While the economical, and especially the mutual-banking, ideas of Proudhon found supporters and even a practical application in the United States, his political conception of Anarchy found but little echo in France, where the Christian Socialism of Lamennais and the Fourierists, and the State Socialism of Louis Blanc and the followers of Saint-Simon, were dominating. These ideas found, however, some temporary support among the left-wing Hegelians in Germany, Moses Hess in 1843, and Karl Grun in 1845, who advocated Anarchism. Besides, the authoritarian Communism of Wilhelm Weitling having given origin to opposition amongst the Swiss working men, Wilhelm Marr gave expression to it in the 'forties.
On the other side, Individualist Anarchism found, also in Germany, its fullest expression in Max Stirner (Kaspar Schmidt), whose remarkable works (Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum and articles contributed to the Rheinische Zeitung) remained quite overlooked until they were brought into prominence by John Henry Mackay.
Prof. V. Basch, in a very able introduction to his interesting book, L'Individualisme anarchiste: Max Stirner (1904), has shown how the development of the German philosophy from Kant to Hegel, and ``the absolute'' of Schelling and the Geist of Hegel, necessarily provoked, when the anti-Hegelian revolt began, the preaching of the same ``absolute'' in the camp of the rebels. This was done by Stirner, who advocated, not only a complete revolt against the state and against the servitude which authoritarian Communism would impose upon men, but also the full liberation of the individual from all social and moral bonds—the rehabilitation of the ``I,'' the supremacy of the individual, complete ``a-moralism,'' and the ``association of the egotists.'' The final conclusion of that sort of Individual Anarchism has been indicated by Prof. Basch. It maintains that the aim of all superior civilization is, not to permit all members of the community to develop in a normal way, but to permit certain better endowed individuals ``fully to develop,'' even at the cost of the happiness and the very existence of the mass of mankind. It is thus a return towards the most common individualism, advocated by all the would-be superior minorities, to which indeed man owes in his history precisely the state and the rest, which these individualists combat. Their individualism goes so far as to end in a negation of their own starting-point,—to say nothing of the impossibility for the individual to attain a really full development in the conditions of oppression of the masses by the ``beautiful aristocracies.'' His development would remain uni-lateral. This is why this direction of thought, notwithstanding its undoubtedly correct and useful advocacy of the full development of each individuality, finds a hearing only in limited artistic and literary circles.
Anarchism in the International Working Men's Association.—A general depression in the propaganda of all fractions of Socialism followed, as is known, after the defeat of the uprising of the Paris working men in June 1848 and the fall of the Republic. All the Socialist press was gagged during the reaction period, which lasted fully twenty years. Nevertheless, even Anarchist thought began to make some progress, namely in the writings of Bellegarrique (Coeurderoy), and especially Joseph Dejacque (Les Lazareennes, L'Humanisphere, an Anarchist-Communist Utopia, lately discovered and reprinted). The Socialist movement revived only after 1864, when some French working men, all ``mutualists,'' meeting in London during the Universal Exhibition with English followers of Robert Owen, founded the International Working Men's Association. This association developed very rapidly and adopted a policy of direct economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation, and this policy was followed until 1871. However, after the Franco-German War, when the International Association was prohibited in France after the uprising of the Commune, the German working men, who had received manhood suffrage for elections to the newly constituted imperial parliament, insisted upon modifying the tactics of the International, and began to build up a Social-Democratic political party. This soon led to a division in the Working Men's Association, and the Latin federations, Spanish, Italian, Belgian and Jurassic (France could not be represented), constituted among themselves a Federal union which broke entirely with the Marxist general council of the International. Within these federations developed now what may be described as modern Anarchism. After the names of ``Federalists'' and ``Anti-authoritarians'' had been used for some time by these federations the name of ``Anarchists,'' which their adversaries insisted upon applying to them, prevailed, and finally it was revindicated.
Bakunin (q.v.) soon became the leading spirit among these Latin federations for the development of the principles of Anarchism, which he did in a number of writings, pamphlets and letters. He demanded the complete abolition of the state, which—he wrote—is a product of religion, belongs to a lower state of civilization, represents the negation of liberty, and spoils even that which it undertakes to do for the sake of general well-being. The state was an historically necessary evil, but its complete extinction will be, sooner or later, equally necessary. Repudiating all legislation, even when issuing from universal suffrage, Bakunin claimed for each nation, each region and each commune, full autonomy, so long as it is not a menace to its neighbours, and full independence for the individual, adding that one becomes really free only when, and in proportion as, all others are free. Free federations of the communes would constitute free nations.
