On 22 August 1485 the battle of Bosworth provided its victor with the
throne of England. Richard III died sword in hand and was
unceremoniously buried in the Grey Friars at Leicester, and on that same
day the victor, Henry Tudor, was as simply crowned and acclaimed by his
troops as Henry VII. So began the Tudor dynasty in England which was to
last until the death of Elizabeth in 1603, to be one of the most
colourful periods of English history and to witness the arrival of the
Renaissance in England. Later than its manifestation on the Continent,
but thereby reaping the benefits of continental developments, English
humanism as a result was soon to become no mean rival. The development
of English literature is too well known for comment, while classical
studies, and especially those in Greek, were to rival their continental
counterpart by the end of the first quarter of the sixteenth century.
Science, however, and more particularly medicine, were laggards.
In those closing years of the fifteenth century which ushered in the new
Tudor monarchy the art of healing derived from two sources, the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the organizations of barbers
and surgeons. At Oxford medical teaching was organized by the fifteenth
century, and medicine constituted one of the four faculties of the
university together with theology, law, and arts. Yet at Oxford, as at
Cambridge, the medical curriculum was long to remain medieval.[1] Both
schools had taken their model from Paris, but whereas Parisian medicine
had begun to stir and advance in the fifteenth century, the English
universities remained somnolent. At Cambridge the degree of Doctor of
Medicine required altogether twelve years of study based upon lectures
and discussions drawn from medieval sources. While it is true that two
years of this time were to be spent in the practice of
medicine—seemingly a borrowing from the methods of Montpellier—there was
no provision for human anatomical study,[2] although this was recognized
and demonstrated with some slight annual regularity to the Parisian
students from the latter fifteenth century onward.
If we turn to the other source of healing, the organizations of the
barbers and the surgeons, in so far as anatomy was concerned the
situation was no better and, indeed, it may be said to have been worse
in view of the obvious relationship which ought to have obtained between
surgery and anatomy. In London the fraternity of barbers existed as
early as 1308,[3] and the craft of surgery as a body distinct from that
of the barbers is recorded in 1368.[4] Both barbers and surgeons sought
to establish rules of professional conduct for the members of their
respective organizations as well as a period of time and a curriculum to
be satisfied by aspirants to barbery or to surgery. Despite the efforts
of the surgeons to control the practice of surgery, relegating to the
barbers only the most simple and menial tasks, certain of the more
ambitious barbers sought to go beyond such activities as beard-trimming,
cutting, and phlebotomy, and this determination gave rise in the first
quarter of the fifteenth century to the barber-surgeon[, no longer
acting in the normal occupation of the barber and clearly divorced from
his old trade.[5]
Throughout the fifteenth century the barber-surgeons and surgeons appear
to have remained on fairly amicable terms, presumably carrying on much
the same sort of practice. The surgeons, who took precedence on
occasions of solemnities and festivities, were perhaps somewhat better
trained, but nowhere is there any record that such training required the
study of human anatomy.[6] One learned the trade by apprenticeship to a
surgeon and by consulting textbooks of surgery. From surviving
manuscripts it is possible to determine what these textual guides were:
primarily such as those of the celebrated fourteenth-century surgeons,
Gui de Chauliac and Henri de Mondeville. It is true that late medieval
surgeons were accustomed to introduce the surgical subject by a short
anatomical preface, medieval in character, the result of cursory and
incomplete post-mortem examinations, but hardly sufficient to permit a
proper grasp of anatomy even were that possible of attainment from
literary sources.
Hence the opening of the Tudor dynasty in England witnessed a medicine
and a surgery lacking the essential and fundamental knowledge of the
human structure. The traditions of English medicine were medieval, and
medieval medicine had not concerned itself especially with anatomy. If
we compare continental medicine of the same period the situation is
found to be considerably different. In the course of the fifteenth
century anatomy was being practised—diffidently to be sure, but
nevertheless recognized and employed in Paris where the first human
dissection, in the form of a brief autopsy, had been performed in
1407.[7] The first human anatomy mentioned in the _Commentaries_ of the
Medical Faculty of Paris was performed in 1477-8 on the body of an
executed criminal,[8] but the incident is recorded without any
suggestion of its being a novelty and so raises the possibility that
there may have been other dissections in previous years. The practice of
human anatomy was even earlier in Italy where there is record of an
autopsy in 1286,[9] and in 1316 Mundinus, called the ‘Restorer of
Anatomy’, completed his _Anothomia_ in which he describes his systematic
dissection of the human body. Official decree permitted the practice of
human dissection in many cities, especially those with medical schools,
and such official recognition was granted at Bologna in 1405[10] and at
Padua in 1429.[11] Elsewhere similar recognition of human dissection was
obtained at Montpellier in 1340,[12] at Lerida in 1391,[13] at Vienna in
1435,[14] and at Tübingen in 1485.[15] As a consequence, by the opening
of the sixteenth century a series of anatomical texts, based in varying
degrees upon human dissection, began to appear, such as those of
Benedetti, Achillini, and Berengario da Carpi.
