3o2 ON THE PKOGItESS OF ANATOMY. 



to examine our opponent's statements from his own point of 

 view. 



Such are a few of the more important principles by which 

 all history is to be studied. Let us examine by means of them 

 the short period in that of our own science which I have 

 selected for consideration on this particular occasion. Towards 

 the close of the seventeenth, and at the beginning, but more 

 particularly during the second quarter of the eighteenth cen- 

 tury, our science advanced principally in the direction of what 

 is now called Descriptive Anatomy. This period was the 

 epoch of Cowper, of Cheselden, of Albinus, but found its 

 principal exponent in the French anatomist Winslow. With 

 this mode of studying the human body a corresponding change 

 in the art of surgery was produced. The operations of Chesel- 

 den were not empirical, but were founded on his anatomical 

 knowledge ; and had I time, or were it more directly in the 

 line of my subject, I would willingly point out to you the 

 effect which this more precise anatomical study had on the 

 French and Dutch schools of surgery of the period we are now 

 considering. 



Conspicuous among the great names of this period is one 

 in which we in this Theatre, and connected with this Univer- 

 sity, are more particularly interested — I allude to the first 

 Monro. 



After the Union, at the beginning of the last century, 

 Edinburgh had begun to rise into a condition of security and 

 prosperity, which the continued troubles of the Scotch nation 

 had for so many centuries rendered impossible. The Cor- 

 poration of Surgeons of that period — now the Royal College of 

 Surgeons — ever zealous in the improvement of medicine in 

 Edinburgh, had the credit of giving rise to the anatomical 

 school of Edinburgh by establishing a professorship of ana- 

 tomy to their own body ; which appointment, although from 

 circumstances, almost nominal, yet had the effect of bringing 



