The development of Greek anatomy / by Ludwig Edelstein.

  • Ludwig Edelstein
Date:
1935
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The development of Greek anatomy / by Ludwig Edelstein. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    13/18 page 245
    physicians feel that the old methods are sufficient. And above all, as far as we know, until the 3rd century B. C., no one has ever wanted to dissect human bodies. Everyone is satisfied with the studies based on animal dissection or on other analogies. Why does it suddenly seem so necessary for the physicians to make their inquiries directly on the subject of their interest? And why do they perform vivisec¬ tions? That can be explained through the history of analogical thinking in antiquity. In the 5th and 4th centuries B. C., the whole inquiry into nature is based upon the belief that there exists an all-embracing uniformity in nature. It is thought possible to explain anything by referring it to something else. For instance, one can explain the changes in the heavens according to human behavior, or the changes in the earth according to the growth of a plant. For heaven and man, earth and plant, are identical if one takes into consideration the last principles of genesis. A philosopher of this time, therefore, can say: “ earth’s sweat, the sea.” 29 The same law is always valid. It is therefore possible to compare man and animals without going wrong. The inferences based upon analogies evolve a knowledge which is absolutely unchallengeable. And so the physicians need inquiries into the human body itself as little as do the philosophers. In these centuries, animal dissection and other analogies continue to be adequate. But the faith in analogy is gradually done away with. Even in the 4th century B. C., Aristotle attacks the analogical statements. He considers them gross exaggerations: “ It is equally absurd to suppose that anything has been explained by calling the sea ‘ the sweat of the earth,’ like Empedocles. Metaphors are poetical and so that expression of his may satisfy the requirements of a poem, but as a scientific theory it is unsatisfactory.” 30 Aristotle himself distinguishes between analogous and similar: “ All animals have a part analogous to the chest in man, but not similar to his; for the 29 Fr. 55, in The Fragments of Empedocles, translated by W. E. Leonard (Chicago, 1908). 80 neTei0po\oyucay H 3, 357 a 24-28. In The Works of Aristotle, loc. cit., Ill (Oxford, 1931).
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3