sign in sign up
<<
Home , Frederik Ruysch, Jan Swammerdam

BIDLOO AND COWPER, ANATOMISTS

By FENWICK BEEKMAN, M.D.

NEW YORK CITY HEN William, Prince of deserve a special mention.” Having Orange, crossed from studied under the supervision of so Holland to reside in Eng- inspiring a teacher, it is probable land in the year 1688, that young Bidloo made up his mind he was accompanied by a largeto retinuefollow as quickly as possible in Wof servants, followers and advisors. his Master’s footsteps. It must, there- Many of these he retained in his fore, have been soon after finishing service following the proclamation of his studies with Ruysch that Bidloo February 13, 1689, which made him laid his plans to produce an atlas and his wife, Alary, co-rulcrs of of that would eclipse all England. Though but thirty-eight others that had been previously pub- years of age, William in was in poor lished, from the standpoint of orig- health and required the constant inality and artistic merit of the supervision of a physician. The physi- illustrations. Thus his magnum opus cian whom he chose to accompany finally appeared in the year 1685, him on his journey to his new country under the title of “Anatomia Humani was Godfried Bidloo. Corporis.” But let us, before we Bidloo was born in describe this work and the conse- in 1649. We know but little of his quences that followed its publication, early life; it is said that in his youth continue our story of the life of he was interested in literature and Godfried Bidloo. had written plays. He did not, how- Having terminated his studies with ever, continue for long in these pur- Ruysch, Bidloo practiced medicine suits, for we next hear of him at and and served in the army, the age of twenty-one (1670) becoming also finding time to travel in France apprenticed to a surgeon and studying and Germany. However, he was not at under contented to continue in practice (1638-1731). Ruysch was a well- without holding a degree for we find known anatomist, was thoroughly him in the year 1682 registered as trained in dissection and prepared a student in the University at Frane- many beautiful anatomical specimens. ker,2 from which he obtained the He had acquired the skill of injection degree of “Mcdicinae Doctoris & from (1637-1680) Chirurgi,” having presented a thesis and had applied this talent to so entitled “Variae prolusiones Anat. great an extent that his specimens Medicae” (1682). Little is known were known throughout Europe for of what occurred during the next their artistic merits. Garrison1 tells six years of his life except that he us that “for whimsical originality returned to Amsterdam but it may and exquisite delicacy of details, the be presumed that, following the com- plates drawn by Frederik Ruysch pletion of his book on anatomy in 1 . Ed. 4, Phila., 2 The University was suppressed by Na- Saunders, 1929, p. 251. poleon 1 in 1811. the year 1685, he again joined the the meetings between the doctors army which was fighting the French appear to have been usually amicable. under Louis xiv in Flanders. It mav This may seem strange for we find

have been at this time that the attention of Prince William of Orange, who was leading the Dutch armies, was first attracted to the young surgeon. Bidloo was appointed Professor of Anatomy at The Hague in 1688, as successor to Anton Nuck, but left soon after to accompany William to that Bidloo was difficult to get along England for we find, according to with and had many acrimonious con- Macmichaefs “Goldhcaded Cane,” troversies with others over situations John Radcliffe in consultation with which were of far less importance than Bidloo and Dr. Thomas Lawrence that of the care of the health of a in the autumn of 1689, when William king. It is probable, however, that iii was suffering from one of his Radcliffe, who is known to have been periodic attacks. He was a favorite of rough and to have possessed an William but this did not prevent inflammable temper but could be the king’s advisors, Bcntinck, later diplomatic when the need arose, re- the Earl of Portland, and Zulestein, fused to enter into controversies of a who became the Earl of Rochford, personal nature. from calling upon English physicians In 1690 Bidloo returned to his when they thought that the condition native land, having been appointed of His Majesty’s health required. by William hi general superintendent Though Radcliffe differed radically of all civil and military hospitals of in his opinion on the treatment to Holland. Two years later he was be prescribed for the royal patient, arrested for having published a pam- phlet3 which caricatured some judges in England and, in 1696, the Board of Holland, but he was finally freed of Managers of the University severely following repeated requests from Wil- criticized him because of his failure to

lecture. In this year Bidloo became involved liam, so that he could accompany him in a quarrel with his old master, to Flanders where further military Frederik Ruysch, who had, with jus- operations were in progress. The fol- tification, criticized some of the il- lowing year, 1693, the King appointed lustrations appearing in Bidloo’s atlas him inspector of military hospitals of anatomy. The latter retorted with in England and, in 1694, he was given his pen in a rude and caustic manner.0 the professorship of anatomy and James Atkinson (1759-1839), speak- surgery at Leyden.4 From now on ing of this incidence, says: he must have been frequently asso- ciated with (1668- This old Ruysch was a formidable 1738), who was at this time giving to competitor and not to be so easily ex- Leyden the lustre that made that tinguished as any common rush-light, or University so famous in the seven- farthing candle. So we may not much teenth century. Bidloo, however, had doubt that Bidloo, with ah his splendor as an anatomist, had not been famous in little time to teach for he was much his day, for an overabundance of milk of " Beurzestryd of saemensprook tuschen human kindness, in his Receptaculum Galenus en Baldus. 4 “ Dissertatio de Antiquitate Anatomes 5 Vindiciae quarundam delineationum ana- . . . ,” being the title of his inaugural tomicarum contra animadversiones Friderici address. Ruisch. Chyli. It is fair, however, to pay consider- two lectures which were dedicated able respect and attention to his Vin- to the Royal Society, in which the diciae,l in regard to his answer to Ruysch author rejected the theory that the