The difference can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that on
the Continent the classical revival of the Renaissance had caused or was
causing medieval tradition to be replaced by that of classical
antiquity. The Renaissance represented an effort to revive the spirit
and interests of the classical world, and classical antiquity had been
much interested in the structure of man. Especially important was the
recovery of the Greek language and literature since it made possible the
recovery of the writings of the great classical physicians, notably
Hippocrates and Galen, for generally speaking classical Greece had shown
more interest in human anatomy than had classical Rome. This recovery
had occurred first in Italy, then moved northward across the Alps and
only in the early sixteenth century did it reach England.
While even earlier some Englishmen had travelled to Italy to study the
classical revival at its source, and even to study the more advanced
Italian medicine of Padua, it may be said that Thomas Grocyn was the
first significant leader of the new classical movement in England, in
particular the recovery of Greek. He had managed to learn some Greek
even in England, but it was not until after a trip to Italy in 1488,
where he spent two years, that he returned to instil Oxford with an
enthusiasm for classical Greek humanism.[16] But if Grocyn is of
importance as an English pioneer in the recovery of Greek and Hellenic
studies, of far greater importance for the present subject was Grocyn’s
lifelong friend and ultimately the executor of his estate, Thomas
Linacre.
Linacre looms very large in the revival of classical medicine which gave
a general impetus toward a better and more modern medicine. Born at
Canterbury about 1460 he was led ultimately by his studies to Oxford
where he became a fellow of All Souls College in 1484.[17] Although by
this time he could make some beginnings of the study of the revived
classical literature, and even Greek, at Oxford, nevertheless it was
still desirable if possible to pursue such studies in Italy, and with
the opportunity offered him, Linacre travelled to that land about 1487,
remaining at least until 1496,[18] in which latter year he received the
degree of Doctor of Medicine from the University of Padua.[19]
Returned to England, Linacre taught Greek at Oxford. Grocyn was his
friend, Sir Thomas More his pupil, and upon the arrival at Oxford of
Erasmus, that great classical scholar likewise became an intimate, all
of them enthusiasts and promoters of Greek studies.
However, as a physician Linacre had a special bent toward the Greek
medical classics. This was manifested by the appearance in 1517 of his
translation of Galen’s book _On Hygiene_. In 1519 this was followed by
the _Method of Treatment_, in 1521 by the book _On Temperaments_, and
two years later by the _Natural Faculties_ and _On the Use of Pulses_.
In 1524 just after Linacre’s death a sixth translation, that of Galen’s
_Differences of Symptoms_ and _Causes of Symptoms_, appeared. As yet
very few physicians in England knew Greek, but they all knew Latin, and
these accurate translations into clear, straightforward Latin made a
considerable portion of Galen’s medical writings available for the first
time. The contrast between medieval medical writings and those of Galen
which had now been made available seemed to emphasize that general
Renaissance belief that civilization had reached its peak in classical
times and that much could be gained by a return to classical teachings,
in this instance the teaching of classical physicians. It is true that
only the Galenic books on medicine had been translated, but they were
sufficient to whet the appetite for more, and as the new generation of
physicians arose, now trained in Greek, if the pattern were followed,
they would turn to the Galenic writings on anatomy in the original
language as well as to those of Hippocrates.[20] The first of this
younger generation who is recorded to have come under this Greek medical
influence and made this possibility a reality produced two remarkable
pioneer efforts: the first recorded dissection of a human body in
England about 1531 and the first book on anatomy written in England,
published in 1532, or, reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar,
1533.
The person responsible for these two milestones was named David
Edwardes, or, in the Latin form he employed, Edguardus. However, very
little is known of his life and activities. He was admitted as a scholar
to Corpus Christi College, Oxford, on 9 August 1517, and the register of
admissions indicates that he was then fifteen years old and a native of
Northamptonshire.[21] He became Bachelor of Arts in 1522[22] although
for a time previous to this, in 1521, he appears briefly to have held
the readership in Greek, substituting for the regular reader, Edward
Wotton, then abroad.[23] In 1525 Edwardes became Master of Arts,[24] and
thereafter received a fellowship in the college. He is further mentioned
in the account book of the college for 1527-8 as receiving 38_s._
9_d._,[25] presumably for further teaching of Greek.