As to his economical conceptions, Bakunin described himself, in common with his Federalist comrades of the International (Cesar De Paepe, James Guillaume Schwitzguebel), a ``Collectivist Anarchist''—not in the sense of Vidal and Pecqueur in the 'forties, or of their modern Social-Democratic followers, but to express a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the Labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, Communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself. Social revolution, the near approach of which was foretold at that time by all Socialists, would be the means of bringing into life the new conditions.
The Jurassic, the Spanish, and the Italian federations and sections of the International Working Men's Association, as also the French, the German and the American Anarchist groups, were for the next years the chief centres of Anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrained from any participation in parliamentary politics, and always kept in close contact with the Labour organizations. However, in the second half of the 'eighties and the early 'nineties of the 19th century, when the influence of the Anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in the 1st of May demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general strike for an eight hours' day, and in the anti-militarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona Castle) and the United States (the execution of five Chicago Anarchists in 1887). Against these prosecutions the Anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which in their turn were followed by more executions from above, and new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general public the impression that violence is the substance of Anarchism, a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them outlaws. (Cf. Anarchism and Outrage, by C. M. Wilson, and Report of the Spanish Atrocities Committee, in ``Freedom Pamphlets''; A Concise History of the Great Trial of the Chicago Anarchists, by Dyer Lum (New York, 1886); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches, &c.).1
Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian ``Mutuellisme,'' but chiefly as Communist- Anarchism, to which a third direction, Christian-Anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy, and a fourth, which might be ascribed as literary-Anarchism, began amongst some prominent modern writers.
The ideas of Proudhon, especially as regards mutual banking, corresponding with those of Josiah Warren, found a considerable following in the United States, creating quite a school, of which the main writers are Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Grene, Lysander Spooner (who began to write in 1850, and whose unfinished work, Natural Law, was full of promise), and several others, whose names will be found in Dr Nettlan's Bibliographie de l'anarchie.
A prominent position among the Individualist Anarchists in America has been occupied by Benjamin R. Tucker, whose journal Liberty was started in 1881 and whose conceptions are a combination of those of Proudhon with those of Herbert Spencer. Starting from the statement that Anarchists are egotists, strictly speaking, and that every group of individuals, be it a secret league of a few persons, or the Congress of the United States, has the right to oppress all mankind, provided it has the power to do so, that equal liberty for all and absolute equality ought to be the law, and ``mind every one your own business'' is the unique moral law of Anarchism, Tucker goes on to prove that a general and thorough application of these principles would be beneficial and would offer no danger, because the powers of every individual would be limited by the exercise of the equal rights of all others.
He further indicated (following H. Spencer) the difference which exists between the encroachment on somebody's rights and resistance to such an encroachment; between domination and defence: the former being equally condemnable, whether it be encroachment of a criminal upon an individual, or the encroachment of one upon all others, or of all others upon one; while resistance to encroachment is defensible and necessary. For their self-defence, both the citizen and the group have the right to any violence, including capital punishment. Violence is also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker thus follows Spencer, and, like him, opens (in the present writer's opinion) the way for reconstituting under the heading of ``defence'' all the functions of the state. His criticism of the present state is very searching, and his defence of the rights of the individual very powerful. As regards his economical views B. R. Tucker follows Proudhon.
The Individualist Anarchism of the American Proudhonians finds, however, but little sympathy amongst the working masses. Those who profess it—they are chiefly ``intellectuals''—soon realize that the individualization they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and either abandon the ranks of the Anarchists, and are driven into the Liberal individualism of the classical economists, or they retire into a sort of Epicurean a-moralism, or super-man-theory, similar to that of Stirner and Nietzsche. The great bulk of the Anarchist working men prefer the Anarchist-Communist ideas which have gradually evolved out of the Anarchist Collectivism of the International Working Men's Association. To this direction belong—to name only the better known exponents of Anarchism—Elisee Reclus, Jean Grave, Sebastien Faure, Emile Pouget in France; Enrico Malatesta and Covelli in Italy; R. Mella, A. Lorenzo, and the mostly unknown authors of many excellent manifestos in Spain; John Most amongst the Germans; Spies, Parsons and their followers in the United States, and so on; while Domela Nieuwenhuis occupies an intermediate position in Holland. The chief Anarchist papers which have been published since 1880 also belong to that direction; while a number of Anarchists of this direction have joined the so-called Syndicalist movement—the French name for the non-political Labour movement, devoted to direct struggle with capitalism, which has lately become so prominent in Europe.
