ANATOMY (Ανατολή), signifying literally dissection, or separation of parts by cutting, applied to organized bodies, is used to denote the artificial separation of their component parts in order to obtain an exact knowledge of their situation, shape, and structure.

A more just idea of the nature and objects of anatomy may be given by defining it as that science, the province of which is to ascertain the structure of living and organized bodies.

All the objects of the material world may be arranged in two great divisions, according as they are organized or void of organization. Inorganic bodies (corpora bruta) are distinguished by the homogeneous characters of their internal structure, any one portion of which, in the same mass, presents the same appearance and properties as any other. Endowed also with the general properties of matter, as weight, cohesion, impenetrability, and atomic attraction, or that resident in the constituent particles, they are subject to physical laws only. All the changes which inorganic bodies undergo consist either in mechanical changes of place or shape, or in change of chemical constitution; and the consideration of the mode in which these changes take place, of the agents by which they are effected, and the laws by which they are regulated, constitutes the sciences of MECHANICS and CHEMISTRY.

In organic bodies (corpora organica, c. rixa), on the contrary, we recognize a peculiar structure, in which the parts, though arranged in a certain order, are heterogeneous, or consist of different kinds of matter. In other words, not only do organized bodies consist of different kinds of substance, but these component substances may be again resolved into material elements, differing from each other in mechanical, chemical, and vital properties.

Observation further shows, that organic are distinguished from inorganic bodies by the presence of a series and combination of actions and processes, which are collectively known under the abstract denomination of Life. Of this term, however familiar it may appear, it has been found difficult to give a satisfactory and unobjectionable definition; and physiological authors have found it requisite, in order to avoid obscurity, to define it from its tendency, its obvious effects, or, negatively, from what experience shows to ensue upon its termination. Life is an attribute of living bodies, and is known only as it manifests its presence in these; and hence, instead of saying what it is, we are compelled to specify only the circumstances which denote its existence. Attentively considered, all the varieties of organized and living bodies may be said to be distinguished from those which are inorganic by two great characters,—growth or the reproduction of the individual, and generation or the reproduction of the species. Growth, or increase of size, includes the general processes of assimilation and nutrition, with all the subordinate actions of which these are composed; and since it consists in the conversion of brute or inorganic into living or organic matter, it constitutes one of the most essential characters of life and organization. By virtue of this, living bodies are the seat of an incessant change in their interior structure; whereas inorganic bodies remain in the same state, unless from the operation of chemical laws. The formation of a new body similar to others of the same class, order, and kind, however various in its mode, is also a uniform attribute of all living and orga- Anatomy nized bodies. To one or other of these two general purposes, then, all the actions and processes of living bodies, however complex and multifarious they seem, may be ultimately referred. To these two characters of living bodies Cuvier adds a third,—death, or the termination of life; but as this is a negative circumstance, and is included in the idea of life as a process having beginning and end, it is superfluous in the general idea of the term. The knowledge of the actions and processes of living and organized bodies, and of the laws to which they are subject, constitutes the science of Physiology, or, as it has been also denominated, Zoönomie (ζωον and νόμος, laws of life) or Biology (βίος and λόγος, doctrine of life).

Life supposes organization or the arrangement of matter and material particles peculiar to living bodies; and, reciprocally, organization, though not the cause of life and living processes, invariably implies their existence, either present or previous. In other words, every organized body either is or must have been living; and every living body is endowed with the peculiar internal structure termed organic. Though it is difficult to specify by definition the characters of this structure, some idea of it may be communicated by stating, that all living bodies possess material organs of definite shape, substance, and structure, consisting of certain parts, and placed in proper positions. While it is the province of Physiology to study the actions and processes of living bodies, and to investigate the laws by which they are regulated, the exclusive object of Anatomy is to distinguish and describe their constituent parts,—to determine the shape, position, and structure of their organs,—and, in short, to develop their structure. The term is not free from objection, since it literally denotes one only of the means employed to acquire the information requisite. But the objection is not obviated by the substitution of such terms as morphology and organology, in so far as the study of anatomy is not confined either to the shapes of parts or the knowledge of organs alone, but considers their position, their intimate structure, and their organization; in short, all the circumstances relating to the material constitution of living bodies.

All living and organized bodies, though agreeing in the general character of possessing organs for assimilation and nutrition, and organs of reproduction, differ nevertheless in the possession or the want of organs for two other functions, viz. those for recognizing the presence of foreign bodies, or organs of sensation, and those for changing place, or organs of locomotion. The possession of these organs distinguishes those living beings denominated animals; the want of them in like manner characterizes those termed plants or vegetables. Upon this principle anatomy, or the science of organic structures, resolves itself into two great divisions,—Animal Anatomy, or Zootomy (ζώον and τομή), the object of which is the investigation of the structure of animal bodies; and Vegetable Anatomy, or Phytotomy (φυτόν and τομή), the object of which is to explain the structure peculiar to the vegetable tribes.

Animal anatomy, again, naturally resolves itself into several divisions, according as the object is to explain the structure of the animal kingdom at large, or that of certain classes, orders, tribes, families, or genera only. The most ordinary and convenient division, however, is into that which treats the anatomy of the known animal tribes in general, and that which treats of the structure peculiar to the human subject. The accidental circumstance of the former being studied chiefly in comparison with the latter, the organic forms of which are regarded as the standard of reference, has given it the denomination of Comparative Anatomy, though that of Animal Anatomy, or Zootomy would be more appropriate. The latter has generally been named Anatomy simply, or the Anatomy of the Human Body, and occasionally Anthropotomy or Human Anatomy.

The connection which subsists between the latter and several divisions of the art of healing, renders it interesting to the medical, the surgical, and the philosophical reader generally, and invests it with the highest importance to all. Comparative Anatomy, nevertheless, possesses the peculiar advantage of directing the mind of the inquirer to general resemblances, to universal facts, and to comprehensive analogies. Independent of the important services which its knowledge renders to several of the arts, it is of the greatest use in throwing light on some of the obscurest parts of physiology; by the extensive chain of analogical facts which it traces, it tends to explain difficulties in organization and function, which could not otherwise be intelligible; and by establishing the connection between external characters and habits with peculiarities of internal structure, it affords the only rational basis for the classifications and distinctions of zoology. Comparative or Animal Anatomy constitutes the great source of what may be termed the Philosophy of Animal Life.

Of the present treatise, the greater part will be devoted to the subject of Human Anatomy, or the explanation of the structure of the human frame in the healthy state. In a smaller proportion, it is proposed to give a view of the structure of animal bodies generally, with occasional observations on those peculiarities in configuration and structure which distinguish classes, orders, and genera, from each other. This will constitute Comparative Anatomy.

The subject of Vegetable Anatomy, unfolding the peculiarities of structure observed in plants, will be treated of in the article Botany.

Previous to entering on the subject of Animal Anatomy, however, and its two divisions, Human and Comparative Anatomy, it is requisite to take a historical view of the progress of the science from its origin to the present time.

In tracing the history of the origin of anatomy, it may be justly said that more learning than judgment has been displayed. Some writers claim for it the highest antiquity, and pretend to find its first rudiments alternately in 1537, the animal sacrifices of the shepherd kings, the Jews, and other ancient nations; and in the art of embalming, as practised by the Egyptian priests. Even the descriptions of wounds in the Iliad have been supposed adequate to prove that, in the time of Homer, mankind had distinct notions of the structure of the human body. Of the first, it may be said that the rude information obtained by the slaughter of animals for sacrifice does not imply profound anatomical knowledge; and those who adduce the second as evidence, are deceived by the language of the poet of the Trojan war, which, distinguishing certain parts by their ordinary Greek epithets, as afterwards used by Hippocrates, Galen, and all anatomists, has been rather too easily supposed to prove that the poet had studied systematically the structure of the human frame.