Corpus Christi College had been founded in 1515-16 chiefly through the
magnanimity of Richard Foxe, Bishop of Winchester, and was provided with
its statutes in 1517. The founder, strongly interested in the newly
revived classical learning had provided for a chair of Greek, which, as
has been mentioned, was briefly held by Edwardes in an interim capacity,
while the first president of the college, John Claymond, was likewise a
strong advocate of the new learning.
Perhaps not sufficient stress has been placed upon the contribution made
by physicians, at least in England, to the revival of Greek studies,
although it is sometimes difficult to determine which of the two
disciplines, medicine or Greek, was the impulsion to the study of the
other. Both Linacre and Wotton were serious students of Greek before
they undertook medical studies, but once embarked upon medicine, both of
them having studied at Padua, not only did they become especially
conscious of the failings of medieval medicine in contrast to the
classical, but the philosophical and literary aspects of Galen’s
writings must have caused them to retain a concern with Greek literature
as a whole even though their primary consideration had come to be a
single facet of the body of that literature. Furthermore, the scientific
nature of their interest permitted no equivocation in their knowledge of
the language. Translations of Galen or Hippocrates required an
exactitude beyond that of purely literary treatises. But whatever the
relevancy of such remarks, it is certainly of significance that among
the first teachers of Greek in England were Linacre, Clement, and
Wotton, all physicians, and for our present purpose as it relates to
David Edwardes, it should be noted that two of these men, Clement and
Wotton, were associated with Corpus Christi College.
In addition to the stress upon Greek studies which must inevitably have
led Edwardes to the classical Greek writers upon medicine and conducted
him along the pathway already marked out by Thomas Linacre, there were
in the college certain possibly more direct influences towards an
interest in medicine which have already been alluded to. In short, John
Clement, the early lecturer of Greek[26] was a physician and friend of
Linacre as well as a fellow in the College of Physicians of London which
Linacre had inaugurated in 1518, while still another student of medicine
was Edward Wotton, Reader in Greek and later physician to Henry VIII,
for whom Edwardes had briefly substituted.
Still another incentive toward medical study may have been a requirement
in chapter 25 of the original statutes. In accordance with this all
fellows of the college who held the degree of Master of Arts were
required to assume holy orders, unless deputed to the study of medicine.
It has been suggested that recipients of this exception were originally
expected to attend to the medical needs of the other inmates of the
college,[27] and it seems likely that Edwardes was one of these
_medicinae deputati_.
Our next record indicates that he had removed to the University of
Cambridge where in 1528-9, and upon payment of 3_s._ 4_d._[28] and after
lecturing publicly upon Galen’s _De Differentiis Febrium_, he was
incepted in medicine with recognition of ‘seven years study of
medicine’, presumably at Oxford.[29]
In his only known book, to be considered later, Edwardes informs us that
his first practice of medicine had been ‘at Bristol, having left my
teachers only shortly before and begun to swim without any support’,[30]
although it is not clear whether this represented a brief interlude
between Oxford and Cambridge or after he had received his degree of
Doctor of Medicine. Whatever the case may have been, the few remaining
autobiographical references are to his practice in and around Cambridge.
As a member of the Faculty of Medicine, it is possible that Edwardes was
criticized for devoting an excessive amount of time to his private
practice, since in 1530-1 permission was granted him to be excused from
a statutory requirement of attendance at ‘all congregations, masses and
exequies’.[31] Nevertheless he participated in the examinations of at
least two students, one in 1537-8[32] and the other in 1540-1.[33]
Edwardes’s little book, to which reference was made above, was published
in London in 1532 [O.S.] by Robert Redman. It is composed of two
treatises of which the first, entitled _On Symptoms and
Prognostications_ (_De Indiciis et Praecognitionibus_), deals with
uroscopy and medical prognostication, and since it represents merely the
continuation of a medieval tradition it is of little importance except,
as has been said, for its few autobiographical details. In his practice
of medicine Edwardes appears to have represented, as we might expect, a
combination of the old and the new. While giving support to uroscopy and
displaying some sympathy toward folk medicine, he also gave allegiance
to Hippocrates and Galen, and like his continental colleagues of this
period he was not averse to the introduction of a word or even several
lines of Greek into his text, so indicating his enthusiasm for and his
ties with the classical revival. Furthermore, he was certainly one of
the first English physicians to appreciate Linacre and terms him ‘the
most learned physician of his age’.[34]
The second treatise, _A Brief but Excellent Introduction to Anatomy_
(_In Anatomicen Introductio Luculenta et Brevis_), is, as has been
mentioned, the first work published in England which was devoted solely
to anatomy, and therefore despite its brevity it deserves some
consideration in the general history of medicine and even greater
consideration in that of English medicine. Turning our attention now to
this treatise on anatomy it should be first noted that although printed
in the same volume with the work on medical symptoms and sharing a
common title-page with that work, the treatise on anatomy has a separate
dedication to Henry Howard (1517?-1547), Earl of Surrey. It had been at
the request of Henry VIII that this young nobleman took up residence at
Windsor and lived there from 1530 to 1532 as the companion of Henry’s
son, the Duke of Richmond. Since Edwardes had dedicated the first
treatise to the Duke of Richmond on 21 December 1532, it is not
difficult to comprehend his choice of the duke’s companion for the
second dedication which bears the date 1 January 1532, or, according to
the Gregorian calendar, 1533. There is nothing remarkable about this
latter dedication, which contains the usual flattery, except for the
final passage. There the author remarked upon the ignorance of anatomy
among physicians, sometimes with lethal results. He recognized that the
subject of anatomy was a difficult one, hence his treatise has been
written with brevity and clarity. Later, as he promised, if opportunity
were to be granted to him he would write a more elaborate work.
