these were wrung from the unwilling hands of the ecclesiastical
authorities, and are only proofs of their opposition, not at all of
their toleration of dissection. There is no limit to which Professor
White will not go in order to maintain his proposition that the Popes
did forbid anatomy, and that there was no anatomical investigation
during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Here, for
instance, is a paragraph from Professor White's answer which shows
very strikingly one method of arguing with regard to a question of
major significance in the history of education as well as of science,
and especially of medicine, during the Middle Ages. Comments on it are
entirely unnecessary:
"And now, as to Dr. Walsh's statement that dissection was permitted
by Popes and ecclesiastical authorities in universities. His
argument in the matter is an excellent example of Jesuitism. It is
true that under the pressure of the developing science of medicine,
sundry civil and ecclesiastical authorities did, from time to time,
issue permits allowing an occasional dissection, at rare intervals,
here and there; as, for example, the permission given to the
University of Lerida, in 1391, to dissect one dead criminal every
three years, and to sundry other universities to dissect one or two
human {51} bodies each year. It is a fact of which we have ample
testimony, that Mundinus, the great anatomist preceding Vesalius,
only dissected three human bodies with his classes during his entire
career. So far from effectually helping anatomy, these permissions
served really to fasten the idea upon the European mind that
dissection to any considerable extent by anatomical investigators
ought not to be allowed, and, as a matter of fact, it was not until
Vesalius, _in spite of theological opposition, braved calumny,
persecution, and possibly death, that this ecclesiastical barrier to
investigation was broken through._" (Italics ours.)
Since Professor White has insisted so much on the significance of
these permissions, a discussion of them will not be out of place.
There are records of a certain small number of permissions to dissect
having been granted by the Popes to various universities during the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These are so few, however, that it
would seem that if they represented the only opportunities afforded
for dissection, then the development of anatomy must have been much
hampered.
With regard to this, it may be said that if the Popes gave permission
for dissection, then this practice was not forbidden by them. Here is
the proof of it out of the mouths of those who say the opposite. Why
should a permission be necessary, however, will be asked?
At the present moment such formal permissions are required quite as
much in all civilized countries as they were during the Middle Ages.
In certain parts of the United States a bond has to be filed by
applicants before permission to dissect will be given. Dissection is
recognized generally as a practice that needs definite regulation.
Without such regulation all sorts of abuses {52} would creep in.
During the Middle Ages popular feeling was all against dissection. It
was difficult, in many places, for the university authorities to
obtain permission for dissection from their immediate political
rulers. As a consequence of this they reverted to the theory, very
generally accepted at that time, that the university was independent
of the political authorities of the place in which it was situated, in
educational matters, and an appeal was made directly to the
ecclesiastical authorities for permission to dissect, as coming under
their jurisdiction in education. They had thus obtained many other
educational privileges that would not have been allowed them by
municipalities, and they were successful also in this. Anyone who
knows the details of the struggle of the universities to maintain the
rights of their students and faculties against the encroachments of
municipal and state authorities, will appreciate how much this
possibility of appeal to the Pope meant for the universities of that
time.
The permission to dissect was only another, but a very striking
example, of ecclesiastical authority granting privileges to
universities beyond those which they could have obtained from the
local governments under which they existed. Such permissions, far from
showing that the Popes were hampering or prohibiting dissection,
prove, on the contrary, that they were securing for educational
institutions what local popular prejudice would not have allowed them.
That this is the proper way to view this question will be best
appreciated by a review of the history of anatomy during the two
centuries and a half in which ecclesiastical authorities are said to
have prevented or discouraged its development. From this it will be
seen very clearly that the nearer to Rome the {53} medical schools
were, the more dissection was done in them; that dissection was most
common in Rome, at least during the latter part of this period; that
the golden age of anatomy developed most luxuriantly in Bologna when
that was a Papal city, and in Rome itself; and that in general the
Popes must be looked upon as having fostered and patronized the
medical sciences and anatomy in every possible way, while there is not
the slightest hint anywhere to be found of the ecclesiastical
opposition that is supposed to have dominated these centuries of
medical history.