With not much greater justice has the cultivation of anatomical knowledge been ascribed to Hippocrates, who, because he is universally allowed to be the father of medicine, has also been thought to be the creator of the science of anatomy. Of the seven individuals of the family of the Heraclidae who bore this celebrated name, the second, who was son of Heraclides and Phenarita, and grandson of the first Hippocrates, was indeed distinguished History, as the author of medical observation and experience, and the first who appreciated the value of studying accurately the phenomena, effects, and terminations of disease. It does not appear, however, notwithstanding the vague and general panegyrics of Riolan, Bartholin, Le Clerc, and Portal, that the anatomical knowledge of this illustrious person was either accurate or profound. Of the works ascribed to Hippocrates, five only are genuine. Most of them were written either by subsequent authors of the same name, or by one or other of the numerous impostors who took advantage of the zealous munificence of the Ptolemies, by fabricating works under that illustrious name. Of the few which are genuine, there is none expressly devoted to anatomy; and of his knowledge on this subject, the only proofs are to be found in the exposition of his physiological opinions, and his medical or surgical instructions. From these it appears that he had some accurate notions on osteology; but that of the structure of the human body in general, his ideas were at once superficial and erroneous. In his book on injuries of the head, and in that on fractures, he shows that he knew the sutures of the cranium, and the relative situation of the bones; and that he had some notion of the shape of the bones in general, and of their mutual connections. Of the muscles, of the soft parts in general, and of the internal organs, his ideas are confused, indistinct, and erroneous. The term ἀνάγκης he seems, in imitation of the colloquial Greek, to have used generally to signify a blood-vessel, without being aware of the distinction of vein and artery; and the term ἀπροστατής, or air-holder, is restricted to the windpipe. He appears to have been unaware of the existence of the nervous chords; and the term is used by him, as by Grecian authors in general, to signify a sinew or tendon. On other points his knowledge is so much combined with peculiar physiological doctrines, that it is impossible to assign them the character of anatomical facts; and even the works in which these doctrines are contained are with little probability to be ascribed to the second Hippocrates. If, however, we overlook this difficulty, and admit what is contained in the genuine Hippocratic writings to represent at least the sum of knowledge possessed by Hippocrates and his immediate descendants, we find that he represents the brain as a gland, from which exudes a viscid fluid; that the heart is muscular and of pyramidal shape, and has two ventricles separated by a partition, the fountains of life—and two auricles, receptacles of air; that the lungs consist of five ash-coloured lobes, the substance of which is cellular and spongy, naturally dry, but refreshed by the air; and that the kidneys are glands, but possess an attractive faculty, by virtue of which the moisture of the drink is separated, and descends into the bladder. He distinguishes the bowels into colon and rectum (ἀποστάτης).

The knowledge possessed by the second Hippocrates was transmitted in various degrees of purity to the descendants and pupils, chiefly of the family of the Heraclide, who succeeded him. Several of these, with feelings of grateful affection, appear to have studied to preserve the written memory of his instructions, and in this manner to have contributed to form part of that collection of treatises which have long been known to the learned world under the general name of the Hippocratic writings. Though composed, like the genuine remains of the physician of Cos, in the Ionian dialect, all of them differ from these in being more diffuse in style, more elaborate in form, and in studying to invest their anatomical and medical matter with the fanciful ornaments of the Platonic History, philosophy. Hippocrates had the merit of early recognizing the value of facts apart from opinions, and of those facts especially which lead to general results; and in the few genuine writings which are now extant, it is easy to perceive that he has recourse to the simplest language, expresses himself in terms which, though short and pithy, are always precise and perspicuous, and is averse to the introduction of philosophical dogmas. Of the greater part of the writings collected under his name, on the contrary, the general character is verbosity, prolixity, and a great tendency to speculative opinions. For these reasons, as well as for others derived from internal evidence, while the Aphorisms, the Epidemics, and the works above mentioned, bear distinct marks of being the genuine remains of Hippocrates, it is impossible to regard the book Ἀποστάτης Ἀποστάτης as entirely the composition of that physician; and it appears more reasonable to view it as the work of some one of the numerous disciples to whom the author had communicated the results of his observation, which they unwisely attempted to combine with the philosophy of the Platonic school and their own mysterious opinions.

Among those who aimed at this distinction, the most fortunate in the preservation of his name is Polybus, the son-in-law of the physician of Cos. This person, who must not be confounded with the monarch of Corinth immortalized by Sophocles in the tragic story of Œdipus, is represented as a recluse, severed from the world and its enjoyments, and devoting himself to the study of anatomy and physiology, and to the composition of works on these subjects. To him has been ascribed the whole of the book on the Nature of the Child, and most of that on Man; both physiological treatises, interspersed with anatomical sketches. His anatomical information, with which at present is our chief concern, appears to have been rude and inaccurate, like that of his preceptor. He represents the large vessels of the body to consist of four pairs: the first proceeding from the head by the back of the neck and spinal chord to the hips, lower extremities, and outer ankle; the second, consisting of the jugular vessels (αἰσχυντής), proceeding to the loins, thighs, hams, and inner ankle; the third proceeding from the temples by the neck to the scapula and lungs, and thence by mutual intercrossings to the spleen and left kidney, and the liver and right kidney, and finally to the rectum; and the fourth from the fore-part of the neck to the upper extremities, the fore-part of the trunk, and the organs of generation.

This specimen of the anatomical knowledge of one of the most illustrious of the Hippocratic disciples differs not essentially from that of Syenesis, the physician of Cyprus, and Diogenes, the philosopher of Apollonia, two authors, for the preservation of whose opinions we are indebted to Aristotle! They may be admitted as representing the state of anatomical knowledge among the most enlightened men at that time, and they only show how rude and erroneous were their ideas on the structure of the animal body. It may indeed, without injustice, be said, that the anatomy of the Hippocratic school is not only erroneous, but fanciful and imaginary, in often substituting mere supposition and assertion for what ought to be matter of fact. From this censure it is impossible to exempt even the name of Plato himself, for whom some notices in the Timæus on the structure of the animal body, as taught by Hippocrates and Polybus, have procured a place in the history of the science.

1 Ἡσίοδος Ἰλιάδος, lib. iii. cap. ii. Amidst the general obscurity in which the early history of anatomy is involved, only two leading facts may be admitted with certainty. The first is, that previous to the time of Aristotle there was no accurate knowledge of anatomy; and the second, that all that was known was derived from the dissection of the lower animals only. By the appearance of Aristotle, this species of knowledge, which was hitherto acquired in a desultory and irregular manner, began to be cultivated systematically and with a definite object; and among the services which the philosopher of Stagira rendered to mankind, one of the greatest and most substantial is, that he was the founder of Comparative Anatomy, and was the first to apply its facts to the elucidation of zoology. The works of this ardent and original naturalist show that his zootomical knowledge was extensive, and often accurate; and from several of his descriptions it is impossible to doubt that they were derived from frequent personal dissection.

Aristotle, who was born 384 years before the Christian era, or in the first year of the 99th Olympiad, was, at the age of 39, requested by Philip to undertake the education of his son Alexander. During this period, it is said, he composed several works on anatomy, which however are now lost. The military expedition of his royal pupil into Asia, by laying open the animal stores of that vast and little known continent, furnished Aristotle with the means of extending his knowledge, not only of the animal tribes, but of their structure, and of communicating more accurate and distinct notions than were yet accessible to the world. A sum of 800 talents, and the concurrent aid of numerous intelligent assistants in Greece and Asia, were intended to facilitate his researches in composing a system of zoological knowledge; but it has been observed, that the number of instances in which he was thus compelled to trust to the testimony of other observers, led him to commit errors in description, which personal observation might have enabled him to avoid.

The first three books of the History of Animals, a treatise consisting of ten books, and the four books on the Parts of Animals, constitute the great monument of the Aristotelian Anatomy. From these we find that Aristotle was the first who corrected the erroneous statements of Polybus, Syenesis, and Diogenes, regarding the blood-vessels, which they made, as we have seen, to arise from the head and brain. These he represents to be two in number, placed before the spinal column, the larger on the right, the smaller on the left, which, he also remarks, is by some called aorta (αορτη), the first time, we observe, which this epithet occurs in the history. Both he represents to arise from the heart, the larger from the largest upper cavity, the smaller or aorta from the middle cavity, but in a different manner, and forming a narrower canal. He also distinguishes the thick, firm, and more tendinous structure of the aorta from the thin and membranous structure of the vein. In describing the distribution of the latter, however, he confounds the veins of the pulmonary artery, and, as might be expected, he confounds the ramifications of the former with those of the arterial tubes in general. While he represents the lung to be liberally supplied with blood, he describes the brain as an organ almost destitute of this fluid. His account of the distribution of the aorta is wonderfully correct. Though he does not notice the celiac, and remarks that the aorta sends no direct branches to the liver and spleen, he had observed the mesenteric, the renal, and the common iliac arteries. It is nevertheless singular, that though he remarks particularly that the renal branches of the aorta go to the substance and not the pelvis (κυστης) of the kidney, he appears to mistake the ureters for branches of the aorta.