Hereafter, if God permit, I shall compose a complete book of anatomy
in which I shall further the opinions of all the learned, to which my
own opinion will be added. I could have done this at present but not,
however, with the same effort or with the form of an introduction
preserved. It remains that this little book, which we have enlisted in
the service of the commonwealth, may be pleasing to you, for it
recognizes the existence of those very few unlearned physicians by
whose mistakes many perish, from which this fact will be gathered,
that no parts of the body should be unknown to physicians.
This promise of a more extensive work in which the author was to include
his independent anatomical observations, presumably based on further
human dissection, appears not to have been fulfilled or, at any rate,
there is no record of any such later and more extended anatomical
treatise by Edwardes.
The text of this _Introduction to Anatomy_ fills no more than fifteen
small pages, and its very brevity must have made it virtually useless;
even the author says that it ‘is indeed a slight work’. The plan of
presentation is that which had been popularized by Mundinus and was
required by the relative speeds with which the different parts of the
body succumbed to putrefaction during the course of dissection. Thus
Edwardes first describes the lower venter, that is, the abdomen,
abdominal cavity, and pelvis, next the thorax, and finally the brain and
nervous system. Within his very brief presentation no mention is made of
the extremities while, relative to the limits of the discussion, a
preponderance of attention has been devoted to what were considered the
organs of nutrition and blood manufacture.
The anatomical nomenclature is mildly astonishing, especially when one
considers the time and place of composition. But if one considers that
Edwardes was sufficiently learned in Greek to act as Reader in Greek at
his college for a short period, it will not be too amazing to find him
somewhat scornful of the terms employed by those he calls ‘Barbarians’,
that is, the European school influenced by Moslem medical writers,
chiefly through the _Canon_ of Avicenna, which employed an anatomical
terminology drawn from Latin and from curious hybrid forms partly Latin,
partly Greek, partly Arabic and in some parts from Hebrew. Edwardes, on
the contrary, employs classical Greek terminology as, for example,
omentum rather than the medieval _zirbus_ and mesenteric in preference
to _meseraic_. In so far as his description extends, his nomenclature is
as ‘modern’, if not more so, than that of some of the more learned
anatomists on the Continent. Yet, while his vocabulary may be more
modern his anatomy is not. Indeed, in the introduction he remarked, as
has been mentioned, that in the future he hoped to write a more
extensive work ‘to which my own opinion will be added’. By implication,
then, in this first brief treatise he had drawn upon earlier
authorities, and while we might expect that this student of Greek would
turn to Galen and Hippocrates this is true only in part. The liver as he
describes it is medieval, the three-chambered heart is Aristotelian,
derived from those ‘Barbarians’ he scorned.
While the treatise is noteworthy as the first work written in England
solely devoted to anatomy, the text intrinsically is of little further
value except for one statement referring to the emulgent, or renal
veins. ‘In the body of that one whom we dissected very recently the left
branch had a higher place of origin. Very often, however, the opposite
occurs, so that the right emulgent vein is carried higher in the body.’
Here we have the first reference to human dissection in England, in
which, moreover, the anatomist observing through his own eyes rather
than those of past authorities, noted a variation from the commonly
given description of the emulgent veins, a description derived from
Galen’s anatomical studies on animals.