In concluding this chapter it has seemed worth while to trace the
origin of the misinterpretation of Pope Boniface's decretal, which
makes it forbid dissection for anatomical purposes as well as the
cutting up and boiling of bodies in order to facilitate their removal
for long distances for burial. Prof. White quotes with great
confidence in the matter the Benedictine Literary History of France as
his authority, which he declares to be a Catholic authority. Under
ordinary circumstances, this would be quite sufficient to establish
the fact that such a misinterpretation must have taken place, for the
Benedictines were extremely careful in such matters and were not
likely to admit an assertion of this kind, unless they had good
foundation for it. The quotation on which Prof. White depends for his
declarations in the matter is found in the Sixteenth Volume of the
Histoire Litteraire de la France, which runs as follows:
"But what was to retard still more (than the prohibition of surgery
to the clergy mentioned in the preceding paragraph) was the very
ancient prejudice which opposed anatomical dissection as
sacrilegious. By a decree inserted in Le Sexte, Boniface VIII.
forbade the boiling {54} of bodies in order to obtain skeletons.
Anatomists were obliged to go back to Galen for information, and
could not study the human body directly, and consequently could not
advance the human science of bodily health and therapeutics."
Had this been written by the Benedictines, there would have been every
reason to think that though Boniface's decretal itself did not forbid
dissection it had unfortunately been so misinterpreted. While the
Histoire Litteraire de la France, however, was begun by the
Benedictine Congregation of St. Maur, their work, like many another
magnificent undertaking of the monks, was interrupted by the French
Revolution. What they had accomplished up to this time showed the
necessity for such work, and accordingly in the early part of the
nineteenth century a continuation of it was undertaken by the members
of the Institute of France. The Sixteenth Volume from which the
quotation just cited comes was mainly written by Pierre Claude
Francois Daunou, the French historian and politician. His life had not
been such as to make him a sympathetic student of the Middle Ages. He
had been a deputy to the Convention, 1792-1795, was elected the first
President of the Council of 500 in this latter year, and became a
member of the Tribunate in 1800. His contributions to history were
made near the close of his life. While he is usually considered an
authority in the political details of these centuries, it is easy to
understand that he was not favorably situated for familiarity with the
medical history of these times.
Once it is understood that the paragraph in question was written by M.
Daunou and not by the Benedictines, its adventitious prestige as a
Catholic historical {55} authority, to which we shall see presently it
has absolutely no right, vanishes. A word about M. Daunou will serve
to show how carefully any declaration of his with regard to the Popes
must be weighed. He belonged to that French school of Catholics who
try to minimize in every way the influence of the Papacy in the
Church, and who, as students of history know very well, do not
hesitate even to twist historical events to suit their prejudices and
give them a significance detrimental to the Popes. This was the
principal purpose of Daunou's historical writing. There is a little
volume called Outlines of a History of the Court of Rome and of the
Temporal Power of the Popes, declared by the translator to be by
Daunou, which was published in Philadelphia in 1837. The American
edition was issued as a Protestant tract, and the translator states
frankly that M. Daunou's purpose in composing it was to prove that
"the temporal power of the Roman Pontiffs originated in fraud and
usurpation; that its influence upon their pastoral ministry has been
to mar and degrade it, and its continuation is dangerous to the peace
and the liberties of Europe; and that its constant influence to these
effects is to retard the advancement of civilization and knowledge."
