CLAUDIUS GALEN AND HIS INFLUENCE ON ANATOMY 55 



tions of his own. As mentioned, human dissections were frowned 

 on in Grecian and Italian cities. This was also true at Alexandria, 

 during the interval of his residence there, because of anatomical 

 decadence. Almost all of the human anatomy he knew, was re- 

 stricted to the skeleton and what he had seen in superficially 

 wounded gladiators. His knowledge of the soft organs was derived 

 mainly from the bodies of animals: pigs, sheep, oxen, cats, dogs, 

 horses, lions, wolves, at least one elephant, fish, birds, monkeys 

 and apes. The last named was his favorite experimental specie 

 and was apparently fairly common and easy to obtain in his en- 

 vironment. 



There was great difficulty and unpleasantness in dissecting in 

 those days. The climate was exceedingly warm during the greater 

 part of the year, making preservation difficult and enhancing the 

 possibility of infection. There seems to be little question but 

 what Galen practiced vivisection without benefit of anesthetiz- 

 ing agents. This was probably done without compunction since 

 callousness toward animals was customary. All anatomists of the 

 time, took it for granted that animal and human bodies were 

 fundamentally alike in their architectural plan and considered 

 it appropriate to examine the bodies of lower specimens in order 

 to understand human anatomy. According to Galen, there were 

 only about five or six men who had devoted themselves to this 

 specialty in the 400 years preceding him. He evaluated Heroph- 

 ilus, Erasistratus and Hippocrates as having been the three great- 

 est physicians before him. 



The most important of the anatomical works of Galen, (pos- 

 sibly 500 in number. Green, '51) was De Anatomicis Administrat- 

 ionibus. It referred mostly to the monkey and was written in much 

 detail when considering the inadequacy of the prevailing termin- 

 ology; it was without illustrations. The portion devoted to the 

 hand was especially good. He made other publications on the 

 veins and arteries, nerves, muscles and bones. These books were 

 not available until the Middle Ages. His physiological experi- 

 ments on the spinal cord to determine which parts control move- 

 ment and sensibility were noteworthy. 



Although the findings and reports of Galen are praiseworthy 

 and meritorious, they showed some errors: he could not differ- 