Of the nerves (νευρα) he appears to have the most confused notions. Making them arise from the heart, which he says has nerves (tendons) in its largest cavity, he represents the aorta to be a nervous or tendinous vein (νευρας ουρας). By afterwards saying that all the articulated bones are connected by nerves, he makes them the same as ligaments; while the character of divisibility in the long direction identifies them rather with tendons; and the assertion that no part destitute of them has sensation, makes them approach to the nervous chords of the modern anatomists. He distinguishes suet, fat, and marrow, from each other; and though he admits the spinal chord to consist of the latter substance, he differs from those authors who regard the brain of the same nature, because while brain is cold, marrow is hot.

He distinguishes the windpipe or air-holder (αεροπιπος) from the esophagus, because it is placed before the latter, because food or drink passing into it causes distressing cough and suffocation, and because there is no passage from the lung to the stomach. He knew the situation and use of the epiglottis, seems to have had some indistinct notions of the larynx, represents the windpipe to be necessary to convey air to and from the lungs, and appears to have a tolerable understanding of the structure of the lungs. He repeatedly represents the heart, the shape and site of which he describes accurately, to be the origin of the blood-vessels, in opposition to those who made them descend from the head; yet, though he represents it as full of blood, and the source and fountain of that fluid, and even speaks of the blood flowing from the heart to the veins,1 and thence to every part of the body,2 he says nothing of the circular motion of the blood.

The diaphragm he distinguishes by the name διαφραγμα, and βρωχη. With the liver and spleen, and the whole alimentary canal, he seems well acquainted. The several parts of the quadruple stomach of the ruminating animals are distinguished and named; and he even traces the relations between the teeth and the several forms of stomach, and the length or brevity, the simplicity or complication, of the intestinal tube. Upon the same principle he distinguishes the jejenum (γυμνος), or the empty portion of the small intestines in animals (το γυμνος λαιμος), the caecum (το καικος και ευρωδος), the colon (το καλος), and the sigmoid flexure (στεγωνος και ευρωδος). The modern epithet of rectum is the literal translation of his description of the straight progress (ευρωδος) of the bowel to the anus (προαρτης). He knew the nasal cavities and the passage from the tympanal cavity of the ear to the palate, afterwards described by Eustachius.

Next to Aristotle occur the names of Diocles of Caryatis, and Praxagoras of Cos, the last of the family of the Asclepiade. The latter is remarkable for being the first who distinguished the arteries from the veins, and the author of the opinion that the former were air-vessels.

Hitherto anatomical inquiry was confined to the examination of the bodies of brute animals. We have, indeed,

---

1 In the ancient physicians of the flesh. — Athen. xiv. 67. (Hist. Nat. Hist., lib. iii. cap. iv. vi.) 2 Sometime in the region of the bladder, kidneys, uterus, intestine, and the fallopian tubes; but the arteries of the heart are not visible here. (Hist. lib. iii. cap. vi.) History, no testimony of the human body being submitted to examination previous to the time of Erasistratus and Herophilus; and it is vain to look for authentic facts on this point before the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty of sovereigns in Egypt. This event, which, as is generally known, succeeded the death of Alexander, 320 years before the Christian era, collected into one spot the scattered embers of literature and science, which were beginning to languish in Greece under a weak and distracted government, and an unsettled state of society. The children of her divided states, whom domestic discord and the uncertainties of war rendered unhappy at home, wandered into Egypt, and found, under the fostering hand of the Alexandrian monarchs, the means of cultivating the sciences, and repaying with interest to the country of Thoth and Osiris, the benefits which had been conferred on the infancy of Greece by Thales and Pythagoras. Alexandria became in this manner the depository of all the learning and knowledge of the civilized world; and while other nations were sinking under the effects of internal animosities and mutual dissensions, or ravaging the earth with the evils of war, the Egyptian Greeks kept alive the sacred flame of science, and preserved mankind from relapsing into their original barbarism.

These happy effects are to be ascribed in an eminent degree to the enlightened government and liberal opinions of Ptolemy Soter, and his immediate successors Philadelphus and Euergetes. The two latter princes, whose authority was equalled only by the zeal with which they patronised science and their professors, were the first who enabled physicians to dissect the human body, and prevented the prejudices of ignorance and superstition from compromising the welfare of the human race. To this happy circumstance Herophilus and Erasistratus are indebted for the distinction of being known to posterity as the first anatomists who dissected and described the parts of the human body. Both of these physicians flourished under Ptolemy Soter, and probably Ptolemy Philadelphus, and were indeed the principal supports of what has been named in medical history the Alexandrian School, to which their reputation seems to have attracted numerous pupils.

But though the concurrent testimony of antiquity assigns to these physicians the merit of dissecting the human body, time, which wages endless war with the vanity and ambition of man, has dealt hardly with the monuments of their labours. As the works of neither have been preserved, great uncertainty prevails as to the respective merits of these ancient anatomists; and all that is now known of their anatomical researches is obtained from the occasional notices of Galen, Oribasius, and some other writers. From these it appears that Erasistratus recognised the valves of the heart, and distinguished them by the names of tricuspid and sigmoid; that he studied particularly the shape and structure of the brain, and its divisions, and cavities, and membranes, and likened the convolutions to the folds of the jejunum; that he first formed a distinct idea of the nature of the nerves, which he made issue from the brain; and that he discovered lymphatic vessels in the mesentery, first in brute animals, and afterwards, it is said, in man. It is not uninteresting to observe, that he appears to have distinguished the nerves into those of sensation and those of motion.

Of Herophilus it is said that he had extensive anatomical knowledge, acquired by dissecting, not only brutes, but human bodies. Of these he probably dissected more than any of his predecessors or contemporaries. But it is almost superfluous to remind the classical reader, that the passage of Tertullian, in which he is said to have dissected 600 corpses, is not to be understood literally, and means only that he had dissected many; and that this language is employed by an author who speaks of him in terms of execration, and who evidently exaggerates in order to prejudice the reader against the anatomist. Devoted to the assiduous cultivation of anatomy, he appears to have studied with particular attention those parts which were least understood. He recognised the nature of the pulmonary artery, which he denominates arterious vein; he knew the vessels of the mesentery, and showed that they did not go to the vena porta, but to certain glandular bodies; and he first applied the name of twelve-inch or duodenum (δωδεκαδάκτυλος) to that part of the alimentary canal which is next to the stomach. Like Erasistratus, he appears to have studied carefully the configuration of the brain; and we learn from Galen that he first compared the linear furrow at the bottom of the fourth ventricle to the cavity of a writing pen; and though like him he distinguishes the nerves into those of sensation and those of voluntary motion, he adds to them the ligaments and tendons. A tolerable description of the liver by this anatomist is preserved in the writings of Galen. He first applied the name of choroid or vascular membrane to that which is found in the cerebral ventricles; he knew the fourth or straight sinus, which still bears his name; he described the posterior end of the vault or fornix as the principal seat of the sensations; and to him the linear furrow at the bottom of the fourth ventricle is indebted for its name of calamus scriptorius.

The celebrity of these two great anatomists appears to have thrown into the shade, for a long period, the names of all other inquirers; for among their numerous and rather celebrated successors in the Alexandrian school, it is impossible to recognise a name which is entitled to distinction in the history of anatomy. In a chasm so wide it is not uninteresting to find, in one who combined the character of the greatest orator and philosopher of antiquity, the most distinct traces of attention to anatomical knowledge. Cicero, in his treatise De Natura Deorum, in a short sketch of physiology, such as it was taught by Aristotle and his disciples, introduces various anatomical notices, from which the classical reader may form some idea of the state of anatomy at that time. The Roman orator appears to have formed a pretty distinct idea of the shape and connections of the windpipe and lungs; and though he informs his readers that he knows the alimentary canal, he omits the details through motives of delicacy. In imitation of Aristotle, he talks of the blood being conveyed by the veins (venae), that is, blood-vessels, through the body at large; and, like Praxagoras, of the air inhaled by the lungs being conveyed through the arteries.

Aretacus, though chiefly known as a medical author, makes some observations on the lung and the pleura, maintains the glandular structure of the kidney, and describes the anastomosis or communications of the capillary extremities of the vena cava with those of the portal vein.

The most valuable depository of the anatomical knowledge of these times is the work of Celsus, one of the most judicious medical authors of antiquity. He left, indeed, no express anatomical treatise; but from the introductions to his 4th and 8th books, De Medicina, with incidental remarks in his 7th, the modern reader may History. form very just ideas of the anatomical attainments of the Roman physician. From these it appears that Celsus was well acquainted with the windpipe and lungs, and the heart; with the difference between the windpipe and esophagus (stomachus), which leads to the stomach (ventriculus); and with the shape, situation, and relations of the diaphragm. He enumerates also with accuracy the principal facts relating to the situation of the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys. His description of the situation and connections of the stomach is interesting. He appears, however, to have been unaware of the distinction of duodenum or twelve-inch bowel, already admitted by Herophilus, and represents the stomach as directly connected by means of the pylorus with the jejunum or upper part of the small intestine. His account of the rest of the alimentary canal, though brief and cursory, is accurate; and his subsequent descriptions of diseases seated in these parts show that he had formed ideas, upon the whole very just, of the relative positions of these parts.