M. Daunou's title for the work as issued originally in French was An
Historical Essay on the Temporal Power of the Popes and on the Abuses
which they have made of their Spiritual Ministry. [Footnote 3]
[Footnote 3: The time at which this little book was published
furnishes the best possible commentary on its purpose. It was
originally issued in 1810, the year after Pope Pius VII. had been
carried off from Rome, and when Napoleon was using every effort to
discredit the Pope and bring about a state of affairs in which the
pontiff would be compelled to accept a Concordat that would deprive
the Church of many of her former rights. It was then really a
political pamphlet meant to curry favor with Napoleon, and issued
anonymously, because even Daunou did not care to put his name to it
under the circumstances. This will give a better idea of how much
credence may be given to Daunou's assertions with regard to the Popes
of the Middle Ages, than any reflections that we could make.]
Everything that M. Daunou has to say with regard to the Popes is
tinged by his political and Gallican {56} prejudices. This is why he
states so definitely in the Histoire Litteraire de la France that the
bull of Pope Boniface VIII., if it did not actually forbid dissection,
at least was responsible for hampering the practice for two centuries.
That M. Daunou's expressions on this subject have been taken so
seriously, however, is to me at least a never-ending source of
surprise. He himself must have known nothing at all of the history of
dissection, while those who accepted his opinion must have carefully
avoided consulting authorities on the history of anatomy, for it is
actually just after this bull that the history of public dissection
begins. It is clear to me, then, that this absurd assertion of M.
Daunou never would have been swallowed so readily only that writers
were over-anxious to find material to use against the Popes and the
Church.
Daunou found this bull of Boniface an excellent opportunity to
discredit the Popes in their relations to science. It is true, the
bull itself says nothing about dissection, nor is there anything in it
that would tend to create even a distant impression that it was
directed against anatomical preparations of any kind. We might expect,
then, that his assertion in this matter would have been contradicted
at once by some one who would read the bull. The bull is, however, not
easy to find for consultation purposes. It does not occur, as we have
said, in Le Sexte itself, that is, in the ordinary Sixth Book of Papal
Decretals, published by Boniface VIII., though Daunou quotes it as
from there and without a {57} hint as to where it may be really found.
It is in an appendix to this work, added after Boniface's death. It
would be rather difficult, then, and would require some special
knowledge and no little patience on the part of a subsequent collator
of historical sources to find the bull, unless he were determined on
getting at the bottom of this whole question. As a consequence
Daunou's assertion has remained practically unchallenged for the
better part of a century, though many scholars who were familiar with
Boniface's sixth book have doubtless realized its falsity, but owing
to the fact that they would not ordinarily come across the bull in
their direct reading of Boniface's famous volume, would not be in a
position to contradict its misquotation. If looked at in this way,
Daunou's passage in the Histoire Litteraire would seem to be a
deliberate and very clever and, unfortunately, successful perversion
of history.
Daunou, who was a deep student of Papal affairs and whose knowledge of
the history of the Papacy would not be likely to have missed so
important a detail, might very well have known, that about a half a
century before the time when he wrote asserting that this bull of
Boniface VIII. had prevented dissection, someone who had a doubt on
the subject asked the ecclesiastical authorities at Rome, whether this
Papal document was to be considered as referring in any way to the
practice of dissection, or the cutting up of human bodies for
anatomical purposes. In reply to this question Pope Benedict XIV. made
a very direct answer, absolutely in the negative. This is the only
hint that I know of in serious history that Pope Boniface's bull was
ever considered to have any reference to dissection for anatomical
purposes. At the time when Pope Benedict XIV.'s answer {58} was
published the Papal Medical School had been in existence for some five
centuries and a half. For about two centuries and a half it had been
distinguished in the annals of medicine, and as we shall see in the
chapter on The Papal Medical School, some of the most distinguished
anatomists of their time had been investigating and teaching by means
of dissections, and their demonstrations had been attended by many of
the high ecclesiastics, even many autopsies had been made on
Cardinals.
