Anatomy and Anatomists in Early Modern Spain by Bjørn Okholm Skaarup (review)

Bjørn Skaarup’s study is a welcome addition to the history of anatomy, offering a much-needed perspective on Spain. Skaarup focuses specifically on the practice and teaching of human anatomy in late sixteenth-century Spain both before and after the publication of Andreas Vesalius’s seminal text, De humani corporis fabrica (1543). The anatomical renaissance of the sixteenth century has received great attention, most of it centered on Vesalius and his colleagues and successors. Spain has long been dismissed by both biographers of Vesalius and historians of anatomy as an insular and highly traditional society uninterested in new learning. Skaarup challenges these traditional assumptions, showing instead both the deep interest in anatomical studies and “the highly complex and previously often oversimplified circumstances surrounding anatomical research” (p. 19) in Spain. In order to do so, Skaarup carefully works through the conflicting interpretations in the secondary literature, as well as conflicting information given in Spanish anatomical and surgical texts themselves, which often present conflicting claims of primacy for discoveries or practices.

Skaarup begins with a clear and well-grounded discussion of “la polémica de la ciencia Española,” the debate over Spanish “backwardness” in the sciences which originated in the nineteenth century. This is a well-written summation in which Skaarup offers a solid introduction to key questions of Spanish historiography that will be particularly helpful for those scholars drawn to the subject of the book but not familiar with the Spanish context. For those more familiar with the debates, this opening offers a useful encapsulation of key issues. Throughout the remainder of the text, Skaarup refers frequently to this historiography, both challenging and reaffirming traditional interpretations based on his own research.

Following this introductory chapter, the book spends the next six chapters examining the particular circumstances at universities in both Castile and Aragon: Valencia, Salamanca, Valladolid, Alcalá de Henares, Barcelona, and Zaragoza. The final chapters examine anatomy “Beyond the Universities” (which is to say, at the Monastery of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe), “Beyond Iberia” (which looks at early treatises published in Mexico), and in images. In all of these, the author carefully sifts through evidence from both primary and secondary sources to lay out both the physical and intellectual development of anatomical studies in each place. From the earliest anatomical studies at Valencia to the earliest permanent anatomical theater at the University of Salamanca to the University of Valladolid’s lack of a permanent chair of anatomy, Skaarup offers a detailed portrait of anatomical studies within their regional contexts. At Salamanca, for example, despite the early embrace of anatomical dissections for teaching, within two generations the teaching program had reverted to Galenic principles and theories. Valladolid, by contrast, despite never creating a permanent chair of anatomy, produced the first Spanish vernacular text on anatomy, Bernardino Montaña’s Libro de la anothomia del hombre (1551). These regional distinctions, not only between Castile and Aragon but also between cities within each realm, are crucial for understanding any aspect of Spanish history, and Skaarup has wisely structured his text as a sort of geographical survey in order to accommodate the distinctions.

Beyond the details of anatomical study that Skaarup illuminates, his study strongly reinforces the idea that scientific knowledge rarely moves in a straight line of progression, but rather often waxes and wanes. The “new” anatomy of Vesalius was in many cases accepted and taught for a time at Spanish universities, only to later be abandoned in favor of a return to traditional Galenic views, while the practice of dissection for teaching purposes likewise grew then shrank. Skaarup is careful to take these intellectual shifts on their own terms, neither promoting some as “forward thinking” nor chastising others for “backwardness.” As he states, these anatomical studies “were frequently instigated and supported by the highest authorities, but also often collided with a society embedded in religious, scientific and medical orthodoxy” (p. 19). This is...