nerves contained fluid and showed that they were composed of numerous delicate fibers. Bidloo died at Leyden in the month of April of the year 1713. Two years later his papers were collected and published.7 The character of the man is of and Cooper. interest. There is no doubt that he was of an ambitious and aggressive Bidloo remained in England from type, having high esteem of his own 1700 to 1702 in attendance upon the abilities. That he had ability there King, who died during the latter is sufficient evidence, but he was prone year. Soon after his return to Holland to seek his advancement through he published a monograph upon the the influence of others who could give last illness and death of William him favors, rather than by means hi .6 This pamphlet contained much of hard work. He neglected his duties controversial matter and through its as Professor of Surgery and Anatomy publication he added to the number at The Hague and was criticised of his enemies. He now settled down for his lack of attendance in teaching in Leyden and devoted himself to at Leyden. During these periods he teaching and writing. It was toward was accompanying his benefactor, the end of this period that Albinus William in, from whom he had evi- (1697-1770) became his student. The dently received these positions. Haller, year 1708 saw the publication of 7 Opuscula omnia anatomico-chirurgica 6 Verhaal cler laatste ziekte en van het edita et inedita. Leyden, 1715-1725 in 40 overbyden van Willem in. with illustration. however, implies that his mode of indulgent, allowing His Majesty to drink life was not above reproach. “Vitae cider, ale— in shoit, all sorts of strong Iiberiori plura tempora dedit quam beer; and to take crude aliments before studiis.”8 going to bed. It was in vain that Doc- We cannot rank Bidloo as an out- tors Hutton, Millington, Blakemore, and standing anatomist or physician, but Lawrence remonstrated. On the King’s return to Hampton Court, the dropsical his anatomic atlas is sufficient testi- swelling of the inferior extremities ex- mony to place him in a position of tended upwards, for which Bidloo pre- authority on the subject of anatomy scribed a vapour bath, and inclosed the for the time in which he lived. As a legs of the patient in a wooden box con- physician his position was such that structed for that purpose. In a constitu- his judgment was respected, though tion so weak, which this treatment’ was many times it was swayed by his reported to have still more debilitated, personal feelings. an accident was likely to prove fatal.10

With King William came the famous Bidloo’s greatest faults were his Dr. Bidloo as chief physician; ... It pugnacious dogmatism and unwilling- was said, indeed, that Bidloo, who was otherwise expert in the knowledge of ness to accept criticism, though it physic, and knew how to prescribe proper was justified. All his controversial medicaments when he hit upon the dis- writing shows up his jealous, im- temper, from frequently mistaking the petuous disposition. Any criticism nature of English constitutions, sub- on the part of others brought from jected those who advised with him to the his pen caustic answers, written in greatest hazards.9 scientific Latin or Low Dutch. These publications did not hold to the facts That Bidloo at times appears to of the case but were interspersed have allowed his better judgment to with aspersions concerning his adver- be overruled by his wish to stand saries’ character and the calling of favorably in the eyes of the King, names. Ruysch, whom he attacked we have evidence. with vehemence, had been his Master, King William died in 1702. The year had taught him all that he knew of before this event, Dr. Bidloo had accom- anatomy and had instructed him in panied His Majesty to Holland, where the methods used in preparing ana- his treatment of his royal patient at that tomical specimens. Bidloo’s defense, time, and for some months before his in this instance, should have at least death, was a subject of animadversion been free from rancor toward one who with the doctors attached to the court. In addition to many other infirmities had launched him upon his career. under which the King laboured, he was The publication concerning the last troubled with boils that formed in differ- illness and death of William in, a ent parts of his body; and for these defense of Bidloo’s actions, is filled Bidloo directed that his feet and legs with vilifications directed against the should be rubbed night and morning, physicians who were in attendance with flannel covered with powder of with him in the care of Flis Majesty. crab’s eyes, flour, and cummin-seed. As It was “written in Low Dutch, in to diet, the Doctor was exceedingly order, as his enemies said, that few 8 Quoted by Biog. Lexikon der hevorragen- might read it in this country” (Eng- dem Arzte. 9 Lives of British Physicians, p. 122. 10 Gold-headed Cane, p. 15. land).11 This pamphlet embroiled him Godefridi Bidloo, Medicinae Doctoris in a controversy with the French & Chirurgi, Anatomia Humani Corporis, surgeon M. Ronjat, who had attended Centum & quinque Tabulis, per arti- the King immediately preceding his ficiosiss. G. de Lairesse ad vivum de- death, when he fractured his collar- lineatis, Demonstrata, Veterum Recen- bone. Ronjat retorted by publishing tiorumque Inventis explicata plurimisque, a reply, printed in London.12 hactenus non detectis, Illustrata. Am- We now come to that controversy stelodami, Sumptibus Viduae Joannis between Bidloo and Cowper, concern- a Someren, Haeredum Joannis a ing the rights of the latter to publish Dyk, Henrici & Viduae Theodori Boom. his anatomy of the human body. MDCLXXXV But before we take up the facts con- The third leaf contains a dedication, cerning this dispute, it would be well in Latin, to Prince Casimiro. Follow- to glance for a moment at Bidloo’s ing this there is a full page copper atlas, “Anatomia Humani Corporis,” plate engraving of Bidloo by Blootel- to find out what manner of book it is. ing,14 from a painting by de Lairesse.14 The volume examined in this study 14 Abraham Blooteling, eminent Dutch is a large folio measuring 14 K by designer and engraver, born 1634, visited 24% inches and weighing approxi- England in 1672 where he remained for mately 18 pounds. The pages, both two years. He is noted for his etchings and those of the text and the prints, mezzotints. He died sometime later than are of heavy paper containing