Pope Benedict's reply is quoted in full in Puschmann's Handbuch der
Geschichte der Medizin. Vol. II., page 227, in Robert Ritter Von
Toeply's article on the History of Anatomy. It occurs in the midst of
an abundance of material of great historical importance which shows
the place that the Popes occupy as patrons of anatomy for several
centuries. Von Toeply has no illusions with regard to any supposed
opposition of the Popes to medical science. He even says, that while
the older writers have always told the story of the development of
anatomy as if the Popes tried to prevent the study of it, as a matter
of fact, there is scarcely any evidence for this, and copious evidence
for their having done much to foster this branch of medical science
which they consider so important for the healing of the ills of
mankind. His reference to Boniface's answer with regard to the
relation of Boniface's bull to dissection runs as follows:
"Under the heading, Concerning the Dissection of Bodies in Public
Institutions of Learning, and in reply to the question whether the
bull of Boniface VIII. forbids the dissection of human bodies,
Benedict XIV. said (Institute 64):
"By the singular beneficence of God the study of medicine flourished
in a very wonderful manner in this {59} city (Rome). Its professors
are known for their supreme talents to the remotest parts of the
earth. There is no doubt that they have greatly benefited by the
diligent labor which they have devoted to dissection. From this
practice beyond doubt they have gained a profound knowledge of their
art and a proficiency that has enabled them to give advice for the
benefit of the ailing as well as a skill in the curing of disease.
Now such dissection of bodies is in no way contrary to the bull of
Pope Boniface. He indeed imposed the penalty of excommunication, to
be remitted only by the Sovereign Pontiff himself, upon all those
who would dare to disembowel the body of any dead person and either
dismember it or horribly cut it up, separating the flesh from the
bones. From the rest of his bull, however, it is clear that this
penalty was only to be inflicted upon those who took bodies already
buried out of their graves and by an act horrible in itself, cut
them in pieces in order that they might carry them elsewhere and
place them in another tomb. It is very clear, however, that by this,
the dissection of bodies, which has proved so necessary for those
exercising the profession of medicine, is by no means forbidden."
[Footnote 4]
[Footnote 4: The original Latin taken from Puschmann runs thus: "De
cadaverum sectione facienda in publicis Academiis, utrum constitutio
Bonifacii VIII. sectioni humanorum cadaverum adversetur. Singulari
dei beneficio medicinae studium in hac civitate (Roma) magnopere
floret cujus etiam professores ob eximiam virtutem in remotissimis
terrae partibus commendantur. Ipsis sane maxime profuit, quod
incidendis mortuis corporibus diligentem operam contulerint, ex qua
procul dubio praeclaram artis scientiam, in consultationibus obeundis
pro aegrotorum salute praestantiam, morbisque eurandis peritiam
consecuti sunt . . . . Porro haec membrorum incisio nullo modo adversatur
Bonifacii Institutioni . . . . Ille quidem poenam excommunicationis
indicit Pontifici solo remittendam, iis omnibus qui audeant
cuiuscumque defuncti corpus exenterare, ac illud membratim vel in
frustra immaniter concidere ab ossibus tegumentum carnis excutere.
Tamen ex reliquis ejusdem constitutionis partibus clare
deprehenditur, hanc poenam illis infligi qui sepulta corpora e tumulis
eruentes ipsa nefario scelere in frustra secabant ut alio deferrent,
alioque sepulchro collocarent. Quamobrem membrorum incisio
minime interdicitur, quae adeo necessaria est medicinae facultatem
exercentibus."]
This whole subject of the Supposed Papal Prohibition of Anatomy is
typical of a certain form of controversial writing against the Church.
A document of some time or other from the Middle Ages is taken,
twisted from its {60} original meaning and set up as a serious
stumbling block to the development of science or education in some
way. It is quoted confidently by some one without much authority.
