Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

towards him; though perhaps but few instances occur in which he has not improved where he altered.

We must now speak of a few of the most striking variations and alterations in the present edition, as compared with that of Oxford or rather perhaps with that of Simson, which is much better known and more easily consulted. The first which we find, of any importance, is a transfer of what are generally given as the last three axioms, to occupy the same relative situation among the postulates. This change, it seems, is justified by every manuscript except one, notwithstanding that all the Latin and Greek editions give them among the axioms; excepting only that of Campanus, translated from the Arabic, and that of Zamberti, made from the Greek before the time of the Basle edition by Grynæus. latter author, therefore, in all probability, judging that these propositions were misplaced, changed the accusative into the nominative, and the infinitive into the indicative, in order to transfer them to what he considered as their proper places. Such, at least, is the opinion of Delambre.

The

Another change, but not authorized by any manuscript, is made in prop. 7. book 1. This proposition has two cases belonging to it, or three according to Dr. Simson, of which he demonstrates the first and second; and his third requires no demonstration. It is very remarkable that not one of the manuscripts in the Imperial library has more than one case, and one figure. Nothing, therefore, seems more conclusive than that the second case was omitted in the original, although by this omission the second part of the fifth proposition becomes useless. Clavius hence saw the necessity of a new developement, and he employed for this purpose five figures and five demonstrations: which, however, he might have reduced to three. Dr. Simson, as we have before observed, has only two cases to demonstrate and two figures; and in his notes he complains of the ridiculous reasoning that Proclus has advanced relative to this proposition.

M. PEYRARD must have felt that the omissions in all the manuscripts went far towards establishing a real blemish in the Elements, of which inference he appears to have just the same dread which Simson entertained; and there was in this case no ignorant editor to blame, nor any unskilful geometer to-reprobate; because the same defect ran through all the MSS., even the favourite No. 190,, which the editor considered as the true text of Euclid. It was, therefore, doubtless, highly gratifying to M. PEYRARD, in this hopeless state of the proposition, to discover that, by adding Simson's second figure, and the words (xaì ai BF, BA ixб€6λýσtwσav in' subelag

M m 2

ἐπὶ

éri ra E, Z,) to the end of the construction, the single demonstration of the MS. suits both cases; and thus, he says, 'the demonstration is completed without altering a single word. Certainly no word is altered, but some are added; for the omission of which, together with the second figure, and the lines produced in the first, it is as difficult to account as for the omission of the entire demonstration of the second case. All that we are disposed to admit in this instance is that M. PEYRARD has made an ingenious amendment, and that he has rather improved than restored the text of his author.

In proposition 15. the editor has left out the second corollary, viz." that all the angles made by any number of lines meeting in one point are together equal to four right angles." This, it seems, has not a place in most of the MSS. of the Imperial Library, but is found in some of them. Still, as there was reason to suppose that it was not originally given by Euclid, it is suppressed in the present edition. Some other slight alterations are made in several other propositions of the first book, as in the 20th, 26th, 27th, 29th; in the latter of which the editor has deemed himself justified in deviating from his author, and following the text of the Oxford edition. In all such cases, however, the variations are given at the end of the volume, so that we can always discover the reading of the manuscript.

Of the 24th proposition of the third book, three cases are made, whereas Simson has only one. The latter author says, in his notes to propositions 23. and 24., " It is demonstrated that the segment AEB must coincide with the segment CFD, and that it cannot fall otherwise, as C G D, (referring to Commandine's figure,) so as to cut the other circle in a third point G, from this, that, if it did, a circle could cut another in more points than two. But this ought to have been proved to be impossible in the 23d proposition, as well as that one of the segments cannot fall within the other. This part, then, is left out of the 24th, and put in its proper place in the 23d proposition." M. PEYRARD, however, has supplied the defect here pointed out by Simson from the manuscript of the Vatican; and he demonstrates all the three cases in proposition 24. We might specify a variety of other similar corrections, which are founded on the manuscripts, and some that may be considered as corrections and improvements of the original text: but we think that they would possess little interest, unless our readers had the new edition before them.

The merit of the present undertaking consists in presenting the public with, no doubt, the most accurate text of the Elements

of

[ocr errors]

of Euclid that has yet appeared: but it is more particularly valuable as it furnishes, by means of the table of variations, a correct copy of the Vatican manuscript; which seems to be the most antient and most perfect transcript of the original work now extant. - This MS. is now, we suppose, again transferred to Rome, where it will probably lie and moulder in obscurity. The manner in which the French obtained this and other valuable relics of antiquity certainly demanded their restitution: but it would be injustice not to add that, while they had them in possession, they were employed to the noblest purposes which they were calculated to answer, viz. the propagation of knowlege, and the advancement of the

arts and sciences.

ART. XI. Histoire de l'Anatomie, &c.; i. e. A History of Anatomy. By THOMAS LAUTH, M.D. Professor of Anatomy at Strasburg, Physician to the Civil Hospital, &c. Vol. I. 4to. pp. 606 Strasburg. 1815. Imported by De Boffe. Price 11. 11s. 6d.

sewed.

