirs and successors to the aforesaid President of the
College or Fellowship of the aforesaid faculty of medicine of London,
and their successors or assigns, that they may have and receive annually
and forever in future times, at one time or at different times of the year, at
the discretion, desire and liberty of the aforesaid President during the time
of his existence and of his successors, one, two, three or four human bodies
for dissection and anatomization, which have been condemned and executed
according to the common law of this kingdom for theft, homicide
or whatever felony, or have been condemned and executed according to
the common law of this kingdom for theft, homicide or whatever felony
within the County of Middlesex or within the aforesaid City of London
or elsewhere within sixteen miles of the aforesaid City in whatever
County.... And that it be permitted to the same President of the College
and aforesaid Fellowship and their successors and whatever others of their
assigns, professors or experts, to dissect and to divide the same bodies or
otherwise according to their will and judgment, with that reverence
which ought to be granted to human flesh, for the increment of knowledge
of medicine and experiment of the same, and for the health of
our liegemen without the contradiction of anyone. And this without
rendering or paying any one any sum of money or any sums of money
for the same. Provided always that when from time to time an anatomy
of this sort has been undertaken and completed that the aforesaid bodies
be given funeral and burial at the expense of the President and his
successors....
<span class="jr">Westminster, 24 February, in the seventh year of our reign’</span></div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_43" href="#fri_43">[43]</a>Caius was not only a confirmed Galenist, but with the passing
years ever a more conservative and literal Galenist, and his anatomical
lectures to the surgeons were described by Bullein in his <i>Little Dialogue</i> of
1579 as ‘reveiling ... the hidden jewels and precious treasures of Cl.
Galenus’. It seems likely that, whatever anatomical lectures were given in
the College of Physicians, they must, at least for a time, have been of like
character. In the <i>Annals</i> of the college as written by Caius we find that as
late as the year 1559 a certain Joannes Geynes was subject to disciplinary
action because of his assertion that Galen had been guilty of error. He was
required to state that ‘I Joannes Geynes confess that Galen did not err
in those things for which I criticized him’, <i>Annales a Collegio Condito</i>,
pp. 53-54, in <i>The Works of John Caius</i>, ed. Venn, Cambridge, 1912.
Such conservatism carried over to the study of anatomy would certainly
have been detrimental to any advancement of knowledge.</div>
<div class="pb" id="Page_29">29</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_44" href="#fri_44">[44]</a><i>Compendiosa totius Anatomie delineatio, aere exarata per Thomam
Geminum.</i></div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_45" href="#fri_45">[45]</a><i>Selected Writings of Sir D’Arcy Power</i>, Oxford, 1931, p. 115.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_46" href="#fri_46">[46]</a>H. M. Sinclair and A. H. T. Robb-Smith, <i>A Short History of
Anatomical Teaching in Oxford</i>, Oxford, 1950, p. 10.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_47" href="#fri_47">[47]</a>Ibid., p. 11.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_48" href="#fri_48">[48]</a>Ibid.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_49" href="#fri_49">[49]</a>Caius, loc. cit., p. 104.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_50" href="#fri_50">[50]</a>This portrait shows Banister giving the Visceral lecture at Barber-Surgeon’s
Hall in 1581; of small size and painted by an unknown artist
on two pieces of paper joined down the middle, it is nevertheless sufficiently
detailed for us to discover that Banister is using the octavo edition of
Colombo’s work printed in Paris in 1572. The portrait is now laid down
in an album of anatomical drawings, also painted for Banister, which was
formerly owned by William Hunter and is now preserved in the Hunterian
Museum, Glasgow. The drawings consist of views of the skeleton, the
superficial muscles, nerves and veins drawn in colour on a dark ground with
some skill. Singer, in his <i>Evolution of Anatomy</i>, London, 1925, p. 174, suggests
that the skeletal figures are probably the earliest prepared in England
which were actually drawn from the bones. This could well be true, but
Banister based his drawing of the nerves on a plate of Charles Estienne, 1545,
and his figures of the superficial muscles and veins are possibly based on Valverde.
Other relics of Banister can be seen at Cambridge. The University
Library has a book-like casket containing a small ivory skeleton and the
<i>écorché</i> figure of a man given to the library by Banister in 1591. King’s College
Library has a copy of <i>The Historie of Man</i> presented by the author in 1596.</div>
<div class="fndef"><a class="fn" id="fni_51" href="#fri_51">[51]</a>Books printed on the Continent were freely available in England,
and it could be argued that this was one reason why so few anatomical
texts were published in the Tudor period. It has already been noted that
Colombo’s <i>De Re Anatomica</i> in the octavo edition of Paris, 1572, was
used by Banister in his visceral lecture. This could well have been the text
recommended to apprentices of Barber-Surgeon’s Hall. Such imported
books were, of course, published in Latin and were therefore suitable to the
students of the College of Physicians and those of Oxford or of Cambridge.
It seems likely that the students at Barber-Surgeons’ Hall created a demand
for more simple texts in the vernacular and this is surely the reason for the
continued popularity of such books as Thomas Vicary’s archaic text.</div>
</div>
<div class="pb" id="Page_31">31</div>
<div class="img">
<img src="images/p00.png" alt="page image" width="500" height="791" />
</div>
<p class="center"><span class="xxlarge">DE IN-</span>
<br />DICIIS ET PRAE
<br />cognitionibus, opus ap-
<br />prime utile medicis,
<br />Dauide Edguardo
<br />Anglo authore.</p>
<p class="center">EIVSDEM IN
<br />Anatomicen introductio
<br />luculenta et breuis.</p>
<p class="center"><i><span class="large">1532</span></i></p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_33">33</div>
<div class="img">
<img src="images/p01.png" alt="page image" width="500" height="802" />
</div>
<p class="center"><span class="xxlarge">EXIMIO</span>
<br />AC ILLVSTRI D. HENRICO
<br /><span class="small">S</span>urrensi <span class="small">C</span>omiti <span class="small">D</span>a. <span class="small">E</span>dguardus
<br />medicus <span class="small">S. D.</span></p>
<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 59357 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
|