Little more can be said about Edwardes. He seems to have died about
1542,[35] and perhaps this explains why the larger work was never to be
published. Perhaps, had he remained at Oxford, he might have established
an anatomical tradition, and so provided the influence which his book
was not to have. Today only one copy of this little treatise is known,
that in the library of the British Museum, and no consideration appears
to have been paid to it from Edwardes’s day to the present. However, its
virtual extinction was not the result of hard usage by students such as
that which determined the almost complete annihilation of Vesalius’
_Tabulae Anatomicae_. As has been said, no contemporary mentioned
Edwardes, despite the fact that his book was published in London. The
edition must have been a small one, and copies were not likely to have
been preserved as other and better works on anatomy began to be imported
from the Continent.
Meanwhile the universities continued their drowsy course so far
unaffected in any way by the efforts of an alumnus of one of them. The
barber-surgeons and surgeons appear to have been equally unproductive of
anything new, still leaning upon earlier continental writers. Yet a few
individuals recognized the need for improvement. Well before the
surgeons of England received official encouragement for anatomical study
the surgeons of Edinburgh had asked for and obtained bodies for
dissection. On 1 July 1505 the magistrates of Edinburgh granted a Seal
of Cause to the Guild of Surgeons and Barbers, and this was confirmed by
James IV on 13 October 1506. Among the clauses regulating the practice
of the barbers and the surgeons is one giving them the body of one felon
each year for an anatomy:
... and that we may have anis [once] in the yeir ane condampnit man
efter he be deid to mak antomell of, quhairthraw we may haif
experience, ilk ane to instrict vtheris ... and that na barbour,
maister nor seruand, within this burgh hantt [practise] vse nor exerce
the craft of Surregenrie without he be expert and knaw perfytelie the
thingis abouewritten.[36]
Edinburgh, therefore, was the cradle of anatomical study in the British
Isles. In England Thomas Linacre had founded the College of Physicians
of London in 1518 with the idea of its being a select body of physicians
to raise medical standards and maintain them through its power of
licensing to practice. The need of more modern surgical texts was
indicated by the publication in 1525 of a translation of the work of the
late fifteenth-century German surgeon, Hieronymus Brunschwig, which
contained a brief section on anatomy, but there appears to have been no
attempt to produce a new and up-to-date surgery in England. The fact was
that the more advanced books from continental Europe proceeded to
smother any continuance of independent native efforts, and in the field
of anatomy this makes the early appearance of David Edwardes’s little
treatise an astonishing chronological anomaly in the history of English
anatomical writing. The importance of anatomy was now to be recognized,
but it would be a long time before another native English treatise on
the subject was published.
The introduction of the officially recognized, and even encouraged,
study of human anatomy into England was the result of influences brought
to bear from several sources: the desire of King Henry VIII to improve
the practice of medicine and surgery in England and possibly, too, with
thoughts for a higher quality of military surgery; and the desire, as
well, of some of the more thoughtful surgeons, of whom Thomas Vicary was
probably one. So it was that in 1540 the Company of Barbers was united
with the Fraternity of Surgeons to form what was called the United
Company of Barber-Surgeons of which Thomas Vicary was named Master in
1541, an event handsomely commemorated in a painting commissioned from
Hans Holbein the younger.[37]
In the Charter by which the union was officially sanctioned, a statement
is to be found which was to be of particular importance to the
advancement of anatomical knowledge:
the sayd maysters or governours of the mistery and comminaltie of
barbours and surgeons of London, and their successours yerely for ever
after their sad discrecions at their free liberte and pleasure shal
and maie have and take without contradiction foure persons condempned
adiudged and put to deathe for feloni by the due order of the kynges
lawe of thys realme for anatomies without any further sute or labour
to be made to the kynges highnes his heyres or successours for the
same. And to make incision of the same deade bodies or otherwyse to
order the same after their said discrecions at their pleasures for
their further and better knowlage instruction insight learnyng and
experience in the sayd scyence or facultie of surgery.[38]
It is of interest to note that very soon after the Charter had been
granted, Thomas Vicary approached the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London
to make sure that the Barber-Surgeons should receive the bodies of the
felons for anatomical study. It would seem that the Court of Aldermen
were not sure how they should direct their Sheriffs, for the Minutes of
the Court for 14 December 1540 state:
... Item, Master Laxton & Master Bowes, Shreves of this Citye, prayed
the Advyse of this howse for & concernying the Delyuerye ouer of one
of the dedde bodyes of the Felons of late condempned to dethe within
this Citye, And requyred of the seyd Master Shreves by Master Vycary &
other the surgeons of this Citye for Annotamye, Accordyng to the
fourme of an Acte of parlyament thereof lately made. And Agreyd that
the same Acte be first seen & then Master Shreves to work ther
after.[39]
With human dissection material assured, the United Company proceeded to
appoint a Reader of Anatomy, the first perhaps being Thomas Vicary, and
although the intervening records of the company are not complete, it is
known that in 1546 Dr. John Caius, lately returned from Padua, where he
had been acquainted with and even lived for a time with the celebrated
anatomist Andreas Vesalius, was appointed and held the position of
Reader of Anatomy for the next seventeen years. In his brief
autobiography Caius refers to these dissections which he performed ‘for
almost twenty years’, and adds, ‘By the wish of the most illustrious
prince Henry VIII, King of England, I performed them in London before
the surgeons; among the physicians at that time there was no
dissection.’[40] It may be assumed, however, that by ‘physicians’ Caius
was referring to those of London rather than to those of the
universities. Nevertheless, his remark helps to explain the lack of
anatomical works which might have competed with those of the Continent.
