Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xrey · 09-06-2007, 03:43 PM

I brought up the question of dissection on the "Did the Church hold back medical advance" thread, but they're focusing on hospitals instead, so I'll re-ask here.

In the (admittedly fictional) book "The Agony and the Ecstasy" Michelangelo has to get access to corpses in an illegal fashion. Likewise, Michelangelo assumed that Leonardo da Vinci must have done the same because his works were also anatomically accurate.

This was because the Church had banned dissection (at least in Florence), except for once a year under special observation. The posts above seem to indicate that Leonardo got some sort of special permission for dissection.

However, since this topic is about the Middle Ages rather than the Renaissance, my questions are:
Was the dissection ban purely fiction?
Was dissection illegal before that point?
Did the Church care enough to make it illegal?

The understanding of anatomy is essential to realistic depiction of the human form. Even if we cannot determine whether it was legal/illegal, we can certainly say that artists were dissecting (or taking advantage of anatomical studies) during the Renaissance.

The fact that art before this time was generally not realistic seems to imply that anatomical knowledge was not very well known. Can any art historians cite examples of realistic art from earlier periods which would indicate people were dissecting?

BH · 09-06-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Quote:

Amedo: What occurred was the advancement of Christian theology, which utilized the works of the Arab Avicenna and Averroes, and whatever of Greek philosophy they Arabs had brought into Europe, as well as the utilization of philosophy which the early Greek and Italian theologians had systematically made. The advanced learning of the Medieval clergy was not the education of the masses of people under under the Pope or under the Emperor.

I've read that Aquinas' Summa takes a lot of material from Ibn Sina -- without acknowledgement, of course.

Europeans owed a lot to those pesky Muslims!

Ibn Sina is on my reading list.

Antipope Innocent II · 09-06-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrey

Was the dissection ban purely fiction?

I don't know enough about the history of Florence in that particular period to comment for certain, but I usually find novels to be very poor sources of accurate historical information.

Quote:

Was dissection illegal before that point?

No. It was compulsory in some medieval university medical schools and widespread in others. It took some time before the medieval revival of dissection spread to northern Europe but the old Greek and Roman taboo against dissection was overcome in the Middle Ages (so long as you dissected dead criminals) to the great advancement of the study of anatomy in the centuries that followed.

Quote:

Did the Church care enough to make it illegal?

No.

Quote:

The understanding of anatomy is essential to realistic depiction of the human form. Even if we cannot determine whether it was legal/illegal, we can certainly say that artists were dissecting (or taking advantage of anatomical studies) during the Renaissance.

They certainly did take advantage of the increased knowledge of anatomy in their depictions of the human body.

Quote:

The fact that art before this time was generally not realistic seems to imply that anatomical knowledge was not very well known. Can any art historians cite examples of realistic art from earlier periods which would indicate people were dissecting?

Dissection may assist artists in their anatomical realism, but you can have the latter without the former. Apart from a short period in Ptolemaic Alexandria, the Greeks and Romans did not practice dissection, yet they managed very realistic depictions of the human body.

And not all Medieval art was "unrealistic" anyway. Look at these Thirteenth Century sculptures from Naumburg, for example.

Amedeo · 09-06-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

We seem to have gone from “the Dark Age extended to the Renaissance!” to “the Dark Age extended to the Renaissance, which is whatever I define it as, so long as it’s Italian”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

I have already expresses the date of what some historians call the Middle Ages: between the 6th and the 16th century. Unfortunately this chronological classification is totally useless to differentiate the DARK AGES (which is characterized by the SUBMISSION of the majority of populations to feudal lords and to the divine Lord, or destitution and otherwordliness) from the RENOVATION that occurred in different countries at different times.

Despite this, thousands of historians and other people seem to find this “useless” term quite useful. Probably because they have a better grasp of the period than you and recognise sweeping generalizations about “the SUBMISSION of the majority of populations to feudal lords and to the divine Lord” as being patently silly.

That sentence makes no sense.

Another of your problems is that you have this simplistic idea that this “feudalism” thing was the economic system across Europe apart from in cities in “Italy, in Flanders, etc.”. Basing your ideas on gross over-simplifications and errors like that will inevitably result in a confused misapprehension about many things.

I’m starting to get the idea that your definition of “Medieval” is “anything between 1000 and 1600 that I don’t like: religion, feudalism etc”. Just as your definition of “Renaissance” seems to be “anything in the same period that I do like, especially if it’s Italian”.

That’s a grotesque and ridiculous caricature of the what the Carolingian Renaissance constituted.

Yes. So? No-one thought the Polos brought gunpowder back from China anyway. And the first mention of gunpowder in Europe was by an Englishman.

The Carolingian Renaissance didn’t see any works by Avicenna or Averroes, which didn’t find their way to Europe until the Twelfth Century. Unless of course you’re trying to say the Twelfth Century Renaissance didn’t see any revival of learning, in which case your post just veered off from the muddled and silly to the totally ridiculous.

Anyone who thinks Medieval history can be characterised as “the unity of church and state[/i] needs to go back and do some basic reading on the period.