Others who are glad of the opportunity to have such an objection to
urge against the Papacy, take it up eagerly, do not look it up in the
original, absolutely fail to consider the circumstances in which it
was issued, and then spread it broadcast. Of course it is accepted by
unthinking readers, whose prejudices lead them to believe that this is
what was to be expected anyhow. It maybe that history, as is the case
in anatomy, absolutely contradicts the assertion. That makes no
difference. History is ignored and treatises are written showing how
much science would have developed only for Papal opposition, by people
who know nothing at all about the real story of the development of
science. The real history of anatomy, showing very clearly how much
was done for the science by the Popes and ecclesiastics, will be told
in the following chapters.
{61}
THE STORY OF ANATOMY DOWN TO THE RENAISSANCE.
We have seen that the supposed prohibition of anatomy by the Popes has
no existence in reality. In spite of this fact, which it was easy for
anyone to ascertain who wished to consult the documents asserted to
forbid, a number of historical writers have insisted on finding
religious or ecclesiastical, or theological, opposition to anatomical
studies. Professor White has been most emphatic in his assertions in
this regard. He admits that the supposed bull of prohibition had quite
a different purport, yet he still continued to assert its connection
with the failure of anatomy to develop during the Middle Ages. This
presumed failure of anatomy during the Middle Ages is a myth. It
continues to secure credence only in the minds of those who know
nothing of the history of medical science during the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries and who have not consulted the
serious histories of medicine that treat of this time, but flourishes
vigorously in the minds of those who have a definite purpose in making
out a story of theological or Church opposition to science in general.
To counteract the false impression that has gained such wide
acceptance in this matter, it has seemed advisable, in order to settle
the question definitely once and for all, to trace the history of
anatomical science from its beginning in the Middle Ages down to
modern {62} times. It will not be hard to show that there was a
constant development and an unfailing interest in this subject. This
can be understood even more clearly from the story of the development
of surgery in the Middle Ages and its relations to anatomy than from
the history of anatomy itself. As is well known, materials with regard
to practical and applied science interest men more at all times, and
documents with regard to them are more likely to be preserved, and so
the history of surgery is very full, while the history of anatomy may
prove not quite so satisfactory. It is true of all sciences, that
there are periods when they have much less attraction than at other
times, and the success of investigators and original workers is not
always the same. As in nearly everything else, the real advances in
all science come when genius makes its mark, and not merely because a
large number of men happen to be interested in the subject. This will
be found as true in anatomy as in other sciences, and so there are
periods when not much is doing, but nowhere is there a trace of
ecclesiastical opposition to account for these variations of interest.
There is no doubt at all that there was much popular opposition to the
practice of dissection in the Middle Ages; that has existed at all
times in the world's history. It was very pronounced among the old
Pagans in Rome as well as in Greece, and it prevented anatomical study
to a very great degree. It continued to exist in modern times until
almost the present generation. Indeed, it has not yet entirely
disappeared, as any physician who has tried to secure autopsies on
interesting cases knows very well. The New York Academy of Medicine is
only a little over a half century old, and yet nearly every one of its
early presidents had thrilling {63} experiences in body-snatching as a
young man, because no proper provision for the supplying of anatomical
material had as yet been made by law, and bodies had to be obtained.
The feeling of objection to having the bodies of friends anatomized is
natural and not due to religion. It exists quite as strongly among the
ignorant who have no religion as among the religiously inclined. It
has not disappeared among the educated classes of our own time,
religious or irreligious. If this is borne in mind, the history of the
development of anatomy will be easier to understand.
The first definite evidence in modern history for the existence of the
practice of dissection is a famous law of the German Emperor,
Frederick II., from the first half of the thirteenth century. This law
was promulgated for the two Sicilies, that is, for Southern Italy and
Sicily proper, very probably in the year 1240. It has often been
vaguely referred to, but its actual significance can only be
understood from the terms of the law itself, which has been literally
translated by Von Toeply in his Studien Zur Geschichte der Anatomie in
Im Mittelalter. [Footnote 5]
[Footnote 5: Deuticke Leipzig und Wien, 1893]
The paragraph with regard to dissection runs
as follows: