sents a very important movement in the printing of medical books and, besides, many of these books were illustrated by plates made by the greatest of artists. Marco Antonio della Torre, who lived from 1473 to 1506, made a series of dissections which were illustrated by plates designed by Leonardo da Vinci. These illustrations are some of the best of their kind that have ever been made. Michael Angelo also spent considerable time in anatomical studies and employed his pencil in making designs that were used for anatomical illustrations. Raphael is also said to have done similar work.

When he came to Italy, Vesalius, far from finding anatomy a neglected science, proved only a greater link than usual in the chain of distinguished original workers. He was brought intimately into contact with Eustachius, the Papal physician of the time, to whom we owe many important discoveries, especially in the anatomy of the head, while one of his pupils was Fallopius whose name in only less illustrious than that of his master.

The plates for Vesalius' great work, De Humani Corporis Fabrica, are probably the best anatomical illustrations that have ever been made. A reasonably well-founded tradition extending back almost to contemporary times exists to the effect that their designer was no less a person than the famous Venetian artist Titian. All this accomplished for anatomy in a city and university directly under Papal authority would seem to be enough to silence all those who would still claim the hampering influence of the old Papal Bull, but it has not. Here is a very recent example:

In a series of lectures delivered as the Lane Lectures at the Cooper Medical College in San Francisco in the fall of 1900, Sir Michael Foster, who is the Professor of Physiology in the University of Cambridge in England and one of the most distinguished of living physiologists, goes rather out of his way it would seem in order to make an opportunity to repeat the old slander against the Popes and this supposed prohibition of dissection. The subject of his lectures was the history of physiology during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and it is only in tracing the original work in anatomy that Prof. Foster finds occasion to mention the supposed Papal prohibition of dissection.

He says: "Vesalius, like other great men, had his forerunners. Long before him at the close of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, Mundinus, or Mondino. (Raimondo de' Luzzi), one of the teachers of the early days at

the then great university of Bologna, had dared to turn his eyes from the pages of Galen to that of Nature and to learn for himself by actual dissection how the body of man was built up. He learned enough to write a book of his own, the 'Anatomia Mundini,' which after him became a text-book in the schools, though used perhaps more as an introduction or help to Galen than in any other way. But Mundinus did not go far. He, like other anatomists, like indeed Vesalius himself, had to struggle against not only the authority, but the direct hand of the Church. She taught the sacredness of the human corpse and was ready to punish as a sacrilege the use of the anatomist's scalpel; and what Mundinus did was done in the face of her powerful opposition. For this reason, apparently, Mundinus had no disciples carrying on his work; all that remained of him was his book, and he became little more than a smaller and a later Galen."

Considering the number of followers in the study of anatomy that Mundinus had, only a few of whom we have mentioned, this last declaration of Prof. Foster is very surprising. If we remember how much Mundinus' demonstrations at Bologna influenced Guy de Chauliac, who was to be the father of modern surgery and the moving spirit in the development of anatomical knowledge in the West, the whole passage is a perversion of easily obtainable historical details. As a matter of fact there was scarcely a generation during the two centuries that separate Mundinus from Vesalius in which really great work in anatomy was not accomplished. Great discoveries were not made, but then great discoveries apparently wait for genius to make them, and there are centuries of anatomical development in much more modern times, that in spite of devoted study on the part of many enthusiastic anatomists will, to subsequent generations, appear quite as barren of important advances in anatomy as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is not too much to say that our vaunted second half of the nineteenth century (the first half is great because of the discovery of the cell doctrine) will be one of these areas of apparent eclipse in anatomy, though it has been so full of investigations.'

*In Prof. Foster's "Lectures" there is a very curious passage with regard to certain supposed relations of Vesalius and Ignatius Loyola, which since it has been given special publicity here in America, because of the delivery of these lectures originally to an American audience, seems worth while recalling if for no other purpose than to show how readily prejudice may even in a great mind lead to statements that lack historical substantiation. The passage is all the more interesting since it is not very clear any

Surely the reading of even this incomplete account of dissection and the cultivation of anatomical science during the two centuries and a half after the bull of Boniface VIII was supposed to put a stop to it, will show very clearly not only that the ecclesi

how, why, even if it did represent the truth, it should have found a place in the introductory lecture to a history of physiology. Professor Foster said to the students of Cooper Medical College in San Francisco:

"It may be worth while to note as an instance how in the web of man's history threads of unlike kind are made to cross that among the monks (sic) who had charge of the hospital at Venice, at which Vesalius pursued his medical studies, was one who bore the name of Ignatius Loyola. We may well imagine that these two young men crossed each other's path in the hospital wards or grounds, perhaps even conversed with one another. One was gathering in a rich harvest of exact knowledge, which six years later he was to embody and give to the world in a great book, the beginning of modern biologic science. The other was busy with a scheme for the spiritual welfare of mankind which six years later took shape as the order of the day. The one with his eyes fixed on man's body brought forth a work, the fruits of which profoundly influenced and are still profoundly influencing men's minds. The other with his eyes fixed only on truth and goodness began that which after him became the incarnation of authority, an engine powerful it is true for good, but often used for the support of lies and for the maintenance of evil. No two things have fought and are fighting each other more bitterly than the things which have sprung from the two works of the two young men who crossed each other's path at Venice in the year of our Lord, 1537.”