Quote:

The French, English, or German monks of the high Middle Ages became land-lords of vast estates; the French one refined cuisine and liquors; the Spanish ones became the great inquisitors -- a far cry from the Italian monastic orders whose motto was, in the work of St. Benedict, "Ora et labora": Pray and Work.

Yes, the Italians were wonderful while everyone else was bad – we get it. I think I’ll stop responding to this cartoonish nonsense now.

Your criticisms are SILLY, to use your favorite word. Your knowledge of history comes from some antiquated partisan books (which I am familiar with), which are SILLY!

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

Antipope Innocent II · 09-06-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amedeo

Your criticisms are SILLY, to use your favorite word. Your knowledge of history comes from some antiquated partisan books (which I am familiar with), which are SILLY!

Yes, "silly" and "partisan" books by the leading scholars in the field. But thanks for your odd little "Italia Uber Alles" posts - they have afforded great amusement.

Quote:

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

Leave your "Lord" out of this please.

Amedeo · 09-06-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

I've read that Aquinas' Summa takes a lot of material from Ibn Sina -- without acknowledgement, of course.

Europeans owed a lot to those pesky Muslims!

Ibn Sina is on my reading list.

How most of Aristotle came into the West --

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/phi...9/349lec13.htm

Quote:

I. Aristotle

The entire body of Aristotle’s philosophical works were translated into Latin and introduced into Western Europe during the period of 1100-1270. Christian Arabs had translated Aristotle’s works into Arabic during the period of 750-900. There were four centers of exchanges between the Muslim and Western Christian worlds: Syria (during the First Crusade), Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, capital of the Christian Byzantine Roman empire), the Norman kingdom of Sicily, and, most important of all, Spain after its reconquest by Christians during the 11th century.

As I mentioned last week, early medieval thinkers in Western Europe had access to two logical works of Aristotle, the Categories and On Interpretation. These gave rise to the “old logic” in which Anselm and Abelard were schooled. The “new logic”, based on Aristotle’s logical treatises, the Prior Analytics and the Posterior Analytics, developed in the mid 12th century. It was discussed by John of Salisbury (one of Abelard’s students). Aristotle’s scientific works (in biology, physics and astronomy) reached western Europe in the late 12th century. .....

Aquinas [Thomas from the town of Aquino, near Rome] learned a lot of Aristotle from Avicenna (ibn Sina) and Averroes (ibn Rushd), and he deals with their own philosophical positions in the Summa Theologica and especially the Summa Contra Gentiles (that is, Against the non-Jeudo-Christian religionists -- mainly the Muslims). [I have read many of the works, or parts thereof, in Latin, by Aquinas, Bonaventura [from the town of Bagnorea, near Rome], Duns Scotus [the Subtle Doctor indeed], William of Occkam, Eurigena [my favorite Irish philosopher-theologian for the understanding of Nature], and others. I've studied all the works of Bonaventura, since I wrote a thesis on his ontology: He is the second Parmenides, who was unkown to him, and had absorbed much of Aristotle, too. Aquinas was strictly Aristotelian in metaphysics... but, upon considering "existence," both Bonaventura and Aquinas reach the edge of pantheism, just as Eurigena had done, only to be held back by their belief in a super-natural God. So, both the Franciscan monk and the Dominican monk are now saints in heaven.) Christian doctrine held them all in check. All the major Medieval philosopher-theologians exemplify reason at the service of faith.

Ray Moscow · 09-07-2007, 02:00 AM

I tried reading some of Aquinas' Summa, expecting to find some great wisdom and interesting philosophy. However, I was just appalled by his naive treatment of the Bible itself, and I couldn't get past the way he would just put out a Bible verse, completely out of context, as some sort of universal truth -- much like a fundamentalist preacher in modern times.

So I gave up on reading him.

Obviously, some great scholars have spent much of their careers studying Aquinas, but to a philistine like me he's hopeless.

Am I missing some great stuff here?

Ray

Lógos Sokratikós · 09-07-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

In Rome Leonardo continued his anatomical studies, apparently at the Ospedale di Santo Spirito and as well carried on studies in distillation and physics, or more particularly optics. Unfortunately such studies appear to have brought him into conflict with a German mirror-maker known merely as Giovanni degli Specchi who seems to have been envious not only of Leonardo's influence with their common patron but as well of the considerably larger stipend that he received. As a result of the slanderous rumors which he spread, including suggestion of sacrilege in connection with Leonardo's anatomical studies, the latter found himself in papal disfavor and barred from Santo Spirito. Hence Leonardo terminated his anatomical studies.—Introduction to Leonardo on the Human Body (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Eccellente, No Robots. The RCC did not give Da Vinci justice, but injustice. Very sad.

Amedeo · 09-07-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

In Rome Leonardo continued his anatomical studies, apparently at the Ospedale di Santo Spirito and as well carried on studies in distillation and physics, or more particularly optics. Unfortunately such studies appear to have brought him into conflict with a German mirror-maker known merely as Giovanni degli Specchi who seems to have been envious not only of Leonardo's influence with their common patron but as well of the considerably larger stipend that he received. As a result of the slanderous rumors which he spread, including suggestion of sacrilege in connection with Leonardo's anatomical studies, the latter found himself in papal disfavor and barred from Santo Spirito. Hence Leonardo terminated his anatomical studies.—Introduction to Leonardo on the Human Body (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Eccellente, No Robots. The RCC did not give Da Vinci justice, but injustice. Very sad.