the 1698. (Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers.) watermark shown in Figure 8. This 15 Gerard de Lairesse was born at Liege in copy is bound in red morocco which 1641, son of Renier de Lairesse of some is embellished with the arms of Gabriel celebrity who had his son instructed in Bernard De Rieux.13 belles-lettres, poetry and music and taught There is an extra title page which him the principles of design. The boy later consists of an engraving, allegorical in studied under Bertholet Flemalle. At the age of sixteen he had made himself known as a type, which contains a shield, upon portrait painter. As he grew up, however, he which is inscribed: “Godefridi Bidloo became expensive in his tastes and dissolute Anatomia Humani Corporis Centum in his habits, which left him indigent, though et quinque tabulis Illustrata.” This his gains were considerable. He settled in is followed by a second or true Utrecht but soon after removed to Amster- dam where he was considered the greatest title page containing the following historical painter of his time. He lost his details: sight in 1690, when fifty years of age, and 11 Golcl-heacleci Cane, p. 17. died in 1711. “His style is grand and poetical, 12 Lettre cle M. Ronjat, Premier Chirurgien he was perfectly acquainted with history and de feu Sa Majeste BritanniqueGuillaume hi .; fable, possessed a lively and ready invention ecrite de Londres a un Medecin de ses Amis and was attentive to propriety of costume. en Hollande. In his compositions and design he has been 13 Bernard De Rieux (Gabriel) died in compared to Nicolas Poussin, but he has very Paris 1745. This copy is described in item slender pretensions to Poussin’s classic eleva- 1223 of the catalogue of the sale of his library tion of thought, profound acquaintance with (Catalogue des livres de la bibliotheque de the antique, elegance of taste and purity of feu Monsieur le president Bernard De Rieux. design. He painted with extraordinary facility Paris, Barrois, 1747) as follows; “Godefridi and is said to have finished in one day, a pic- Bidloo anatomia humani corporis 105 tabulis ture of Mount Parnassus, with Apollo and per Guil. de Lairesse ad vivum delineatis the nine Muses, an achievement which Pous- demonstrata Amstel. Vid. a Someren, 1685. sin would not have been ambitious of per- in-fol. carta maxima mar.r.” forming. His backgrounds are enriched with The body of the book is formed quence, these illustrations show little of 105 copper plate engravings and originality and are poor in artistic an explanatory text. The text is quality, though the art of copper printed upon separate pages and is in Latin. The descriptions that are given of the plates are short and imperfect, for they do not by any means cover the subjects which they are supposed to elucidate. The value and interest of the book is in its beautifully executed plates, which portray the anatomical specimens in nearly life-sized proportions.* 16 From the title and preface, we learn that the drawing of these plates was done by Gerard de Lairesse but it is not certain whether he executed the engraving, though most authori- ties give him the credit. James Atkin- son states that they were drawn by de Lairesse and engraved by Blooteling; we know that these artists were responsible for the portrait of Bidloo which is contained in the volume but that is no to believe that Blooteling was the engraver of the anatomical plates. “According to Haller the engravings were done by VanGunst.”17 “ Moehsen names the brothers Peter and Philip Van- Gunst as the engravers.”18 engraving had replaced woodcutting The plates that illustrate Bidloo’s early in the seventeenth century. Anatomy are original in pattern and Bidloo attempts originality by intro- artistic in design. The Vesalian era ducing a new style in the pattern of was one in which each new author his plates, and he chooses for his attempted to outdo its founder in collaborator an artist with outstand- accuracy and beauty of illustrations. ing ability. Where he fails is that he Each one, however, clung to the leaves too much to the imagination Vesalian pattern and failed to produce of his illustrator who, uninstructed the accuracy of detail and the artistic in the science of anatomy, attempts values of the Great Master. In conse- to cover his shortcomings through his ability as an artist. Therefore, from an anatomical standpoint the architecture, the principles of which he per- illustrations are not entirely accurate. fectly understood.” (Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers.) In contrast with these utterly inartis- 16 Unfortunately none of these plates con- tic tendencies Bidloo’s plates (1685) seem tains the name of the artist or the engraver. like a return to something better, and 17, 18 Choulant, p. 250. would have represented the very best of this period had the anatomist been just trary, they seem to me, in these respects, as conscientious as the artist, and had most particularly correct. Indeed we may the latter himself recognized more fully say, perhaps, that the excellence of the and valued more highly the true beauty work consists in this perfection. Neither of nature.19 does the Anatomical part appear in any other light, as far as my perception goes, Another critic tells us that though than as a refined and close copy of nature; the illustrations are artistically valu- nay, it is almost nature itself! able, they are less so anatomically, since Bidloo’s specimens were not This author continues to say that always accurate and the artist’s imagi- we should not find fault because the nation often supplied the parts un- artist included a in one of his intelligible to him.20 prints, for are accustomed to be Eighty-three of the plates show the found in dissecting rooms, and: various parts of the body in progres- Does not the portrait painter affect to sive stages of dissection. The illustra- represent the general and particular tions portray the cadaver upon the costume, and actual existence of sur- dissecting table with instruments and rounding objects; nay, the very Idyosyn- equipment necessary for the art of crasias of the portrait. Do not these, by dissection at hand. All the details association, identify and enhance the are there, even to a large fly which value of the likeness. Was the wart on Oliver Cromwell’s face placed there as is depicted in one plate; for it appears an embellishment? then, why debar the that the