Summarizing the medieval anatomy of the head and brain in a single image: Magnus Hundt (1501) and Johann Dryander (1537) as transitional pre-Vesalian anatomists.
{"title":"Summarizing the medieval anatomy of the head and brain in a single image: Magnus Hundt (1501) and Johann Dryander (1537) as transitional pre-Vesalian anatomists.","authors":"Douglas J Lanska","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1994320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Of the early-sixteenth century pre-Vesalian anatomists, Magnus Hundt in 1501 and Johannes Eichmann (known as Johann Dryander) in 1537 both attempted to summarize the anatomy of the head and brain in a single complex figure. Dryander clearly based his illustration on the earlier one from Hundt, but he made several improvements, based in part on Dryander's own dissections. Whereas Hundt's entire monograph was medieval in character, Dryander's monograph was a mixture of medieval and early-modern frameworks; nevertheless, the corresponding illustrations of the anatomy of the head and brain in Hundt (1501) and Dryander (Dryandrum 1537) were both essentially medieval. This article examines in detail the symbology of both illustrations within the context of the medieval framework for neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. These two woodcuts of the head and brain provide the most detailed pictorial representation of medieval cranial anatomy in a printed book prior to the work of Andreas Vesalius in 1543.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"31 2-3","pages":"200-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1994320","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Of the early-sixteenth century pre-Vesalian anatomists, Magnus Hundt in 1501 and Johannes Eichmann (known as Johann Dryander) in 1537 both attempted to summarize the anatomy of the head and brain in a single complex figure. Dryander clearly based his illustration on the earlier one from Hundt, but he made several improvements, based in part on Dryander's own dissections. Whereas Hundt's entire monograph was medieval in character, Dryander's monograph was a mixture of medieval and early-modern frameworks; nevertheless, the corresponding illustrations of the anatomy of the head and brain in Hundt (1501) and Dryander (Dryandrum 1537) were both essentially medieval. This article examines in detail the symbology of both illustrations within the context of the medieval framework for neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. These two woodcuts of the head and brain provide the most detailed pictorial representation of medieval cranial anatomy in a printed book prior to the work of Andreas Vesalius in 1543.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.