The 7th and 8th books, which are devoted to the consideration of those diseases which are treated by manual operation, contain sundry anatomical notices necessary to explain the nature of the diseases, or mode of treatment. Of these, indeed, the merit is unequal; and it is not wonderful that the ignorance of the day prevented Celsus from understanding rightly the mechanism of the pathology of hernia. He appears, however, to have formed a tolerably just idea of the mode of cutting into the urinary bladder; and even his obstetrical instructions show that his knowledge of the uterus, vagina, and appendages was not contemptible. It is in osteology, however, that the information of Celsus is chiefly conspicuous. He enumerates the sutures and several of the holes of the cranium, and describes at great length the superior and inferior maxillary bones and the teeth. With a good deal of care he describes the vertebrae and the ribs, and gives very briefly the situation and shape of the scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna, and even the carpal and metacarpal bones, and then of the different bones of the pelvis and lower extremities. He had formed a just idea of the articular connections, and is desirous to impress the fact, that none is formed without cartilage. From his mention of many minute holes (multa et tenues foramina), in the recess of the nasal cavities, it is evident that he was acquainted with the perforated plate of the ethmoid bone; and from saying that the straight part of the auditory canal becomes flexuous, and terminates in numerous minute cavities (multa et tenues foramina diducit), it is inferred by Portal that he knew the semicircular canals.

Though the writings of Celsus show that he cultivated anatomical knowledge, it does not appear that the science was much studied by the Romans; and there is reason to believe, that after the decay of the school of Alexandria it languished in neglect and obscurity. It is at least certain that the appearance of Marinus during the reign of Nero is mentioned by authors as an era remarkable for anatomical inquiry, and that this person is distinguished by Galen as the restorer of a branch of knowledge which had been before him suffered to fall into undeserved neglect. From Galen also we learn that he gave an accurate account of the muscles, that he studied particularly the glands, that he discovered those of the mesentery, and that he improved much the anatomical history of the nerves. The number of the latter he fixed at seven; he observed the palatine nerves, which he rated as the fourth pair; and described as the fifth the auditory and facial, which he regards as one pair; and the hypoglossal as the sixth.

Not long after Marinus, appeared Rufius of Ephesus, a Greek physician, who in the reign of Trajan was much attached to physiology, and as a means of cultivating this History, science studied Comparative Anatomy, and made sundry experiments on living animals. Of the anatomical writings of this author, there remains only a list or catalogue of names of different regions and parts of the animal body. He appears, however, to have directed the attention particularly to the tortuous course of the uterine vessels, and to have recognised even at this early period the Fallopian tube. He distinguishes the nerves into those of sensation and those of motion. He knew the recurrent nerve. His name is further associated with the ancient experiment of compressing in the situation of the carotid arteries the pneumogastric nerve, and thereby inducing insensibility and loss of voice.

Of all the authors of antiquity, however, none possesses so just a claim to the title of anatomist as Claudius Galenus, the celebrated physician of Pergamus. This person, who was born about the 131st year of the Christian era, and lived under the reigns of Trajan, Antoninus, Commodus, and Ælius, was trained by his father Nicon, whose memory he embalms as an eminent mathematician, architect, and astronomer, to all the learning of the day, and initiated particularly into the mysteries of the Aristotelian philosophy. In an order somewhat whimsical he afterwards studied philosophy successively in the schools of the Stoics, the Academics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans. While at the age of 17, his father, he informs us, was admonished by a dream to devote his son to the study of medicine; but it was fully two years after, that Galen entered on this pursuit, under the auspices of an instructor, whose name he has thought proper to conceal. Shortly after, he betook himself to the study of anatomy under Satyrus, a pupil of Quintus, and of medicine under Stratonicus, a Hippocratic physician, and Æschrius, an empiric. He had scarcely attained the age of 20, when he had occasion to deplore the loss of the first and most affectionate guide of his studies; and soon after he proceeded to Smyrna to obtain the anatomical instructions of Pelops, who, though mystified by some of the errors of Hippocrates, is commemorated by his pupil as a skilful anatomist. After this he appears to have visited various cities, distinguished for philosophical or medical teachers; and, finally, to have gone to Alexandria with the view of cultivating more accurately and intimately the study of anatomy under Heracleianus. Here he remained till his 29th year, when he regarded himself as possessed of all the knowledge then attainable through the medium of teachers. He now returned to Pergamus, to exercise the art which he had so anxiously studied, and received, in his 29th year, an unequivocal testimony of the confidence which his fellow-citizens reposed in his skill, by being intrusted with the treatment of the wounded gladiators; and in this capacity he is said to have treated with success several wounds which used to be fatal. A seditions tumult appears to have caused him to form the resolution of quitting Pergamus and proceeding to Rome, at the age of 32. Here, however, he remained only five years; and returning once more to Pergamus, after travelling for some time, finally settled in Rome as physician to the emperor Commodus.

The anatomical writings ascribed to Galen, which are numerous, are to be viewed not merely as the result of personal research and information, but as the common depository of the anatomical knowledge of the day, and as combining all that he had learnt from the several teachers under whom he successively studied, with whatever personal investigation enabled him to acquire. It is on this account not always easy to distinguish what Galen had himself ascertained by personal research, from that which History, was known by other anatomists. This, however, though of moment to the history of Galen as an anatomist, is of little consequence to the science itself; and, from the anatomical remains of this author, a pretty just idea may be formed, both of the progress and of the actual state of the science at that time.

The osteology of Galen is undoubtedly the most perfect of the departments of the anatomy of the ancients. He names and distinguishes the bones and sutures of the cranium nearly in the same manner as at present. Thus he notices the quadrilateral shape of the parietal bones; he distinguishes the squamous, the styloid, and the mastoid portions, and the lithoid or petrous portions of the temporal bones; and he remarks the peculiar situation and shape of the wedge-like or sphenoid bone. Of the ethmoid, which he omits at first, he afterwards speaks more at large in another treatise. The malar he notices under the name of zygomatic bone; and he describes at length the upper maxillary and nasal bones, and the connection of the former with the sphenoid. He gives the first clear account of the number and situation of the vertebrae, which he divides into cervical, dorsal, and lumbar, and distinguishes from the sacrum and coccyx. Under the head Bones of the Thorax, he enumerates the sternum, the ribs (οἱ πλευραί), and the dorsal vertebrae, the connection of which with the former he designates as a variety of diarthrosis. The description of the bones of the extremities and their articulations concludes the treatise.

Though in myology Galen appears to less advantage than in osteology, he nevertheless had carried this part of anatomical knowledge to greater perfection than any of his predecessors. He describes a frontal muscle, the six muscles of the eye, and a seventh proper to animals; a muscle to each ala nasi, four muscles of the lips, the thin cutaneous muscle of the neck, which he first termed platysma myoides, or muscular expansion, two muscles of the eyelids, and four pairs of muscles of the lower jaw, the temporal to raise, the masseter to draw to one side, and two depressors, corresponding to the digastric and internal pterygoid muscles. After speaking of the muscles which move the head and the scapula, he adverts to those by which the windpipe is opened and shut, and the intrinsic or proper muscles of the larynx and hyoid bone. Then follow those of the tongue, pharynx, and neck, those of the upper extremities, the trunk, and the lower extremities successively; and in the course of this description he swerves so little from the actual facts, that most of the names by which he distinguishes the principal muscles have been retained by the best modern anatomists. It is chiefly in the minute account of these organs, and especially in reference to the minuter muscles, that he appears inferior to the moderns.

The angiological knowledge of Galen, though vitiated by the erroneous physiology of the times, and ignorance of the separate uses of the arteries and veins, exhibits, nevertheless, some accurate facts which show the diligence of the author in dissection. Though, in opposition to the opinions of Praxagoras and Erasistratus, he proved that the arteries in the living animal contain not air, but blood, it does not appear to have occurred to him to determine in what direction the blood flows, or whether it was movable or stationary. Representing the left ventricle of the heart as the common origin of all the arteries, though he is misled by the pulmonary artery, he nevertheless traces the distribution of the branches of the aorta with some accuracy. The vena cava also, and the History-jugular veins, have contributed to add to the confusion of his description, and to render his angiology the most imperfect of his works.