artist wished to suggest Anatomist of the idioms of his dissecting- the air of the dissecting room of room? those days. In an occasional print On the other hand, John Bell the body is partly draped with a (1763-1820), himself an anatomist sheet, but apparently this has been of no mean standing and his own added for effect rather than modesty illustrator, says this of the book; and in some of the plates tends to “Bidloo’s tables are beautiful and confuse the reader. It may be thought, masterly; but being wanting in regu- from this description, that the illustra- larity and order, they want altogether tions, because of their reality, may the clearness of a plan.”21 The reality cause offense to those who are unac- of the illustrations are commented customed to such sights. But, strange upon by Bell who, though he has great to say, they do not in any way offend admiration for the artistic talent one’s finer senses. For the illustrator, expended by de Lairesse, nevertheless though he portrays the cadaver in a considers the plates from an ana- realistic manner, has softened the tomical standpoint to be “all dis- sense of reality through his artistic order and confusion; and one must be skill. both anatomist and painter to guess James Atkinson, in defending this what is meant, how the limb is laid, work from criticism, says: and what parts are seen.”22 But I Nor does the imputation of bad draw- think all will agree, if they study ing and faulty perspective, as has been these plates, that much of this diffi- represented, appear, to my eye, at all culty in orienting the parts as they chargeable upon the work. On the con- are illustrated is due to the lack of a 19 Choulant, p. 34. 21 Bell, J. Preface, p. viii. 20 Biog. Lexikon der hevorragendem Arzte. 22 Bell, J., Preface, p. x. proper descriptive text, and the ab- views, respectively. Here again the sence of sufficient reference letters artist has returned to the Vesalian upon the illustrations for correlation style of pattern in his illustrations. with it. He has chosen the tomb for his Table or plate four is of historical foreground, through the portals of interest as it depicts the skin and which the distant hills and houses hair under magnification. There are are seen. But de Lairesse pays too also microscopic illustrations in some great attention to the details of of the other plates. These are very the accessories in the foreground. early illustrations of magnified ob- Coffins, draperies and the open graves jects, for Bidloo undoubtedly learned are minutely pictured, which tend the use of the from his to draw the eye from the principle countryman, Antony Van Leeuwen- object. The skeletons are inaccurately hoek (1632-1723), whom he knew, drawn, for the proportions of the for he dedicated to Van bones are poor, resulting in a fore- in 1698 a pamphlet, in which he shortening of the frame. Artistically, describes the liver fluke (Fasciola the plates are fine, but for anatomical hepatica).23 accuracy they are far inferior to those The remaining twenty-two plates of Vesalius or to John Van der Gucht’s consist of three to demonstrate surface beautiful engravings in Cheselden’s anatomy and nineteen of osteology. “Osteographia.” The three first illustrations portray The publication of this atlas did nude figures posed in gardens; one, not meet with success for, as Choulant the front view of a male subject and says, though the engraving is most two, of a female, front and rear views elegantly done and is artistically per- respectively. There is much accessory fect, the text is too short to be instruc- design in the pictures which, as tive. Consequently, the book was Choulant says, is Lairesse’s well- unsatisfactory to the anatomist and known style. Such details as Grecian was too expensive for the beginner. urns and drapery help to fill the It was of little use to the artist, for foreground and are as prominently the complete musculature is not shown placed as are the large, heavily- and often individual muscles are dis- framed, undraped, posed figures. The placed. With all, however, this atlas background of the illustrations con- of anatomy is a fine book and has sists of trees or statues. The perspec- hardly received the attention that it tive is good. I think, as others have deserves. stated, that it is unfortunate that A Dutch translation appeared in the figures are covered with reference 1690, the shield in the allegorical letters, as these are hardly necessary title page containing at this time the to elucidate the plates and detract following inscription: “Ontleding Des from the beauty of the illustrations. Menschelyken Lichaams Godaan door The last nineteen plates show the Govard Bidloo Anat. et Chiruig. Pro- bony parts of the body; plates eighty- fesr.” The Latin inscription has’been seven and eighty-eight portray the erased from the copper plate and skeleton, front and three-quarter rear the new form of title re-engraved. 23 Dobell, C. Antony Van Leeuwenhoek We must now pause for a moment, and His Little Animals. N. Y., Harcourt, in following Godfried Bidloo, and Brace, 1932, p. 220. shift our story to another character. In the year 1666, when Godfried will be seen by following the story Bidloo was seventeen years of age, of his life. there was born in Petersfield, Sussex, Cowper was admitted to the Com- England, the youngest son of Richard pany of Barber Surgeons in 1691 and, Cowper, or as sometimes written but three years later, published his Cooper. This boy, William Cowper, “Myotomia Reformata; or a New when sixteen years of age was ap- Administration of the Muscles of the prenticed to William Bignall, a sur- Human Bodies, wherein the true geon of London, and later continued uses of the muscles are explained, the his apprenticeship with John Fletcher. errors of former anatomists concern- There is little known of his younger ing them confuted and several muscles years, but it may be presumed, from not hitherto taken notice of described: the records of work which he left to which are subjoined a graphical behind him, that he was a diligent, description of the bones and other ana- hardworking young man with more tomical observations. [London, 1694.]” than the average intelligence. There This octavo volume is illustrated with is no doubt that he was ambitious and figures after the life. It was so well wished to leave behind him the marks thought of that a second edition (large of his existence. One of his biographers