IN N a preliminary discourse, the author states that he undertook this work in order to fill up a gap which exists, with respect to anatomy, in the history of human knowlege. Gaelicke and Portal have written the history of anatomists, but not that of anatomy: Lassus limits himself to an indication of the discoveries which have been made in this science; and the historians of medicine and surgery, Schulze, Leclerc, Freind, Dujardin, Peyrilke, and Sprengel, necessarily confined them selves to general views, when they made the history of anatomy a part of their plan.' As a farther reason for commencing this labour, M. LAUTH mentions the strong prejudice which most writers manifest for the antients: in consequence of which, instead of duly balancing their merits and defects, detailing their opinions with impartiality, and attaching importance only to what is true and reasonable, it has been too much the custom to endeavour to find in them the complete range of all human knowlege. This censure might have been attached very justly to the authors of the last century, and may perhaps still be applicable to those of France: but we think that it can scarcely be urged against our contemporaries in this country. The plan of the present publication is thus announced: Every epoch is divided into two parts; of which the first, or the historical part, contains the history of the science itself; and the second, or the biographical part, is destined to the description of the life of anatomists and of their works.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

the

The volume consists of six books, corresponding with the six principal æras into which the history of anatomy is supposed to be divided. These periods comprehend respectively anatomy of the Egyptians, of the philosophers of Greece, of the Asclepiades, of the school of Alexandria, of Galen, and of the school of Italy, under which last denomination the author comprizes the anatomy of all the moderns. To this division, probably, no very serious objection can be urged; since the inequality of the portions of the book which must be devoted to the different parts is merely a technical diffi culty, which scarcely attaches to the fundamental merits of the arrangement.

A certain degree of civilization, to which the Egyptians arrived in the most remote ages of antiquity, has induced some persons to attribute to them, among their other supposed acquirements, a knowlege of anatomy; and this, it has been alleged, is farther proved by the art which this people possessed of embalming bodies. There seems, however, to be no real foundation for this claim; the preparation of the subject for embalming being an art that was practised without any reference to scientific principles, and in which no regard was paid to the structure of the body, but all the soft parts were destroyed, and nothing was left besides the bones, the skin, and some of the thicker membranes. It farther appears that the practice of this art, rude as it was, belonged exclusively to the priests, and that very strong prejudices prevailed against the dissection even of brute-animals. Better grounds perhaps exist for supposing that anatomy was cultivated by the philosophers of Greece; and it is probable that Pythagoras, Democritus, and others, paid some attention to the structure of the animal body: but it is doubtful whether they pursued the study of anatomy in a regular and scientific manner, even so far as the examination of the inferior animals is concerned; and we have every reason for believing that they never attempted the dissection of a human body.

The next period, which the author adopts in the history of anatomy, is that of the Asclepiades. They were the descendants of Esculapius, who were supposed to possess the hereditary knowlege of their ancestor, and who exercised the art of medicine in certain temples dedicated to him, of which the chief were in the islands of Cos, Rhodes, and Cnidos. From this race sprang the celebrated Hippocrates, who is said to have been the 18th in direct descent from Esculapius, and who is universally regarded as the father of rational medicine. The anatomical knowlege of Hippocrates is generally admitted to have been considerable, and has been made the subject of *8

almost.

[ocr errors]

almost extravagant eulogium among his admirers in modern times. It is, however, very difficult exactly to ascertain the precise degree of merit which belongs to him: the most learned commentators have found it impossible to determine, with certainty, which of the numerous productions, that are classed among his writings, were actually the production of his pen; and it is rather by implication than by any direct evidence that we judge of his knowlege on this subject. This difficulty has induced M. LAUTH to apply, for the purpose of what he calls an anatomical measure, the anatomy of Aristotle. The opinions examined by this philosopher were necessarily anterior to him; and, consequently, the treatises in which these opinions are brought forwards must have existed before Aristotle wrote.' Some of these pieces may indeed have been written by the sons or pupils of Hippocrates, but they may nevertheless be regarded as exhibiting the state of knowlege in his age, and as, in some degree, sanctioned by his authority. Proceeding on this ground, the opinion which M. LAUTH forms of the anatomical acquirement of the Coan sage is not very favourable. • It is limited,' he observes, to notices which may proceed in part from the inspection of sacrificed victims, and in part from the contemplation of the living man. The most important viscera have received appropriate names: but there appears to have been no precise knowlege of their structure or relation to each other; the nature of the nerves and vessels was completely misunderstood; and it is to be concluded that the writers of the Hippocratic school could never have dissected a body, or even examined a skeleton.' The opinions of Plato, respecting the composition of the human body, are so remote from truth as to render it evident that he never could have contemplated its structure.

M. LAUTH'S judgment respecting the anatomical science of Aristotle is more favourable. Admitting that he made considerable advances in that study, and that he exhibited even a minute acquaintance with the structure of certain parts, yet, at the same time, he fell into such gross errors that, if on the one hand we should be induced to conceive that he must have been well versed in dissections, still, on the contrary, we might suppose him to be totally ignorant of the subject. On the whole, the opinion to which the present author inclines is that Aristotle did not himself investigate the minute structure of the parts of animals by dissection, but that he had many opportunities of making observations on the external form of the body in general, and even of many of its individual parts; and that he augmented our knowlege rather

M m 4

as

« AnteriorContinuar »