In neurology we find him to be the author of the dogma, that the brain is the origin of the nerves of sensation, and the spinal chord of those of motion; and he distinguishes the former from the latter by their greater softness or less consistence. Though he admits only seven cerebral pairs, he has the merit of distinguishing and tracing the distribution of the greater part of both classes of nerves with great accuracy.

His description of the brain, though derived from dissection of the lower animals, is accurate; and his distinctions of the several parts of the organ have been retained by modern anatomists. His mode of demonstrating this organ, which indeed is clearly described, consists of five different steps. In the first the bisecting membrane, i.e., the falx (μυρτική διασταύρωσις), and the connecting blood-vessels are removed; and the dissector, commencing at the anterior extremity of the great fissure, separates the hemispheres gently as far as the torcular, and exposes a smooth surface (τοῦ γαμα τοῦ μέσου τοῦ κεφαλής), the mesolobe of the moderns, or the middle band. In the second he exposes by successive sections the ventricles, the choroid plexus, and the middle partition. The third exhibits the conoid body (σώμα κονοειδές) or conarium, concealed by a membrane with numerous veins, meaning that part of the plexus which is now known by the name of cellum interpositum, and a complete view of the ventricles. The fourth unfolds the third ventricle (τῆς αληθινῆς τρίτης κεφαλῆς), the communication between the two latter ones, the pallid or arch-like body (σώμα λαβειδεῖον) formis, and the passage from the third to the fourth ventricle. In the fifth he gives an accurate description of the relations of the third and fourth ventricle, of the situation of the two pairs of eminences, mates (γαμα) and testes (διασταύρωσις vel γαμα), the scolecoid or worm-like process, anterior and posterior, the tendons or processes, and lastly the linear furrow, called by Herophilus colamus scriptorius. He appears not to have known the inferior recesses. Morgagni however concludes, from a passage of the 7th book τοῦ Διογγαρά, that he did; but after accurately examining this and others of his anatomical writings, I cannot see any good reason for admitting the inference.

In the account of the thoracic organs equal accuracy may be recognised. He distinguishes the pleura by the name of inclosing membrane (λαβειδεῖον, membrana succingens), and remarks its similitude in structure to that of the peritoneum, and the covering which it affords to all the organs. The pericardium also he describes as a membranous sac with a circular basis corresponding to the base of the heart, and a conical apex; and after an account of the tunics of the arteries and veins, he speaks shortly of the lung, and more at length of the heart, which, however, he takes some pains to prove not to be muscular, because it is harder, its fibres are differently arranged, and its action is incessant, whereas that of muscle alternates with the state of rest. In the particular description of the parts of the organ he ascribes to the auricles a more circular structure than to the other parts; he gives a good account of the valves and of the vessels; and notices especially the bony ring formed in the heart of the horse, elephant, and other large animals.

The description of the abdominal organs, and of the kidneys and urinary apparatus, is still more minute, and in general very accurate. Our limits, however, do not permit us to give any abstract of them; and it is sufficient in general to say, that Galen gives correct views of the structure and distribution of the peritoneum and omentum, and distinguishes accurately the several divisions of the alimentary canal, and the internal structure of its component tissues. In the liver, which he allows to receive an envelope from the peritoneum, he admits, in imitation of Erasistratus, a proper substance or parenchyma, interposed between the vessels, and capable of removal by suitable dissection.

His description of the organs of generation is rather brief, and is like most of his anatomical sketches, too much blended with physiological dogmas.

This short sketch may communicate some idea of the condition of anatomical knowledge in the days of Galen, who indeed is justly entitled to the character of rectifying and digesting, if not of creating, the science of anatomy among the ancients. Though evidently confined, perhaps entirely, by the circumstances of the times, to the dissection of brute animals, so indefatigable and judicious was he in the mode of acquiring knowledge, that many of his names and distinctions are still retained with advantage in the writings of the moderns. Galen was a practical anatomist, and not only describes the organs of the animal body from actual dissection, but gives ample instructions for the proper mode of exposition. His language is in general clear, his style as correct as in most of the authors of the same period, and his manner is animated. It is indeed impossible to imagine any thing so interesting as the description of the process for demonstrating the brain and other internal organs, which is given by this patient and enthusiastic observer of nature. To some it may appear absurd to speak of any thing like good anatomical description in an author who writes in the Greek language, or any thing like an interesting and correct manner in a writer who flourished at a period when taste was depraved or extinct, and literature corrupted,—when the philosophy of Antoninus, and the mild virtues of Aurelius, could do little to soften the iron sway of Lucius Verus and Commodus; but the habit of faithful observation in Galen seems to have been so powerful, that, in the description of material objects, his genius invariably rises above the circumstances of his age. Though not so directly connected with this subject, it is nevertheless proper to mention, that he appears to have been the first anatomist who can be said, on authentic grounds, to have attempted to discover the uses of organs by vivisection and experiments on living animals. In this manner he ascertained the position and demonstrated the action of the heart; and he mentions two instances in which, in consequence of disease or injury, he had an opportunity of observing the motions of this organ in the human body. In short, without eulogizing an ancient author at the expense of critical justice, or commending his anatomical descriptions as superior to those of the moderns, it must be admitted that the anatomical writings of the physician of Pergamus form a remarkable era in the history of the science; and that by diligence in dissection, and accuracy in description, he gave the science a degree of importance and stability which it has retained through the lapse of many centuries.

The death of Galen, which took place at Pergamus in the 90th year of his age, and the 193d of the Christian era, may be regarded as the downfall of anatomy in ancient times. After this period we recognise only two names of any celebrity in the history of the science,—those of Soranus and Oribasius, with the more obscure ones of Meletius and Theophilus, the latter the chief of the imperial guard of Heraclius.

Soranus, who was an Ephesian, and flourished under the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, distinguished himself by his researches on the female organs of generation. He appears to have dissected the human subject; and this perhaps is one reason why his descriptions of these parts are more copious and more accurate than those of Galen, who derived his knowledge from the bodies of the lower animals. He denies the existence of the hymen, but describes accurately the clitoris. Soranus the anatomist must be distinguished from the physician of that name, who was also a native of Ephesus.

Oribasius, who was born at Pergamus, is said to have been at once the friend and physician of the emperor Julian, and to have contributed to the elevation of that apostate to the imperial throne. For this he appears to have suffered the punishment of a temporary exile under Valens and Valentinian; but was soon recalled, and lived in great honour till the period of his death. By Le Clerc, Oribasius is regarded as a compiler; and indeed his anatomical writings bear so close a correspondence with those of Galen, that the character is not altogether groundless. In various points, nevertheless, he has rendered the Galenian anatomy more accurate; and he has distinguished himself by a good account of the salivary glands, which were overlooked by Galen.

To the same period generally is referred the anatomical introduction of an anonymous author, first published in 1618 by Lauremberg, and more recently by Bernard. It is to be regarded as a compilation formed on the model of Galen and Oribasius. The same character is applicable to the treatises of Meletius and Theophilus.

The decline indicated by these languid efforts soon sunk into a state of total inactivity; and the unsettled state of society during the latter ages of the Roman empire became extremely unfavourable to the successful cultivation of science. The sanguinary conflicts in which the southern countries of Europe were repeatedly engaged with their northern neighbours, between the second and eighth centuries, tended gradually to estrange their minds from scientific pursuits; and the hordes of barbarians by which the Roman empire was latterly overrun, while they urged them to the necessity of making hostile resistance, and adopting means of self-defence, introduced such habits of ignorance and barbarism, that science was almost universally forgotten; and the art most essential to the success of military operations was either neglected or debased by the grossest ignorance. While the art of healing was professed only by some few ecclesiastics, or by itinerant practitioners, anatomy was utterly neglected; and no name of anatomical celebrity occurs to diversify the long and uninteresting period commonly distinguished as the middle ages.

Anatomical learning, thus neglected by European nations, is believed to have received a temporary cultivation from the Asiatics. Of these, several nomadic tribes, known to Europeans under the general denomination of Arabs and Saracens, had gradually coalesced under various leaders; and by their habits of endurance, as well as of enthusiastic valour, in successive expeditions against the eastern division of the Roman empire, had acquired such military reputation, as to render them formidable where- History, ever they appeared. After a century and a half of foreign warfare or internal animosity, under the successive dynasties of the Ommiades and Abassides, in which the propagation of Islamism was the pretext for the extinction of learning and civilisation, and the most remorseless system of rapine and destruction, the Saracens began, under the latter dynasty of princes, to recognise the value of science, and especially of that which prolongs life, heals disease, and alleviates the pain of wounds and injuries. The caliph Almansor combined with his official knowledge of Moslem law, the successful cultivation of astronomy; but to his grandson Almanon, the seventh prince of the line of the Abassides, belongs the merit of undertaking to render his subjects philosophers and physicians. By the directions of this prince, the works of the Greek and Roman authors were translated into Arabic; and the favour and munificence with which literature and its professors were patronised, speedily raised a succession of learned Arabians. The residue of the rival family of the Ommiades, already settled in Spain, was prompted by motives of rivalry or honourable ambition to adopt the same course; and while the academy, hospitals, and library of Bagdad bore testimony to the zeal and liberality of the Abassides, the munificence of the Ommiades was not less conspicuous in the literary institutions of Cordova, Seville, and Toledo.