The physicians, although better trained in languages than the surgeons
and, we may assume, literary exposition, were as yet not interested in
the subject of anatomy.
Nevertheless it does seem somewhat incredible that the physicians were
so late in taking up the practice of human dissection. While it is
always dangerous to exceed the limits of evidence, this peculiar
situation in regard to the College of Physicians of London requires that
attention be called to a statute of the college reproduced by Munk who
gives it the date 1569-70.[41] According to this authority, the terms
employed in the statute, reproduced below in translation, suggest that
human anatomical dissection was already being employed by the physicians
of the college at the time, although it seems impossible to determine
whether or not the reference is to a period earlier than 1565 when
Elizabeth granted them four bodies annually for anatomical purposes.[42]
However, it seems unlikely that the college, which was so concerned with
the enforcement of laws concerning medicine would itself perform an
illegal action and therefore that Elizabeth’s grant to the college most
likely introduced it to human dissection. Furthermore, one wonders just
how frequently the college employed its new right, and in this respect
it is interesting to note that there is no reference either to
Elizabeth’s grant or to any dissection at all in the _Annals_ of the
college as written by John Caius.[43]
Although the study of human anatomy was now officially recognized and
regularly pursued, at least in London, it would be incorrect to believe
that native English anatomical writings would be forthcoming to continue
the course modestly established by David Edwardes. The apathy or even
hostility of physicians toward anatomical studies was an obstacle
experienced earlier on the Continent and referred to by Vesalius who
contributed no small share to the growth of anatomy’s respectability in
the eyes of physicians. However, the time lag between the Continent and
England had resulted in a disregard of anatomical studies by English
physicians at the very times when continental physicians had begun to
interest themselves in the subject and publish anatomical studies. As a
result it was inevitable that for such Englishmen as were interested in
anatomy it was easier to import the more advanced and elaborate
continental texts, and dependence on such alien works was for long to be
the regular pattern. But even with these advanced, contemporary works
available, the practice continued among the surgeons of republishing old
and obsolete anatomico-surgical treatises of late medieval times. If
such a practice was dictated by an elementary knowledge, certainly the
continuance of it would not lead to any development.
In 1544 a Flemish engraver named Thomas Lambrit, better known under his
pseudonym of Geminus, engraved on copper a series of anatomical figures
plagiarized from the _Fabrica_ and _Epitome_ of Vesalius. Geminus
displayed the plates, which are of considerable artistic merit, indeed,
the first of high quality to be produced in England, to King Henry VIII.
That monarch, aware of the need of anatomical books to bolster the
anatomical teaching now in progress, urged Geminus to publish his
engravings. Never one to scorn the chance of gain, Geminus proceeded to
follow this royal advice in the succeeding year (1545) and added to his
plates a dedication to the king and the text of Vesalius’ _Epitome_.[44]
For some peculiar reason the completely innocent John Caius has
occasionally been blamed as the impetus to this plagiarized publication
despite the fact that Geminus states plainly in his preface that Henry
VIII was responsible for his decision to publish.
While the illustrations plagiarized from Vesalius may have been of some
pedagogical value, the text of the _Epitome_ certainly was no anatomical
manual, and the fact that it was in Latin, which many if not most of the
surgeons could not read, gave it even less value.