folio) was published in 1724, fifteen accuses him, I think unjustly, of years after Cowper’s death, which con- seeking a title which he never gained. tained additions and corrections made But who of us do not wish for earthly by the author to the original manu- rewards for our labors? There is no script and introduced by an “‘Adver- doubt that he was the outstanding tisement’ signed Richard Mead [1673— English anatomist of his time24 and 1754], at whose charge this augmented that he held a position of esteem in 2nd. ed. was published.”25 the practice of surgery, though at this The year 1696 saw Cowper elected time there were few educated surgeons a fellow of the Royal Society. Two in London for Richard Wiseman (1622- years later, when but thirty-two years 1676), the great English surgeon of of age, he published the large and the seventeenth century, had died handsome atlas entitled “The Anat- before Cowper began his career, leav- omy of the Human Body.” We must, ing no one to wear his mantle. It is however, leave for a few moments stated by Norman Moore that Cow- the description of this book while per’s attainments in pathology and we continue tracing other events in comparative anatomy were as great the life of its author. as those in human anatomy and In 1702 a paper appeared describing surgery. That on occasions Cowper the glands which bear his name.26 allowed his desire for distinction to It has been said that “Cowper’s overrule his better judgment, there glands are known by name to more can be no doubt, and I fear on occa- persons than their discoverer ever sions he stooped to unscrupulous expected or perhaps deserved for methods to obtain his desires, as he was not entirely honest in his 24 Richard Mead, in the “Advertisement” 25 Osler: Bibiotheca Osleriana. Oxford, 1929, to Cowper’s Myotomia Reformata, Ed. 2, #2384. 1724, says that Cowper “was universally 26 Glandularum quarundam, nuper detec- allowed to be as eminent an anatomist as any tarum, ductuumque earum excretoriorum, of his time. ...” descriptio, cum figuris. dealings, though he was a good anat- anatomic atlas, “The Anatomy of omist and the teacher of Cheselden.”27 the Human Body,” and then trace Though these anatomical structures the steps in the controversy between have been named for Cowper, it Bidloo and its author. This book is cannot be said that he deserves the of the same proportions as Bidloo’s credit of their discovery, for Jean “Anatomia Humani Corporis” and Mery (1645-1722) described them contains all the plates of that volume as early as the year 1684. except the one of the portrait of Numerous papers were contributed Bidloo, which is replaced by a mez- by Cowper to the Royal Society, zotint of Cowper. The text, which is which appear in the Philosophical in English, is entirely new. The date Transactions. Of two of these we of publication is 1698. The title must take notice, for they alone page reads as follows: contain material important enough to The Anatomy of the Human Bodies, carry the name of Cowper into the with figures drawn after the life by some archives of medical history. One of of the best masters in Europe, and these presentments describes the capil- curiously engraven in one hundred and lary circulation which he had demon- fourteen copper plates, illustrated with strated in the cat and the dog. large explications, containing many new This confirmed the work of Malpighi anatomical discoveries and chirurgical (1661), who demonstrated the capil- observations. To which is added an intro- lary function of the pulmonary ar- duction explaining the animal oeconomy teries and veins. Cowper, in 1705, with a copious index by William Cowper. pointed out that degenerative disease Oxford Printed at the Theater, for Sam. of the aortic valve caused a peculiar Smith and Benj. Walford, printers to the type of pulse. Norman Moore believes Royal Society, at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church Yard, London that this is “a discovery often er- MDCXCVIII. roneously attributed to Corrigan in 1829, more justly claimed for Vieus- The true title page is preceded sens in 1715, but certainly first made by the same allegorical illustration by Cowper.” that appears in both editions of William Cheselden (1688-1752), the Bidloo, except that now the inscrip- well-known anatomist and surgeon tion upon the shield reads: “The of St. Thomas’ Hospital in London, Anatomy of Human Bodies by Wil- was, early in his career (1703), a liam Cowper Surgeon 1698.” But let house pupil of William Cowper. us examine this shield. No! its surface Cowper retired to Bishop Sutton, does not look regular and smooth and Hampshire, because of poor health, when we hold the paper of the page suffering from asthma and dropsy, against the light, we see the shadow and died in the forty-third year of of other printing beneath the inscrip- his life on March 8, 1709. A memorial tion. On closer examination, we dis- stone, erected by his wife and con- cover that the new inscription is taining a laudatory inscription, may engraved upon a piece of paper which be seen in the wall of the church at has been crudely pasted over the Bishop Sutton. old and that the inscription that is We will now examine Cowper’s obliterated is that which appears on the plate of the Dutch edition of 27 Brit. M. J., 1: 161; 404, 1898. Bidloo’s anatomy. (“Ontleding des Menschelyken Lichaams, etc.”28) This dix with nine additional plates. is a crude form of deception, as anyone Let us see what the author says can see what has been done.29 in the preface which is headed, “To The portrait of William Cowper is the Reader.” First, there is the usual a fine mezzotint from the hands of apology for any faults the reader John Smith,30 who had much reputa- may find with the book; he then tion in his day, after the oil painting continues by describing the order in by Johann Clostermann.31 which the subject is disposed. But In glancing through this book we what does he say about the one find that it is a great improvement hundred and five plates taken from over that of Bidloo’s, due to the Bidloo’s anatomy? Only this! elimination of the short, insufficient Latin text and the replacement of a These Figures were Drawn after the Life, by the Masterly Painter G. de longer and more concise description Lairesse and Engraved by no less a Hand, of the plates written in English. and Represent the Parts of Human There has also been added an appen- Bodies far beyond any