980 WILLIAM A. LOCY 
There are other marked deficiencies as in the arm and wrist, 
where the carpal bones are enumerated as eight, but are not drawn, 
ete., etc. The sketch of the internal dissection was published in 
several texts as in the Phryesen of 1518 (see Chievitz, p. 90), 
1529, etc. Choulant reproduces a similar but not identical figure, 
also from Phryesen, the plate of which bears the date 1517. 
Phryesen. (Fries, Friesen, etc.) In 1518 there appeared in 
Strassburg the Spiegel der Artzney of Laurentius Phryesen, con- 
taining two plates. The one is a copy of the Griininger skeleton 
(see fig. 4), and the other a visceral anatomy, surrounded by six 
figures of the anatomy of the brain and one of the tongue. This 
cut appears in the different editions of Phryesen with some modi- 
fications. Fig. 18 shows a copy of this plate from a Dutch edi- 
tion of Phryesen dated Strassburg, 1519. The original woodcut 
is 54 x 72 inches. The edition of 1529 contains another picture 
of the visceral dissection,—the same as shown in Chievitz, fig. 
31,— that lacks the marginal sketches of the brain, and is also 
somewhat different in other details. The figures of the brain 
in the Spiegel der Artzney, except for those of Leonardo, are a 
new departure in anatomical illustrations. 
Jacobus Berengarius Carpensis (Carpus). Berengarius has 
often been heralded as the greatest anatomist between Mundinus 
and Vesalius, and, if we except Da Vinci, the assignment of this 
rank to him is perhaps justified. Whatever may be said of his 
alleged dissection of more than one hundred bodies, the illustra- 
tions of Berengarius are not original, nor are they based on good 
observation. They bear resemblance to sketches in the manu- 
scripts of the fourteenth century and to printed pictures in earlier 
publications, as the Conciliator differentiarum (1496), Margarita 
philosophica (1504), ete. As Has already been said, we find that 
all sketches of the period, with the sole exception of those of Da 
Vinci, show interrelationships with manuscript illustrations as 
well as with earlier printed figures. As Roth has pointed out, 
the anatomical writings of Berengarius are compilations without 
credit being given to the original sources, and there is inharmony 
between his text and the illustrations,—a circumstance that is, 
at times, adverted to by himself. It is altogether likely that the 
