What were the big changes between Medieval (~500 and 1500 CE/AD) and Early Modern (~1500-1700 CE/AD) medicine in Europe?

Innovations in medicine and medical education:

In medieval medicine, dissection usually done by barber-surgeons rather than University-educated physicians (see excerpt from De Fabrica in Rothman 54-60)

Dissections not illegal; restrictions on modes of acquiring and preparing cadavers

Vesalius became chair of anatomy at U of Padua in 1537 and immediately changed modes of teaching anatomy

Did own public dissections and did them regularly, supplementing with private dissections for small groups of students

Vesalius dissected both animal and human cadavers so that students could see their differences

This illustrated some of his major arguments with Galen, who had based his writings on animal dissections

Unlike previous scholars/teachers, relied on images to convey medical knowledge

Understood the difficulty of learning complex systems of the body in one lecture/dissection; supplemented with charts and later books

Did not credit his illustrators

Emphasis on visual representations based on observation of human anatomy reflects an Early Modern intersection of medicine and art (da Vinci, for ex.) that we will continue to explore on Wednesday.

Published in 1543

One of most significant books in the history of Western medicine

Systematic exploration, in separate volumes, of the bones, muscles, vascular system, nerves, abdominal and reproductive organs, and the thorax

Remarkable for the visuals as much as for its willingness to point out limitations in Galenic medicine

Like his peers, revered Galen

Like others, saw the theory and practice of medicine as an evolving process; one did not have to simply use the teachings of the ancients without bringing their own ideas and observations to bear on classic texts.

Vesalius argued that Galen didn’t have access to the right texts, that he dissected only animals, and that his followers reduced and altered his observations.

Vesalius argued that errors in Galen reflected his use of primate subjects for dissection

His detractors argued that the human body had simply changed since Galen

Vesalius argued that the division of medicine from surgery created a significiant problem in the practice of healing.

Physicians lectured on principles but did not themselves explore the interior of the human body.

Conversely, barber-surgeons knew the inside of the body but could not read or explain the learned texts

Vesalius argued for a reunification of surgery with medicine.

Vesalius argued that anatomy was the basis of medicine and that the anatomist-lecturer must perform his own dissections.

Vesalius asserted that careful observation (empiricism) was more important than simply learning from one’s predecessors

Challenged Galenic medicine as limited and not useful to actual practice

A much more substantial challenge than that posed by Vesalius, which preserved theory but questioned accuracy

Challenged academic medicine as not useful to living bodies

Contemptuous of teachings of Hippocrates and Galen and publicly burned a treatise of Avicenna

Attacked academic medicine and anatomy as "dead" anatomy because it did not show how the living body worked

Proposed natural philosophy based on chemical principles

Proposed Five "ens" or forces that governed the state of the body

Ens Astrale – of the heavenly bodies

Ens Veneni – of the poisons

Ens Naturale – of the natural order within the body

Ens Spirituale – of the spiritual rather than the physical

Ens Dei – of God—from whom all sickness and health proceed

Medical philosophies not popular in his own time; better known for prophecies and discussion of portents

In 1550-1575 had impact on European medicine

Attracted some royal patrons

Like Vesalius, indicative of decline of Galenic medicine

Emphasis on observation vs. learning from classic texts

In Vesalius’s case, part of Early Modern return to original texts to recover truths and discover errors in translations

In Paracelsus’s case, rejection of academic medicine

Both valued empiricism though Paracelsus was much more radical in his stance

Why do we distinguish the Middle Ages from the Early Modern Period?

What is the difference between "Early Modern" and "Renaissance"?

What should I try to remember about these figures in the history of medicine (Vesalius and Paracelsus)?