Notwithstanding the efforts of the Arabian princes, however, and the diligence of the Arabian physicians, little was done for anatomy, and the science made no substantial acquisition. The Koran denounces as unclean the person who touches a corpse; the rules of Islamism forbid dissection; and whatever their instructors taught was borrowed from the Greeks. Abu Bekr Al-Rasi, Abu-Ali Ibn-Sina, Abul-Casem, and Abu-Walid Ibn-Roschd, the Razes, Avicenna, Albuccasius, and Averrhoes of European authors, are their most celebrated names in medicine; yet to none of these can the historian with justice ascribe any anatomical merit. Al-Rasi has indeed left descriptions of the eye, of the ear and its meatus, and of the heart; and Ibn-Sina, Abul-Casem, and Ebn-Roschd, give anatomical descriptions of the parts of the human body. But of these the general character is, that they are copies from Galen, sometimes not very just, and in all instances mystified with a large proportion of the fanciful and absurd imagery and inflated style of the Arabian writers. The chief reason of their obtaining a place in anatomical history is, that, by the influence which their medical authority enabled them to exercise in the European schools, the nomenclature which they employed was adopted by European anatomists, and continued till the revival of ancient learning restored the original nomenclature of the Greek physicians. Thus, the cervix, or nape of the neck, is suhka; the oesophagus is meri; the umbilical region is sumen, or sumae; the abdomen is myrach; the peritoneum is siphae; and the omentum, zirbus.

From the general character now given, justice requires that we except Abdollatip, the annalist of Egyptian affairs. This author, who maintains that it is impossible to learn anatomy from books, and that the authority of Galen must yield to personal inspection, informs us, that the Moslem doctors did not neglect opportunities of studying the bones of the human body in cemeteries; and that he himself, by once examining a collection of bones in this manner, ascertained that the lower jaw is formed of one piece; that the sacrum, though sometimes composed of several, is most generally of one; and that Galen is mistaken when he asserts that these bones are not single.

The era of Saracen learning extends to the 13th century; and after this we begin to approach happier times. The university of Bologna, which, as a school of literature and law, was already celebrated in the twelfth century, became, in the course of the following one, not less distinguished for its medical teachers. Though the misgovernment of the municipal rulers of Bologna had disgusted both teachers and students, and given rise to the foundation of similar institutions in Padua and Naples,—and though the school of Salerno, in the territory of the latter, was still in high repute,—it appears, from the testimony of Sarti, that medicine was in the highest esteem in Bologna, and that it was in such perfection as to require a division of its professors into physicians, surgeons, physicians for wounds, barber-surgeons, oculists, and even some others. Notwithstanding these indications of refinement, however, anatomy was manifestly cultivated rather as an appendage of surgery than a branch of medical science; and, according to the testimony of Guy de Chauliac, the cultivation of anatomical knowledge was confined to Roger, Roland, Jamerio, Bruno, and Lanfranc; and thus they borrowed chiefly from Galen. For this and similar reasons, physicians were not in all instances respected by the best informed men of the age; and they fell, perhaps not altogether undeservedly, under the bitter lash of the satirical Petrarch.

In this state matters appear to have proceeded with the medical school of Bologna till the commencement of the fourteenth century, when the circumstance of possessing a teacher of originality enabled this university to be the agent of as great an improvement in medical science as she had already effected in jurisprudence. This era, indeed, is distinguished for the appearance of Mondino, under whose zealous cultivation the science first began to rise from the ashes in which it had been buried. This father of modern anatomy, who taught in Bologna about the year 1315, quickly drew the curiosity of the medical profession, by well-ordered demonstrations of the different parts of the human body. In 1318 he dissected and demonstrated the parts of the human body in two female subjects; and in the course of the following year he accomplished the same task on the person of a single female. But while he seems to have had sufficient original force of intellect to direct his own route, Riolan accuses him of copying Galen; and it is certain that his descriptions are corrupted by the barbarous leaven of the Arabian schools, and his Latin defaced by the exotic nomenclature of Ebn-Sina, and Abu-Bekr Al-Rasi. He died, according to Tiraboschi, in 1325.

Mondino divides the body into three cavities (centra), the upper containing the animal members, as the head, the lower containing the natural members, and the middle containing the spiritual members. He first delivers the anatomy of the lower cavity or the abdomen, then proceeds to the middle or thoracic organs, and concludes with the upper, comprising the head, and its contents and appendages. His general manner is to notice shortly the situation and shape or distribution of textures or membranes, and then to mention the disorders to which they are subject. The peritoneum he describes under the name of siphae, in imitation of the Arabians, the omentum under that of zirbus, and the mesentery or eucharius as distinct from both. In speaking of the intestines, he treats first of the rectum, then the colon, the left or sigmoid flexure of which, as well as the transverse arch and its connection with the stomach, he particularly remarks; then the cecum or monoecus, after this the small intestines in general under the heads of ileum and jejunum, and latterly the duodenum, making in all six bowels. The liver and its vessels are minutely, if not accurately examined; and the cerea, under the name chilis, a corruption from the Greek καλλις, is treated at length, with the emulsions and kidneys. His anatomy of the heart is wonderfully accurate; and it is a remarkable fact, which seems to be omitted by all subsequent authors, that his description contains the rudiments of the circulation of the blood.

"Postea vero versus pulmonem est aliud orificio venae arterialis, quae portal sanguinem ad pulmonem ad corde: quia cum pulmo deserviat cordi secundum modum dictum ut ei recompenset, cor ei transmittit sanguinem per hanc venam, quae vocatur vena arterialis, et vena quae portat sanguinem, et arterialis, quia habet duas tunicas; et habet duas tunicas, primo quia vidit ad membrum quod existit in continuo motu, et secundo quia portat sanguinem valde subtiliorem et cholericum."

The merit of these distinctions, however, he afterwards destroys, by repeating the old assertion, that the left ventricle ought to contain spirit or air, which it generates from the blood.

His osteology of the skull is erroneous. In his account of the cerebral membranes, though short, he notices the principal characters of the dura mater. He describes shortly the lateral ventricles, with their anterior and posterior cornua, and the choroid plexus as a blood-red substance, like a long worm. He then speaks of the third or middle ventricle, and one posterior, which seems to correspond with the fourth; and describes the infundibulum under the names of lacuna and embolon. The inferior recesses he appears to have omitted. In the base of the organ he remarks, first, two mamillary caruncles, the origins of the olfactory nerves, which, however, he overlooks; the optic nerves, which he reckons the first pair; the oculo-muscular, which he accounts the second; the third, which appears to be the sixth of the moderns; the fourth; the fifth; evidently the seventh; a sixth, the nervus vagus; and a seventh, which is the ninth of the moderns.

Notwithstanding the misrepresentations into which this early anatomist was betrayed, his book is valuable, and has been illustrated by the successive commentaries of Achillini, Berenger, and Dryander.

Matthew de Gradibus, a native of Gradi, a town in Friuli, near Milan, distinguished himself by composing a series of treatises on the anatomy of various parts of the human body. He is the first who represents the ovaries of the female in the correct light in which they were subsequently regarded by Steno.

Similar objections to those already urged in speaking of Mondino apply to another eminent anatomist of those times. Gabriel de Zerbis, who flourished at Verona towards the conclusion of the 15th century, is celebrated as the author of a system, in which he is obviously more anxious to astonish his readers by the wonders of a verbose and complicated style, than to instruct by precise and faithful description. In the vanity of his heart he assumed the title of Medicus Theoricus; but though like Mondino he derived his information from the dissection of the human subject, he is not entitled to the merit either of describing truly or of adding to the knowledge previously acquired. He is superior to Mondino, however, in knowing the olficient nerves.