Extant; and 28 Moehsen was the first to point out this were sometime since Published by Dr. fact. (Quoted from Choulant.) Bidloo, now Professor of Anatomy in 29 If it was a fact, as stated by James the University of Leyden. I shall take Atkinson, that the Dutch publishers of the liberty here to acquaint the Reader, Bidloo’s book merely sold a certain number That in these Tables I have added above of impressions of the plates to Cowper’s Seven hundred References, all of which publishers, this affords an explanation why are Letter’d with a Pen in the several the inscription within the shield of the Figures; . . . The Parts which in many allegorical title page was not re-engraved Places had their Nomenclature barely but merely obliterated by covering it over. annexed, are here Copiously Described; For the Dutchmen did not dare to change the plates, as Bidloo might again call for them and it would be embarassing for them if the The one short sentence quoted plates had been tampered with. above, which is inconspicuously placed 30 John Smith was born at Daventry in 1652, son of an engraver. He is considered in the text, is all the credit that the best mezzotint engraver of his time. Sir Cowper gives Bidloo for the use Godfrey Kneller took him into his employ of the one hundred and five hand- and engaged him to produce engraved copies somely engraved plates which he of many of his portraits. He died in 1742. His used without permission. True, he portrait, by Kneller, hangs in the National Gallery. (Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters improved the value of these plates, and Engravers.) from the standpoint of anatomical 31 Johann Clostermann was born at Osna- study, through laboriously adding briick in 1656. He was the son of a painter, by pen additional reference letters who taught him. Young Clostermann worked to the illustrations, thereby making in Paris for DeTroyes, painting draperies. them adaptable to the new descriptive In 1691 he went to England and was em- ployed by Riley in the same type of work. text which accompanies them. But He was an artist of limited ability, but at this does not excuse him for the that time art was at a low state in England. act of plagiarism in appropriating He painted some portraits, one of Queen the plates which were drawn by de Anne and another of the Duke of Marl- Lairesse. borough, which now hang in the National Portrait Gallery. In 1696 he painted portraits Cowper dedicated his book to the of the King and Queen of Spain. He died in Right Honorable Charles Montague, London in the year 1713. First Lord of the Treasury, etc., in a drawn-out, laudatory message of “The Appendix” do not compare which covers five of the folio pages. in beauty and execution with those Following this, in small type, are drawn by de Lairesse. The first two eight pages of text entitled, “The are of full-length figures, demonstrat- Introduction explaining the Animal ing the superficial muscles of the Oeconomy,” an intelligent discourse body. The pattern is that of the on physiology. The following excerpt Vesalian style but they lack artistic from it is one of many of interest. merit. They are signed by H. Cook, the designer,32 and by M. Van der Upon the Invention of these Ova, Gucht, the engraver.33 The remainder DeGraaf and Others, who have success- fully employ’d themselves in their En- of the plates of “The Appendix” quiries on this Subject, began to Erect picture different portions of the body. an Opinion, That the Female only There is a diagram of the fetal furnished the Matter of the Foetus, and circulation, and illustrations of dis- the Male serv’d to Actuate it by its section of the brain, muscles of the Prolifick Influence. This Opinion, which face, etc. All these latter plates are derogates much from the Dignity of the signed by Van der Gucht, alone, Male-Sex, prevailed until Mons. Leeuwen- who apparently designed and en- hoeck by the Help of his Exquisite graved them. Microscope, in which he has been well There can be no doubt that Cow- pursued by Mr. Melling, detected In- per’s anatomy is a fine compilation; numerable small Animals in the Mascu- containing artistic and fairly exact line Sperm, and by this Noble Discovery, at once removed that Difficulty, and illustrations which are accompanied added much to the Theory of Generation. by an accurate, well-written text. Cowper, in “The Anatomy of the Hu- The plates appear in the same order man Bodies,” supplies what was lack- as they do in Bidloo’s anatomy. ing in Bidloo’s “Anatomia Humani Each illustration is accompanied on 32 Henry Cooke, son of Henry Cooke, was the opposite page by a well-written born in England in the year 1642. He studied description on the subject of the in Italy under Salvator Rosa. He painted the pictured specimen. These descriptions choir in New College Chapel, Oxford, the are written in detail and are clearly stairs at Ranelagh House and Lord Carlisle’s and intelligently expressed, so that House, Soho Square, and finished the por- trait of Charles 11 in Chelsea Hospital. It is the full value of each plate is recog- said he committed a murder and fled from nized. The type is handsome and England and after his return was employed many of the pages are embellished by William in to repair the “Cartoons of with fancy initial letters at the begin- Raphael.” He died in 1700. (Bryan’s Dic- ning of the text and ornamental tionary of Painters and Engravers.) tail at the the page, 33 Michial Van der Gucht was born in pieces close of Antwerp in 1660. He was a pupil of one of a few of which depict anatomical the Boutats and soon after crossed to England scenes. and continued his studies under Loggan. He “The Appendix,” which is entirely engraved many of the portraits for Claren- new, contains nine plates and is don’s History. He died in 1725. Michial described by the author as “partly a Van der Gucht is best known by being the father of John, the artist responsible for the supplement to the preceding Tables fine engravings in Cheselden’s “Osteo- and partly a correction of such things graphia.” (Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters as are not well expressed.” The plates and Engravers.) Corporis.” Through the appropriation Bidloo was wonderfully enraged at the of Bidloo’s beautiful illustrations by liberty which Cowper had taken; as is de Lairesse and by writing a text that most vindictively exhibited in a charge was worthy of them, he constructs against