It was perhaps at least partly for these reasons that Thomas Vicary
appears to have issued in 1548 an anatomical text in English entitled _A
Profitable Treatise of the Anatomie of Mans Body_. No copy of it is
known to exist today, and its existence is realized only through mention
of it on the title-page of an edition published in 1577 by the surgeons
of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and a reference to it in 1565 by another
surgeon, John Halle, who refers to Vicary as ‘the firste that euer wrote
a treatyse of Anatomye in English (to the profite of his brethren
chirurgiens and the helpe of younge studientes) as farre as I can
learne’.[45] However, to refer to the ‘profite’ and ‘helpe’ to be
obtained from Vicary’s treatise is to reveal the deplorable state of
anatomical studies in England at the time and to cause one to wonder if
Halle had read by way of contrast the continental writings of that
period. It seems very likely that what has been termed Vicary’s anatomy
was nothing other than a copy of a manuscript, presently in the Wellcome
Historical Medical Library in London, dated 1392 and merely a
compilation of Lanfranc, Henri de Mondeville, and Gui de Chauliac, the
most recent of them dead in 1367. Thus not only was Vicary’s work not
based upon dissection, except for a secondhand account of crude
fourteenth-century autopsy, but it represented a definite case of
retrogression.
The next anatomical publication in England was a new edition in 1553 of
Geminus’s plagiarized anatomical plates, but this time with an English
text by Nicholas Udall, best known as the author of the first important
English comedy, _Ralph Roister Doister_, and utterly lacking in
knowledge of anatomy. In consequence one may correctly hazard that this
work, published with commercial rather than pedagogical motives, would
not contribute much to knowledge of anatomy in England, even though the
text was now in English. It is true that Vesalius’ descriptions of his
illustrations were put into English, the first translation into English
of any portion of the _Fabrica_, but the text which now replaced the
_Epitome_ of the earlier edition of 1545, like Vicary’s work, is
predominantly indebted to that same fourteenth-century manuscript
compiled from the writings of late medieval surgeons. Finally, the
sheets of this work were reissued in 1559 with a new preface written by
Richard Eden which aimed to delude the public into the belief that the
publication had been revised.
About this time, too, a small series of anatomical fugitive sheets with
superimposed flaps made their appearance in England. One, at least, had
two leaves of English text to explain the woodcut and is nearly always
discovered bound into the 1559 reissue of Geminus’s book. The fugitive
sheets, like their continental predecessors and followers, added very
little to anatomical knowledge and must have been for popular
consumption.
If we turn now for a moment to give consideration to continental
activity during the same period, there is no difficulty in observing the
superiority of publications abroad. In 1543 the _Fabrica_ of Vesalius
was published, in 1545 the _De Dissectione_ of Rivière and Estienne, in
1555 the revised and much improved second edition of the _Fabrica_, in
1556 _Composicion del Cuerpo Humano_ of Valverde, and in 1559 the _De Re
Anatomica_ of Colombo. It is little wonder that these foreign texts
overwhelmed the English market and prevented any initiative which might
have led to the publication of any but the most rudimentary manuals,
presuming that there was in England anyone who had pursued the study of
anatomy sufficiently to be in a position to compete with the continental
authorities. On the other hand, the superiority of the foreign
publications owed part of that superiority to the fact that they were
the work of much better educated physicians who had undertaken the study
of anatomy, whereas in England the subject was yet very largely under
the control of the less learned and less articulate surgeons who thought
of anatomy more as a limited body of technical information required for
surgery rather than a field of knowledge to be studied for itself and
capable of indefinite expansion. David Edwardes had sought to set
medicine on the right course, but to no avail. While in time the
Faculties of Medicine in the two universities would pay some lip-service
to anatomy, yet some considerable time was to pass before they became
genuinely interested in the subject.
In 1549 a royal examination of the Oxford statutes led to a declaration
that they were ‘antiquated, semi-barbarous and obscure’, and new ones
were substituted. In regard to medicine it was declared that before
receiving the degree of Bachelor of Medicine the student must see two
anatomical dissections, and himself perform two dissections before
receiving his licence to practice. Before receiving the degree of Doctor
of Medicine he was required to observe two or three more
dissections.[46] This, however, seems more likely to have been the ideal
than the reality and echoes a similar but normally unfulfilled
requirement in fifteenth-century Paris. It is more likely that the
frequency with which anatomy was conducted at Oxford would have depended
upon the particular interest of the Professor of Medicine, such as
Walter Bayley (1529-93) who became Regius Professor of Medicine in 1561
and who at his death left his ‘skeleton of bones in Oxford’ to his
successor in the chair.[47] However, no Reader in Anatomy was appointed
at Oxford until 1624. Indeed, the founder of the readership, Richard
Tomlins, recognized the situation in his grant by noting that the study
of anatomy was
more particularly necessary for the faculties and Artes of Phisicke
and Chirurgery, the perfection whereof doth much avayle to the safety
health and comfort of the whole Commonwealth in the conservation of
theire persons: And that there is as yet in neither of the
Vniversities of this Kingdome (thoughe otherwise the most florisshing
of the whole Christian world) any such Anatomy Lecture founded or
established.[48]
If we may believe John Caius, writing after the middle of the century,
the first early enthusiasm for Greek studies had worn off among
physicians. Caius, himself a very competent Grecist, wrote in advocacy
of the study of Greek medicine in the Greek language, that
as each is more capable in his own tongue so he is consistent and
always remains himself which contributes much to clarity, since each
tongue has its own idioms and inexpressible terms which when
translated do not retain the same emphasis or a like grace. In short,
translators some times do not understand certain things, elsewhere
they fall asleep, do not retain exactness of diction, restrain
freedom, and since we are all human and so desirous of variety, from
time to time they slip so that not only may there be obscurity but
even ambiguity.