Eminent in the history of the science, but more distinguished than any of this age in the history of cerebral anatomy, Alexander Achillini of Bologna, the pupil and commentator of Mondino, appeared at the close of the 15th century. Though a follower of the Arabian school, the assiduity with which he cultivated anatomy has rescued his name from the inglorious obscurity in which the Arabesque doctors have in general slumbered. He is known in the history of anatomical discovery as the first History, who described the two tympanal bones, termed malleus and incus. In 1503 he showed that the tarsus consists of seven bones; he re-discovered the fornix and the infundibulum; and he was fortunate enough to observe the course of the cerebral cavities into the inferior cornua, and to remark peculiarities to which the anatomists of a future age did not advert. He mentions the orifices of the ducts afterwards described by Wharton. He knew the ilio-cecal valve; and his description of the duodenum, ileum, and colon, shows that he was better acquainted with the site and disposition of these bowels than any of his predecessors or contemporaries.

Not long after, the science boasts of one of its most distinguished founders. James Berenger of Carpi, in the Modenese territory, flourished at Bologna at the beginning of the 16th century. In the annals of medicine his name will be remembered not only as the most zealous and eminent in cultivating the anatomy of the human body, but as the first physician who was fortunate enough to calm the alarms of Europe, suffering under the ravages of syphilis, then raging with uncontrollable virulence. In the former character he surpassed both predecessors and contemporaries; and it was long before the anatomists of the following age could boast of equalling him. His assiduity was indefatigable; and he declares that he dissected above 100 human bodies. He is the author of a compendium, of several treatises which he names introductions (Intagoga), and of commentaries on the treatise of Mondino. Like him, he is tinged with the mysticism of the Arabian doctrines; and though he employs the Grecian nomenclature in general, he never forgets to give the Arabian terms, and often uses them exclusively. In his commentaries on Mondino, which constitute the most perspicuous and complete of his works, he not only rectifies the mistakes of that anatomist, but delivers minute and in general accurate anatomical descriptions.

He is the first who undertakes a systematic view of the several textures of which the human body is composed; and in a preliminary commentary he treats successively of the anatomical characters and properties of fat, of membrane in general (panniculus), of flesh, of nerve, of villus or fibre (filum), of ligament, of sinew or tendon, and of muscle in general. He then proceeds to describe with considerable precision the muscles of the abdomen, and illustrates their site and connections by wooden cuts, which, though rude, are spirited, and show that anatomical drawing was in that early age beginning to be understood. In his account of the peritoneum, he admits only the intestinal division of that membrane, and is at some pains to prove the error of Gentilis, who justly admits the muscular division also. In his account of the intestines, he is the first who mentions the vermiform process of the cecum; he remarks the yellow tint communicated to the jejunum by the gall-bladder; and he recognises the opening of the common biliary duct into the duodenum (quidam porus portans choleraem). In the account of the stomach he describes the several tissues of which that organ is composed, and which, after Almanson, he represents to be three, and a fourth from the peritoneum; and afterwards notices the rugae of its villous surface. He is at considerable pains to explain the organs of generation in both sexes, and gives a long account of the anatomy of the fetus. He was the first who recognised the larger proportional size of the chest in the male than in the female, and conversely the greater capacity of the female than of the male pelvis. In the larynx he discovered the two arytenoid cartilages. He gives the first good description of the thymus; distinguishes the oblique situa-

History. tion of the heart; describes the pericardium, and main- tains the uniform presence of pericardial liquor. He then describes the cavities of the heart; but perplexes him- self, as all the anatomists of that age, about the spirit supposed to be contained. The aorta he properly makes to arise from the left ventricle; but confuses himself with the arteria venalis (pulmonary vein), and the vena ar- terialis, the pulmonary artery. His account of the brain is better. He gives a minute and clear account of the ventricles, remarks the corpus striatum, and has the sag- acity to perceive that the choroid plexus consists of veins and arteries; he then describes the middle or third ven- tricle, the infundibulum or lacuna of Mondino, and the pituitary gland; and, lastly, the passage to the fourth ventricle, the cornu or pineal gland, and the fourth or posterior ventricle itself, the relations of which he had studied accurately. He rectifies the mistake of Mon- dino as to the olfactory or first pair of nerves, gives a good account of the optic and others, and is entitled to the praise of originality in being the first observer who con- tradicts the fiction of the wonderful net, and indicates the principal divisions of the carotid arteries. He enumerates the tunics and humours of the eye, and gives an account of the internal ear, in which he notices the malleus and incus.

It had been written in the book of the destinies, that the science of anatomy was to be cultivated first in Italy; and that the country, already so illustrious in literature, should be honoured in giving birth to the first eminent anatomists in Europe. This distinction she long retained; and the glory she acquired in the names of Mondino, Achillini, Carpi, and Massa, was destined to become more conspicuous in the labours of Columbus, Fallopius, and Eustachius. While Italy, however, was thus advancing the progress of science, the other nations of Europe were either in profound ignorance or in the most supine indif- ference to the brilliant career of their zealous neighbours. The sixteenth century had commenced before France be- gan to acquire any anatomical distinction in the names of Dubois, Fernel, and Etienne; and even these celebrated teachers were less solicitous in the personal study of the animal body, than in the faithful explanation of the ana- tomical writings of Galen. The infancy of the French school had to contend with other difficulties. The small portion of knowledge which had been hitherto diffused in the country was so inadequate to eradicate the prejudices of ignorance, that it was either difficult or absolutely im- possible to procure human bodies for the purposes of science; and we are assured, on the testimony of Ves- alius and other competent authorities, that the practical part of anatomical instruction was obtained entirely from the bodies of the lower animals. The works of the Ita- lian anatomists were unknown; and it is a proof of the tardy communication of knowledge, that while the struc- ture of the human body had been taught in Italy for more than a century by Mondino and his followers, they are never mentioned by Etienne, who flourished long after.

Such was the aspect of the times at the appearance of Jacques Dubois, who, under the Romanized name of Jacobus Sylvius, according to the fashion of the day, has been fortunate in acquiring a reputation to which his re- searches do not entitle him. For the name of James Dubois, the history of anatomy, it is said, is indebted to his inordinate love of money. At the instance of his brother Francis, who was professor of eloquence in the College of Tournay at Paris, he repaired to this university, and devoted himself to the study of the learned languages and mathematics; but discovering that these elegant ac- complishments do not invariably reward their cultivators with the goods of fortune, Dubois betook himself to me- dicine. After the acquisition of a medical degree in the university of Montpellier, at the ripe age of fifty-one Dubois returned to Paris to resume a course of anatomi- cal instructions which had been interrupted by the cano- nical interference of the medical faculty. Here he taught anatomy to a numerous audience in the college of Trin- quet; and, on the departure of Vidus Vidius for Italy, was appointed to succeed that physician as professor of surgery to the Royal College. His character is easily es- timated. With a greater portion of coarseness in his manners and language than even the rude state of so- ciety can palliate, with much varied learning and consider- able eloquence, he was a blind, indiscriminate, and irra- tional admirer of Galen, and interpreted the anatomical and physiological writings of that author, in preference to giving demonstrations from the subject. Without talent for original research or discovery himself, his envy and jealousy made him detest every one who gave proofs of either. We are assured by Vesalius, who was some time his pupil, that his manner of teaching was calculated nei- ther to advance the science nor to rectify the mistakes of his predecessors. A human body was never seen in the theatre of Dubois; the carcasses of dogs and other ani- mals were the materials from which he taught; and so difficult even was it to obtain human bones, that unless Vesalius and his fellow-students had collected assiduously from the Innocents and other cemeteries, they must have committed numerous errors in acquiring the first princi- ples. This assertion, however, is contradicted by Riolan, and more recently by Sprengel and Lauth, the last of whom decidedly censures Vesalius for this ungrateful treatment of his instructor. It is certain that opportuni- ties of inspecting the human body were by no means so frequent as to facilitate the study of the science. Though his mention of injections has made him be thought the discoverer of that art, he appears to have made no sub- stantial addition to the information already acquired; and the first acknowledged professor of anatomy to the uni- versity of Paris appears in history as one who lived with- out true honour, and died without just celebrity. He must not be confounded with Franciscus Sylvius (De le Boe), who is mentioned by Ruysch and Malacarne as the author of a particular method of demonstrating the brain.

Almost coeval may be placed Charles Etienne, a younger 1563-64, brother of the celebrated printers, and son to Henry, who Hellenized the family name by the classical appellation of Stephen; (see supra). It is uncertain whether he taught publicly. But his tranquillity was disturbed, and his pursuits interrupted, by the oppressive persecutions in which their religious opinions involved the family; and Charles Etienne drew the last breath of a miserable life in a dungeon in 1564. Etienne, though sprung of a family whose classical taste has been their principal glory, be- trays not the same servile imitation of the Galenian ana- tomy with which Dubois is charged, and is the first ana- tomatic author who deviates from the beaten path. He ap- pears to have been the first to detect valves in the orifice of the hepatic veins. He was ignorant, however, of the re- searches of the Italian anatomists; and his description of the brain is inferior to that given 60 years before by Achil- lini. His comparison of the cerebral cavities to the hu- man ear has persuaded Portal that he knew the inferior cornua, and hippocampus, and its prolongations; but this is no reason for giving him that honour, to the detriment of the reputation of Achillini, to whom, so far as histori- cal testimony goes, the first knowledge of this fact is due. The researches of Etienne into the structure of the ner-

History. vous system are, however, neither useless nor inglorious; and the circumstance of demonstrating a canal through the entire length of the spinal chord, which had neither been suspected by contemporaries nor noticed by successors, till M. Senac made it known, is sufficient to place him high among the class of anatomical discoverers.

The French anatomy of the sixteenth century was distinguished by two circumstances unfavourable to the advancement of the science,—extravagant admiration of antiquity, with excessive confidence in the writings of Galen, and the general practice of dissecting principally the bodies of the lower animals. Both of these errors were much amended, if not entirely removed, by the exertions of a young Fleming, whose appearance forms a conspicuous era in the history of cerebral anatomy. Andrew Vesalius, a native of Brussels, after acquiring at Louvain the ordinary classical attainments of the day, began, at the age of 14, to study anatomy under the auspices of Dubois. Though the originality of his mind soon led him to abandon the prejudices, by which he was environed, and take the most direct course for attaining a knowledge of the structure of the human frame; yet he neither underrated the Galenian anatomy, nor was he indolent in the dissection of brute animals. The difficulties, however, with which the practical pursuit of human anatomy was beset in France, and the dangers with which he had to contend, made him look to Italy as a suitable field for the cultivation of the science; and in 1536 we find him at Venice, at once pursuing the study of human anatomy with the utmost zeal, and requested, ere he had attained his 23d year, to demonstrate publicly in the university of Padua. After remaining here about seven years, he went by express invitation to Bologna, and shortly afterwards to Pisa; and Vesalius, thus professor in three universities, appears to have carried on his anatomical investigations and instructions alternately at Padua, Bologna, and Pisa, in the course of the same winter. It is on this account that Vesalius, though a Fleming by birth, and trained originally in the French school, belongs, as an anatomist, to the Italian, and may be viewed as the first of an illustrious line of teachers by whom the anatomical reputation of that country was in the course of the sixteenth century raised to the greatest eminence.

Vesalius is known as the first author of a comprehensive and systematic view of human anatomy. The knowledge with which his dissections had furnished him, proved how many errors were daily taught and learned under the broad mantle of Galenian authority; and he perceived the necessity of a new system of anatomical instruction, divested of the emissions of ignorance and the misrepresentations of prejudice and fancy. The early age at which he effected this object has been to his biographers the theme of boundless commendations; and we are told that he began at the age of 25 to arrange the materials he had collected, and accomplished his task ere he had completed his 28th year.

Soon after this period we find him invited as imperial physician to the court of Charles V., where he was occupied in the duties of practice, and answering the various charges which were unceasingly brought against him by the Galenian disciples. After the abdication of Charles, he continued at court in great favour with his son Philip II. To this he seems to have been led principally by the troublesome controversies in which his anatomical writings had involved him. It is painful to think, however, that even imperial patronage bestowed on eminent talents does not insure immunity from popular prejudice; and the fate of Vesalius will be a lasting example of the barbarism of the times, and of the precarious tenure of the History, safety even of a great physician. On the preliminary circumstances authors are not agreed; but the most general account states, that when Vesalius was inspecting, with the consent of his kinsmen, the body of a Spanish grandee, it was observed that the heart still gave some feeble palpitations when divided by the knife. The immediate effects of this outrage to human feeling were to denounce the anatomist to the inquisition; and Vesalius escaped the merciful dispensations of this tribunal only by the influence of the king, and by promising to perform a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He forthwith proceeded to Venice, from which he sailed with the Venetian fleet, under James Malatesta, for Cyprus. When he reached Jerusalem, he received from the Venetian senate a message requesting him again to accept the Paduan professorship, which had become vacant by the death of his friend and pupil Fallopius. His destiny, however, which pursued him fast, suffered him not again to breathe the Italian air. After struggling for many days with adverse winds in the Ionian Sea, he was wrecked on the island of Zante, where he quickly breathed his last in such penury, that unless a liberal goldsmith had defrayed the funeral charges, his remains must have been devoured by beasts of prey. At the time of his death he was scarcely 50 years of age.

To form a correct estimate of the character and merits of Vesalius, we must not compare him, in the spirit of modern perfection, with the anatomical authors either of later times or of the present day. Whoever would frame a just idea of this anatomist, must imagine himself living in the days of Charles V., when learning did not uniformly liberalize,—when the rekindling light of ancient times shone on nothing but its own glories,—when education consisted in the knowledge of ancient opinions, and the authority of Grecian and Roman names usurped in the temple of science the legitimate worship of nature. He must imagine, not a bold innovator without academical learning,—not a genius coming from a foreign country, unused to the forms and habits of Catholic Europe,—nor a wild reformer, blaming indiscriminately every thing which accorded not with his opinions,—but a young student scarcely emancipated from the authority of instructors, and whose intellect was still influenced by the doctrines with which it had been originally imbued,—an individual strictly trained in the opinions of the time, living amidst men who venerated Galen as the oracle of anatomy and the divinity of medicine,—exercising his reason to estimate the soundness of the instructions then in use, and proceeding, in the way least likely to offend authority and wound prejudice, to rectify errors, and to establish on the solid basis of observation the true elements of anatomical science. Vesalius has been denominated the founder of human anatomy; and though we have seen that in this career he was preceded with honour by Mondino and Berenger, still the small proportion of correct observation which their reverence for Galen and Arabesque doctrines allowed them to communicate, will not in a material degree impair the original merits of Vesalius. The errors which he rectified, and the additions which he made, are so numerous, that it is impossible, in such a sketch as the present, to communicate a just idea of them.

Besides the first good description of the sphenoid bone, he showed that the sternum consists of three portions, and the sacrum of five or six; and described accurately the vestibule in the interior of the temporal bone. He not only verified the observation of Etienne on the valves of the hepatic veins, but he described well the vena azygos, and discovered the canal which passes in the fetus between the umbilical vein and the vena cava, since nam- He described the omentum, and its connections with the stomach, the spleen, and the colon; gave the first correct views of the structure of the pylorus; remarked the small size of the caecal appendix in man; gave the first good account of the mediastinum and pleura, and the fullest description of the anatomy of the brain yet advanced. He appears, however, not to have understood well the inferior recesses; and his account of the nerves is confused by regarding the optic as the first pair, the third as the fifth, and the fifth as the seventh.

The labours of Vesalius were not limited to the immediate effect produced by his own writings. His instructions and example produced a multitude of anatomical inquirers of different characters and varied celebrity, but by whom the science was extended and rectified. Of these it belongs not to this place to speak in detail; but historical justice requires us to notice shortly those whose exertions the science of anatomy has been most indebted.

The first that claims attention on this account is Bartholomeo Eustachi of San Severino, near Salerno, who though greatly less fortunate in reputation than Vesalius, divides with him the merit of creating the science of human anatomy. He extended the knowledge of the internal ear, by re-discovering and describing correctly the tube which bears his name; and if we admit that Ingrassias anticipated him in the knowledge of the third bone of the tympanal cavity, the stapes, he is still the first who described the internal and anterior muscles of the malleus, as also the stapedius, and the complicated figure of the cochlea. He is the first who studied accurately the anatomy of the teeth, and the phenomena of the first and second dentition. The work, however, which demonstrates at once the great merit and the unhappy fate of Eustachius, is his Anatomical Engravings, which, though completed in 1552, nine years after the impression of the work of Vesalius, the author was unable to publish. First communicated to the world in 1714 by Lancisi, afterwards in 1740 by Cajetan Petrioli, again in 1744 by Albinus, and more recently at Bonn, in 1790, they show that Eustachius had dissected with the greatest care and diligence, and taken the utmost pains to give just views of the shape, size, and relative position of the organs of the human body.

The first seven plates illustrate the history of the kidneys, and some of the facts relating to the structure of the ear. The eighth represents the heart, the ramifications of the eema azygos, and the valve of the renal cava, named from the author. In the seven subsequent plates is given a succession of different views of the viscera of the chest and abdomen. The seventeenth contains the brain and spinal chord; and the eighteenth more accurate views of the origin, course, and distribution of the nerves than were then given. Fourteen plates are devoted to the muscles.