Just to complete the picture: When the Pope decided to have the walls of the Sistine Chapel painted, he hired some artists of the day -- Botticelli, Pollaiuolo, Leonardo, and others.
After the pope saw that Leonardo was dweedling around with the paints and never got down to painting, Leonardo was dismissed with the remark that this young man will never get anywhere in painting. (When he was under contract to paint a "last supper" for the dining hall of a religious Order, he drove the monks insane for never finishing his job. Occasionally he went to look at what he had painted, put a dab of paint here and there, and just went home. The face of Christ is incomplete. He never painted the eyebrows of the Mona Lisa either. When he applied for a job in Milan, his resume` was about himself as an engineer.) That's Leonardo! His use of oil paint for murals, instead of the traditional fresco procedure, resulted in the total deterioration of the "Battle of Anghiari", of which we have only copies made by some foreign artists, and some traces on the wall. The "Last Supper" fared better, but it had to be massively restored recently, before falling apart; it even survived the WWII bombing of the dining-hall in which it is.

Amedeo · 09-07-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

I tried reading some of Aquinas' Summa, expecting to find some great wisdom and interesting philosophy. However, I was just appalled by his naive treatment of the Bible itself, and I couldn't get past the way he would just put out a Bible verse, completely out of context, as some sort of universal truth -- much like a fundamentalist preacher in modern times.

So I gave up on reading him.

Obviously, some great scholars have spent much of their careers studying Aquinas, but to a philistine like me he's hopeless.

Am I missing some great stuff here?

Ray

You have to understand that most of the quotations from all the Scriptures and from other books were largely from memory and that there were intentionally selective. The objective was not, as WE would say, to expound the HISTORICAL content of the Scriptures. Behind this lies the FACT that the whole of Christian doctrine [and dogmas of the Church], from the beginning, was formulated OUT OF the New and the Old Testaments selectively. The Christ of the Catholic Church is very different from the Christ that you can learn in the Gospels. And, of course, only a small fraction of the Old testament is used by the Church and by the writing theologians, after it is expurgated from its immoralities and errors. (The early Fathers of the Church or theologians did the expurgation by imitating Philo Judaeus, whose allegorical interpretations of the Bible cleared it of any possible error -- almost, since Philo accepted the Genesis accounts literally; he saw no errors or contradictions in them.)

The objective of the Scholastic Theologians was to make a synthesis of revealed wisdom (the Scriptures) and human wisdom (mainly traditional philosophy AND, therefore, what nature reveals). So, throughout the Christian High Middle Ages, there is the doctrine of the TWO BOOKS for the knowledge of God: The Sacred Scriptures and Nature.

Needless to say, the medieval man LEARNS from these Two Books; he is not a searcher/investigator and writer of any book. The modern evangelists and kindred theologians make their own Christian Doctrines and use the Scriptures at their own discretion. They have even invented or emphasized the idea (contrary to the Bible's text) that the Commandments were laws God gave mankind, and that the miracles God performed for the Bible People are prospective miracles for anyone who becomes a believer in the Bible (or the Two Testaments). They take blatant anti-historical positions in order to successfully sell their merchandise (religion) to the general population.

09-06-2007, 03:43 PM	#241
xrey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 1,460	Dissection and the church I brought up the question of dissection on the "Did the Church hold back medical advance" thread, but they're focusing on hospitals instead, so I'll re-ask here. In the (admittedly fictional) book "The Agony and the Ecstasy" Michelangelo has to get access to corpses in an illegal fashion. Likewise, Michelangelo assumed that Leonardo da Vinci must have done the same because his works were also anatomically accurate. This was because the Church had banned dissection (at least in Florence), except for once a year under special observation. The posts above seem to indicate that Leonardo got some sort of special permission for dissection. However, since this topic is about the Middle Ages rather than the Renaissance, my questions are: Was the dissection ban purely fiction? Was dissection illegal before that point? Did the Church care enough to make it illegal? The understanding of anatomy is essential to realistic depiction of the human form. Even if we cannot determine whether it was legal/illegal, we can certainly say that artists were dissecting (or taking advantage of anatomical studies) during the Renaissance. The fact that art before this time was generally not realistic seems to imply that anatomical knowledge was not very well known. Can any art historians cite examples of realistic art from earlier periods which would indicate people were dissecting?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2007, 02:00 AM	#247
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	I tried reading some of Aquinas' Summa, expecting to find some great wisdom and interesting philosophy. However, I was just appalled by his naive treatment of the Bible itself, and I couldn't get past the way he would just put out a Bible verse, completely out of context, as some sort of universal truth -- much like a fundamentalist preacher in modern times. So I gave up on reading him. Obviously, some great scholars have spent much of their careers studying Aquinas, but to a philistine like me he's hopeless. Am I missing some great stuff here? Ray

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.