Nevertheless, wrote Caius, in his day ‘everyone turns to the Latin
editions and no one touches the Greek’.[49]
It is certainly true that after that first generation of men like
Linacre, there was little interest in England in the original language
of Galen and Hippocrates. The surgeons, certainly, knew no Greek, and
the physicians were not interested in anatomy. There was to be little
controversy, therefore, as to the meaning of any of Galen’s anatomical
terms and less likelihood of investigating and disputing Galenic
assertions. Acceptance without demur of the translation was a long step
toward unquestioned acceptance of the content of the original. Hence it
appears that by the middle of the sixteenth century the authority of
Galen in Latin dress, or of his commentators, was not very likely to be
opposed. On the Continent it had been instances of questions and
opposition which had brought about anatomical advancement by resort to
the only arbiter of doubts and questions, that is, the cadaver.
With conditions as they have been portrayed it is no wonder, therefore,
that little initiative was displayed in England. The most popular of the
foreign works in England, as on the Continent, appears to have been the
_De Re Anatomica_ of Colombo which held its position until well after
the opening of the seventeenth century. It was excellent for its time,
not certainly the equal of the _Fabrica_, but on the other hand much
cheaper to purchase, less bulky to hold, and not so detailed as to be
confusing. It was probably this particular work in its several editions
which more than any other prevented the appearance of a native English
anatomical text.
In 1578 John Banister published a book entitled _The Historie of Man,
sucked from the Sappe of the most approued Anathomistes_. The title
indicates the character of the work, drawn from continental authorities,
and especially from Colombo, despite the fact that Banister was Reader
in Anatomy to the United Company and therefore in a position to
undertake independent researches. Indeed, a contemporary painting shows
Banister in his capacity as Reader standing beside an open copy of
Colombo’s _De Re Anatomica_.[50]
It is clearly apparent that English anatomy in the Tudor period remained
far behind that of the Continent, at least on the basis of such books as
were published in England, and thereby renders that modest but early
effort of David Edwardes all the more curious.
Edwardes, it must be recalled, had presented his brief treatise in the
same form which was being employed on the Continent, and we may assume
that it represented his method. What he did was to ignore medieval
writers and return directly to Galen, the supreme authority of that age,
the ‘Prince of Physicians’. Coupled with this, he had begun to dissect,
first, it may be assumed, for better comprehension of Galen but
ultimately by Edwardes or his successors, discrepancies between the text
of Galen and the observed anatomy would at once have indicated the
classic error and the path to knowledge. Such was the course of
continental development, but English anatomy of the period was faced by
an insurmountable obstacle.
Whereas the medical faculties of continental universities came to accept
anatomy, such was not to be the case with English medicine until well
into the seventeenth century. As a result, anatomy was not an end in
itself but rather a limited field of knowledge learned in so far as it
might be usefully applied in surgery.
There were, of course, some Englishmen whose training and knowledge were
superior to the quality demonstrated in English texts, men who had had
Paduan training such as Caius and Harvey. But even Caius remained a
Galenist when continental anatomy had become Vesalian, and Harvey,
despite his thoroughly scientific attitude in respect to physiology,
remained very conservative in his approach to purely anatomical
problems, seeking authority not only in Galen but in the even more
ancient Aristotle.
Under these conditions it seems remarkable that such great contributions
were made to physiology in seventeenth-century England. The
contributions of Harvey, Boyle, Hooke, and Lower form an amazing
contrast to the static and even retrograde position of anatomy in the
preceding century. In 1565 John Halle, a distinguished surgeon,
published his _Anatomy or Dissection of the Body of Man_ which was
largely a translation of the surgery of Guido Lanfranc who died in 1315,
yet fifty-one years later Harvey had arrived at the circulation of the
blood.[51]