him; in which the latter was a fine anatomy and the book became “Criminis Iiterarii citatus.” He called Cowper a highwayman and directed a success. Norman Moore writes that vindictive language at him, whom he “it took its place as the best English belittles as “a miserable anatomist who anatomy which had appeared.” It writes like a Dutch barber.” was generally used for the next fifty years. A second English edition and Norman Moore tells us that several a Latin edition were published in years before the appearance of this Leyden in 1737,34 twenty-eight years pamphlet Dr. Hutton, who was help- after Cowper’s death. Choulant men- ing to care for William iii, informed tions another edition as having been Bidloo that Cowper was about to published in 1750. The English edition translate and plagiarize his work. was revised by C. B. Albinus, second Bidloo immediately thereafter wrote son of the great Albinus, Professor Cowper, in Latin, and it can be ex- of Medicine, Anatomy, Surgery and pected in no uncertain terms. Cowper Practice in the University of Utrecht. failed to respond and other letters fol- The portrait of Cowper does not lowed. Finally, Bidloo charged Cow- appear in either of these editions. per and his publishers, Smith and Although an entirely new type has Walford, with fraud for publishing been set, the revisions mentioned on the plates and for issuing a mere the title page are not particularly pirated compilation of the Anatomy. evident. The inscription upon the This brought a response from Cowper, shield of the allegorical title page which denied Bidloo’s sole rights to the plates and repudiated the charge has been revised through the re- engraving of the plates. Many of of having borrowed the text. For had the illustrations have lost their sharp- he not made his own, by toil and ness, due to the wear of the copper labor? And there was nothing in it plates. resembling Bidloo’s except the com- Cowper’s anatomy was first pub- mon basis of the universally accepted lished in 1698, but it was not until knowledge of anatomy. Bidloo in- corporated all this early correspond- 1700 that the storm of wrath broke out ence in the pamphlet addressed to in full force. In that year a quarto- the Royal Society. pamphlet of fifty-four pages was pub- Cowper’s reply, a retort courteous, lished by Bidloo, from Leyden, ad- was made with satirical language, dressed to the Royal Society and in pamphlet form, in the year 1701. entitled, “Gulielmus Cowper, criminis Iiterarii citatus, coram tribunali . . . Evxaptcrria, in qua Dotes plurimae et societatis Britanno-Regiae.” James singulares Godefridi Bidloo m.d . et in Atkinson tells us: illustrissima Leydarum Academia ana- tomiae professoris celeberrimi, peritia anatomica, probitas, ingenium, elegantiae 34 Printed for John Arnold Langerak, Latinitatis, Iepores, candor, humanitas, 1737, and to be had in London, Messrs. ingenuitas, solertia, verecundia, humilitas, Innys and Manby at the West End of St. urbanitas, etc., celebrantur et ejusdem Paul’s. Citationi humillime respondetur. Apparently Cowper believed that a of his “Myotomia Reformata” he “soft answer turneth away wrath,” credits Bidloo with the illustrations for, as James Atkinson writes, in the following manner: “The sculp- “Cooper did not choose to exchange tures of Bidloo are not to be forgotten, the thrust of a snic-a-snee with the since they express divers muscles and Dutch professor, yet, he smoothed him other parts so near life.” If it were so, over with the retort courteous, in the last vestige of esteem vanishes for his Eucharist.” Though courteous, Bidloo, as an anatomist, for we know Cowper did not withdraw from the that the only reputation due Bidloo fray. He stated that the illustrations through the compilation of the in Bidloo’s and his had “Anatomia Humani Corporis” is that been drawn by Gerard de Lairesse of preparing the specimens which for Jan Swammerdam, who died four inspired the drawings of de Lairesse. years before the appearance of Bidloo’s I think, therefore, that Bidloo must publication, and that his (Cowper’s) be given the credit for having the publishers had purchased the impres- illustrations prepared, and that Cow- sions and he had been requested by per merely used this statement to them to write an entirely new letter exonerate himself for using them. We press, in English, for the illustrations. must, however, acknowledge that He, therefore, denied the charge of Cowper recognized the possibilities of piracy in the question of the use of the these illustrations and employed them illustrations for, under these circum- to better advantage than Bidloo. But stances, did he not have as much right we cannot condone the methods that to them as Bidloo? As far as the text were utilized for the appropriation of was concerned, the book was new, for these plates. Because international had he not written an entirely new copyright laws were not in existence description of the plates? Be that as at this time, is no reason to believe it may, Cowper did more than to that Cowper should not have at least merely acquiesce to the request to asked permission of Bidloo to use the write a letter-press to Bidloo’s plates, illustrations. The act of plagiarism for it is said he was a party to the could not possibly pass undetected transaction and made occasional trips and the camouflage of the allegorical to Holland during the time the book title page of Cowper’s first edition is was under preparation. It is strange so self-evident and childish in its that Bidloo did not attach more blame attempt to deceive, that we cannot to his own publishers, who were the credit Cowper with an over-abundance custodians of the plates and who of commonsense. However, the opin- apparently sold the prints to Cowper ions of those who were contemporaries or his agents. give little sympathy to Bidloo. Boer- The charge of plagiarism cannot, I haave judges the plagiarism of little think, be held against Cowper in the moment because of the small value of matter concerning the text. But what Bidloo’s text.35 In later years James about the plates, is there any truth Atkinson takes the point of view that in Cowper’s statement that they were the result justified the means. He drawn for Swammerdam? I think not, writes: for Cowper was unable to substantiate 35 Methodus studii medici, Amsterdam, this claim by means of evidence, and 1751. (Quoted from editorial note in in the preface of the second edition