This is, of course, only a rhetorical restatement of some of the old vague slanders against the Jesuits; and, like the usual run of such statements, ignores any facts that might be presumed to give substantiation to the assertion. One is fain to wonder if Prof. Foster knows that there are thousands of medical students throughout the world at the present time who are not only not sorry, but intensely proud of the fact (as he can readily find out for himself by a little investigation) that they obtained their preliminary education from these Jesuits, who are supposed to instil a spirit so opposed to modern scientific progress. He will not find them the least successful students of science either. One is also fain to ask if Sir Michael knows anything of the real relation of the Jesuits as a body to the science of the last four centuries? If he knows anything of how much they have done for astronomy, or for geography, or for ethnology? Does he perhaps realize that the greatest successor of Vesalius, Morgagni, who so fruitfully applied Vesalius' method to the investigation of diseased organs, was a great personal friend of the Jesuits and was proud to have a son among them? Does he know, for instance, that Theodor Schwann, to whom modern science owes the pregnant cell doctrine, was a student of the Jesuits and glad to acknowledge his indebtedness to them all his life? And Lamarck and Claude Bernard are further examples of the same thing among our greatest modern scientists. Even Johann Mueller owed his early training to Jesuits, and in the midst of the materialistic advance of medicine in Germany remained faithful to the religious teachings he

astical authorities did not prohibit dissection, but that they actually encouraged it. It was after the University of Bologna had come under the temporal as well as ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope, that is, after the city itself had become a Papal city, that the golden age of anatomical evolution set in. Before this period, the most important epoch in the history of dissection is the first half of the fourteenth century, immediately after the promulgation of Pope Boniface's bull. During this period the modern science of anatomy took its rise at the University of Bologna, while the modern science of surgery, founded on careful anatomical studies, had its beginning at the University of Montpellier. The Popes were so close to Montpellier during this time as to be surely well informed of all that was going on there.

The assertion, then, that the "Bull De Sepulturis" hindered in any way the development of anatomical science, is one of the lies of history so commonly to be found, in historical treatises since the Reformation, in matters which concern the old Church and the Popes. This history lie has been told so often and believed so confidently that it will be extremely difficult to remove it from the files of historical medical tradition. It has been repeated by most of the authorities on the subject, and only occasionally with a remark that shows they did not entirely give credence to it. Even so distinguished an authority as Rashdall,12 in his "History of the Mediæval Universities," though there is an abundance of material in his own pages to show that dissection was constantly being carried on at all of the universities, still gives some weight to the old tradition with regard to Boniface's bull. There is not the slightest evidence, however, that the bull was ever intended or was ever interpreted, by contemporary or succeeding generations, to mean anything that could hamper the true progress of science. The Church was deeply interested in medicine at the time, and to her we owe the universities in which scientific development came, as well as whatever encouragement there was for the organization of medical schools and the legal regulation of the practice of medicine, so as to give the profession that dignity which would ensure continued progress.

had received from members of the Order-no longer Jesuits, it is true, because as a teaching body they had been suppressed through political machinations. This whole passage in Sir Michael's lecture is in extremely bad taste, and it seems unfortunate that so distinguished a scholar should have permitted himself to indulge in such random innuendoes with regard to an absolutely foreign subject on which he was so ill informed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

I. Baas (J. H.)-Outlines of the History of Medicine. Transl. by H. E. Handerson. N. Y., J. H. Vail & Co., 1889. pp. 295-296.

2. Corradi (A.)-Dello Studio e dell' Insegnamento dell' Anatomia in Italia nel Medio Evo ed in Parte del Cinquecento. Padova, P. Prosperini, 1873.

3. De Renzi (S.)—Storia della Medicina in Italia. Napoli, FiliatreSebezio, 1845-49. Vol. 2, p. 247.

4. Dupouy (J. J. B. E.)—Medicine in the Middle Ages. Transl. by T. C. Minor. Cincinnati, 1889. p. 7.

5. Foster (Sir M.)-Lectures on the History of Physiology during the Sixteenth, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1901.

6. Haeser (H.)-Lehrb. der Geschichte der Medicin u. der epidemischen Krankheiten. 3. Aufl. Jena, H. Dufft, 1875-82. Vol. 1, p. 736.

7. Histoire Littéraire de la France. Ouvrage Commencé par les Religieux Benedictins de la Congregation de Saint-Maur et Continué par les Membres de l'Institut. Paris, Didot, 1824. Vol. 16.

8. Holfinx.-Histoire de l'Anatomie. Vol. 1, Book 5, Pt. 4, Sec. 2, p. 303.

9. Medici (M.)-Compendio Storico della Scuola Anatomica di Bologna. Bologna, Volpe e del Sassi, 1857. p. 22.

10. Pagel (J.)-In: Puschmann's Handb. der Geschichte der Medicin. p. 707. II.

Puschmann (T.)-Handbuch der Geschichte der Medicin. 12. Rashdall.—History of the Medieval Universities. Vol. I, p. 245 et al.

FOUNDERS OF MODERN MEDICINE.-III.

JAMES BENIGNUS WINSLOW.
(A.D. 1669-1760.)

WITH A NOTE ON

THEOPHILUS BONETUS AND THE "SEPULCHRETUM.”

By EDWARD W. ADAMS, M.D.,
Sheffield, England.

James Benignus Winslow, the famous anatomist and author of the Exposition Anatomique, was born at Odense in Denmark, in 1669, but most of his life was lived in France. He was the son of a minister who intended his son for his own profession, but Winslow's tastes and inclinations led him to embrace medicine instead of theology. He spent his pupilage after the usual fashion of the students of those days, travelling from university to university, and eventually came to Paris where he was a pupil of Duverney. He settled in Paris after his arrival there in 1698.