Project -- Introduction -- Episode 1: Egypt -- Episode 2: Medieval Europe -- Episode 3: Renaissance -- Conclusion

 

Background

 To truly understand the background behind medicine in the Renaissance, one needs to know about Galen. An excellent summary of Galen’s influence can be read at Nick's site here. Anatomy during the Renaissance was based upon texts and concepts that survived from earlier periods. There was a lot of information from antiquity that influenced theories during this period. However, anatomical studies during the Renaissance were pursued with an intensity not found in earlier times.

 

Leonardo Da Vinci

Everyone has seen a work by Leonardo. His greatest work could arguably be his notebooks. From his notebooks he wrote his one and only book The Painter. He had stacks of notes on technology, science, architecture, inventions, and human anatomy. He never published these paintings because they were either for his patrons or because they never were finished. To learn more about Leonardo, please go to Elizabeth's project here.

 

Vesalius

Galen’s influence infiltrated every aspect of anatomical studies during this period. However, Vesalius quickly became aware of glaring errors in his theories. He felt the need to depict the parts of the human body properly. He conducted his own dissections and made his own preparations in order to further understand human anatomy. When he could not find human cadavers, he would dissect dogs, pigs or cats, and occasionally a monkey (Osler). Vesalius did not create the study of human anatomy (that can be atrributed to the Alexandrians) but he studided it in such a thorough manner that for the first time it could be presented in a way that completely explained all structures of the human body (Osler).

 

In 1543, his renowned work De fabrica was published. De fabrica is full of stunning illustrations done by various artists. They are closely related to the text and even cross-referenced by Vesalius never acknowledged the artists by name. The sophistication of over 700 pages of De fabrica suggest it wasn’t meant for everyone. It was most likely a book for the rich and the physicians (Magruder).

 

The book has a specific organization. De fabrica follow the organization of Galen, and not the practical dissection sequence of Mondino. Galen’s organization is from the inside out, while Mondino is from the outside in. Mondino’s organization is more practical because it is in the order one would dissect the human body: the most rapidly decaying body parts would be examined first. Book I features skeletons in various poses (see picture). Book II contains various “muscle-men” in various “flayed” states (see picture). Book II describes the veins and Book IV the arteries. Book V addresses the abdomen, and Book VI the thorax. The text concludes with Book VII, descriptions of the head (Magruder).

 

  

 

De fabrica treated the circulatory system conservatively, meaning Galenic theories were not questioned. However, in the second edition, Vesalius painfully rejected Galen which resulted in a complete revolution when thinking about blood flow. In every section of the second edition, Vesalius enlarged and corrected the work of Galen (Debus).

 

William Harvey

The work of Vesalius established the structure of the heart but not its specific functions. The followers of Vesalius immediately went above and beyond his ideas in their studies of the relationships of respiratory organs and the purposes of respiration (Debus).

 

William Harvey published a small volume of seventy-four pages in 1628 called De mortu cordis. In this text, Harvey undertook the movements of the heart (Osler). Harvey examined it and the movement of the blood in over forty different species. He observed that “heart hardens as it contracts and that as this contraction occurs, the arteries expand. The periodic expansions could be felt at the wrist as the pulse and he rightly assumed that this occurred because blood was being pumped into the arteries” (Debus).

 

Concerning the valves of the veins, he stated that the blood flow proceeded in one direction to the heart and continuously in one direction throughout the entire body (Debus).

 

"I began to think whether there might not be a movement, as it were, in a circle. Now this I afterwards found to be true; and I finally saw that the blood, forced by the action of the left ventricle into the arteries, was distributed to the body at large, and its several parts, in the same manner as it is sent through the lungs, impelled by the right ventricle into the pulmonary artery, and that it then passed through the veins and along the vena cava, and so round to the left ventricle in the manner already indicated."

(Quotation from Harvery; Osler)

 

Interpretation

The impact these three figures had upon modern medicine are varied. Leonardo was of little influence because his work went unpublished until much later. Vesalius’s text, De fabrica, was the most influential of all anatomical texts of this time even though Vesalius was not as much of an innovator as people give him credit for. However, Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood is believed to be the only physiological achievement of this period that is comparable to contemporary developments in the physical sciences. His work was the first adequate explanation of a bodily process which was a catalyst to the road of modern physiology. He even influenced a change in attitude toward living processes: no longer were complicated references used but they were replaced with a search for simpler physical theories. Harvey did not answer everything though. There were still questions regarding the connection of the vein-artery system, the role of lungs, explanations about the difference of the appearance between venous and arterial blood, and the role of oxygen in forming arterial blood. I believe the Renaissance was the beginning of serious medical study and quite possibly the beginning of modern medicine.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

 

Debus, Allen G., Man and Nature in the Renaissance (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1999). This is a reliable secondary source because it is published by a reliable source and is endorsed by other historians (obviously since it is our class textbook). It contains an entire chapter over Renaissance anatomical studies.

 

Hooker, Richard, Leonardo da Vinci. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/REN/DAVINCI.HTM. I think this is a reliable secondary source because he is a historian at Washington State University. I think it is a good source because it talks about his sketches.

 

Magruder, Kerry. http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=48&exbpg=1. I used this online exhibit as a primary source because it contains pictures from an original copy of Vesalius’ book De fabrica. It is also from a historian of the history of science. De fabrica was an pivotal work in anatomical studies.

 

Osler, William, The Evolution of Modern Medicine (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/). This online text contains very descriptive information on medicine throughout the ages, including the Renaissance. It had reliable information of anatomy and physiology. Osler goes into great detail over every topic he discusses. It has a lot of excellent information over Vesalius.

 

Pickrell, Jim. http://www.leonardo.net/south.html#start. This is a reliable primary and secondary source because it was used in our class teachings. I take this as an “endorsement” of the work. Leonardo’s sketches also come from this site so I am counting it as both a primary and secondary source.