Choulant.) On the other hand we must observe, for Cowper’s anatomy. This would that Cooper published them as Bidloo’s. explain the appearance of the water Therefore he did not commit a clandestine mark in the paper of these pages, but plagiary; and although it certainly was how are we to interpret its appearance taking an undue advantage of Bidloo’s in those of the text and of “The labors and profits, yet the public have been much benefitted by the many Appendix”? Some doubt may arise as elucidating cases, and excellent, surgical to where the text was printed. But if remarks which Cooper had added. Cowper’s book be carefully examined it will be found that the text “bears A closer examination of copies of the all the signs of Oxford printing in its first edition of these works presents an ornamental letters and its ornaments.” interesting fact. Bidloo’s anatomy is Mr. John Johnson, printer to the stated to have been published in University, of whom I enquired, has Amsterdam, which there is no reason verified this fact and, further, he tells to doubt. The title page of Cowper’s me that “it was the commonest thing anatomy bears the information that it in the world at the time for Dutch was printed at the Theater in Oxford. paper to be used in English printing. We know that the later editions were The paper of the English mills had published from Leyden. The reader still a very bad reputation.” Mr. John- has been informed that the paper of son concludes his letter by saying, the pages of Bidloo’s anatomy con- “So I am satisfied that Cowper was tains a water mark which is un- in this sense Oxford printing.” This doubtedly that of a continental paper explanation fully accounts for the maker. An examination of the pages uniformity of the texture of the paper of Cowper’s anatomy (first edition) used in the leaves of Cowper’s book reveals that they are fabricated of the and removes any doubt as to where it same paper, both as to texture and was printed. water mark, as those of Bidloo’s. This It has been said, and I think with is not confined alone to the pages con- some truth, that Cowper’s anatomy taining the illustrations, but also to may be regarded as but a later edition those of the text and to those of “The of Bidloo’s. Therefore, Bidloo must Appendix,” both text and illustra- be given due credit for any suc- tions.36 This fact brings to our atten- cess that Cowper’s anatomy attained. tion the question of whether Cowper’s That it did attain distinction, there anatomy was really printed in Eng- is no doubt, as shown by the publica- land. Did his publishers send to tion of later editions. Holland for the paper or was the It is difficult to estimate the exact entire book printed in that country? value of Cowper’s book and the Choulant states that “On account influence it had upon the study of of the small sale of the work the pub- anatomy. At the time it was published lishers gave three hundred impressions we are told that the teaching of of these plates to the English Surgeon anatomy in England was at its lowest and Anatomist William Cowper.” All ebb. This was in 1698. Within the authorities agree that the impressions next twenty-five to thirty years, how- from the plates were sent to England ever, there were several important 36 The paper that was used for the later schools of anatomy established in editions of Cowper’s anatomy has a different London. William Cheselden, in 1713, water mark than that of the first edition. wrote a book of anatomy. It was a small volume, octavo in size, and that the book did not influence the cannot, therefore, be compared with renewed interest shown in the study Cowper’s large atlas. It was, however, of anatomy which soon after spread republished in many editions. His throughout the Kingdom. There is “Osteographia” is the finest atlas of enough evidence, I think, to believe the bones of the body that had been that this book, a compilation of two produced and I think Cowper may authors, was the first sign of the have placed the thought of this rebirth of the interest which, propa- atlas in Cheselden’s mind when he gated by others, lead on to the time was his master. Edinburgh’s fame when Edinburgh and London came for medical study began in 1720, to replace Leyden as the center of when (1697-1767) medical education. was elected “Professor of Anatomy Refer enc es in this City and College” by the Town Council.37 Monro had studied Atkin so n , J. Medical Bibliography. Lond., in Leyden but had come indirectly un- Churchill, 1834. Bidloo, pp. 278-279. Bell , J. Engravings, Explaining the Anatomy der the influence of Cowper, through of the Bones, Muscles and Joints. Edin., having been at an earlier time a Paterson, 1794. Ref. to Bidloo in preface. pupil of Cheselden. Later, there were Biographie universelle. Paris, Desplaces, 1854. in London James Douglas (1675- Article on Bidloo, by Chaussier and 1742), with whom William Hunter Adelon, vol. 4, p. 290. Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden lived as resident pupil; Samuel Sharp Arzte. 2. Aufl. Berlin, Urban, 1929. (1700-1778) and Percival Pott (1714— Article on Bidloo, by C. E. Daniels, 1788) and, following these men, the vol. 1, p. 526. Hunterian school came into existence. Cho ula nt , J. L. History and Bibliography of We can only speculate as to the Anatomic Illustration. Trans, and ed. influence that Cowper’s book had by Mortimer Frank. Chicago, Univ, of Chic. Press, 1920. on the development of anatomical Dictionary of National Biography. N. Y., study in England. That Cowper’s Macmillan, 1908. Article on Cowper, by anatomy was extensively used, there Norman Moore, vol. 4, pp. 1313-1314. is little doubt, for it was the most Lives of British Physicians. London, Murray, complete discussion of the subject 1832, p. 122. Reference to Bidloo, in article on Radcliffe. that had as yet been published in Mc Int os h , W. A. Cowper—the anatomist. the English tongue. Though we are Canad. M. A. J., 10: 938-945, 1920. told it owes its popularity to the Macmi cha el , W. The Gold-headed Cane. fact that the study of this subject Ed. 5, with introd, and annot. by George was at its lowest ebb in Great Britain, C. Peachey. Lond., Kimpton, 1923. this cannot be used as an argument Ref. to Bidloo, in Chap. 1, Radcliffe. Will iam Cow per , the anatomist. Brit. M. J.r 37 Quoted by Ball, J. M. The Sack-em-up 1: 161, 1898. Comment, by Sidney Men. Lond., Oliver & Boyd, 1928, p. 54. Coupland, Ibid., 404.