As one of the Anarchist-Communist direction, the present writer for many years endeavoured to develop the following ideas: to show the intimate, logical connexion which exists between the modern philosophy of natural sciences and anarchism; to put Anarchism on a scientific basis by the study of the tendencies that are apparent now in society and may indicate its further evolution; and to work out the basis of Anarchist ethics. As regards the substance of Anarchism itself, it was Kropotkin's aim to prove that Communism—at least partial—has more chances of being established than Collectivism, especially in communes taking the lead, and that Free, or Anarchist- Communism is the only form of Communism that has any chance of being accepted in civilized societies; Communism and Anarchy are therefore two terms of evolution which complete each other, the one rendering the other possible and acceptable. He has tried, moreover, to indicate how, during a revolutionary period, a large city—if its inhabitants have accepted the idea—could organize itself on the lines of Free Communism; the city guaranteeing to every inhabitant dwelling, food and clothing to an extent corresponding to the comfort now available to the middle classes only, in exchange for a half-day's, or a five-hours' work; and how all those things which would be considered as luxuries might be obtained by every one if he joins for the other half of the day all sorts of free associations pursuing all possible aims—educational, literary, scientific, artistic, sports and so on. In order to prove the first of these assertions he has analysed the possibilities of agriculture and industrial work, both being combined with brain work. And in order to elucidate the main factors of human evolution, he has analysed the part played in history by the popular constructive agencies of mutual aid and the historical role of the state.
Without naming himself an Anarchist, Leo Tolstoy, like his predecessors in the popular religious movements of the 15th and 16th centuries, Chojecki, Denk and many others, took the Anarchist position as regards the state and property rights, deducing his conclusions from the general spirit of the teachings of the Christ and from the necessary dictates of reason. With all the might of his talent he made (especially in The Kingdom of God in Yourselves) a powerful criticism of the church, the state and law altogether, and especially of the present property laws. He describes the state as the domination of the wicked ones, supported by brutal force. Robbers, he says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized government. He makes a searching criticism of the prejudices which are current now concerning the benefits conferred upon men by the church, the state and the existing distribution of property, and from the teachings of the Christ he deduces the rule of non-resistance and the absolute condemnation of all wars. His religious arguments are, however, so well combined with arguments borrowed from a dispassionate observation of the present evils, that the anarchist portions of his works appeal to the religious and the non-religious reader alike.
It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of Anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best comtemporary writers have exercised upon the development of Anarchism. One ought to consult the ten big volumes of the Supplement litteraire to the paper La revolte and later the Temps nouveaux, which contain reproductions from the works of hundreds of modern authors expressing Anarchist ideas, in order to realize how closely Anarchism is connected with all the intellectual movement of our own times. J. S. Mill's Liberty, Spencer's Individual versus The State, Marc Guyau's Morality without Obligation or Sanction, and Fouillee's La morale, l'art et la religion, the works of Multatuli (E. Douwes Dekker), Richard Wagner's Art and Revolution, the works of Nietzsche, Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Alexander Herzen, Edward Carpenter and so on; and in the domain of fiction, the dramas of Ibsen, the poetry of Walt Whitman, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Zola's Paris and Le travail, the latest works of Merezhkovsky, and an infinity of works of less known authors,—are full of ideas which show how closely Anarchism is interwoven with the work that is going on in modern thought in the same direction of enfranchisement of man from the bonds of the state as well as from those of capitalism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning Political Justice and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness, 1st edition, 2 vols. (1793). Mutualism:—John Gray, A Lecture on Human Happiness (1825); The Social System, a Treatise on the Principles of Exchange (1831); Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la propriete 11er memoire (1840) (Eng. trans. by B. Tucker); Idee generale sur la revolution (1851);. Confession d'un revolutionnaire (1849); Contradictions economiques (1846); Josiah Warren, Practicable Details of Equitable Commerce (New York, 1852); True Civilizaltion (Boston, 1863); Stephen Pearl Andrews, The Science of Society (1851); Cost, the Limit of Price; Moses Hess, ``Sozialismus und Communismus, Philosophie der That'' (on Herwegh's Ein-und-Zwanzip Bogen aus der Schweiz, 1843); Karl Grun, Die soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien (1845); W. Marr, Das junge Deutschland (1845). Anarchist Individualism:—Max Stirner (J. K. Schmidt), Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (1845) (Fr. trans., 1900); J. H. Mackay, Max Stirner, sein Leben und sein Werk (1898): V. Basch, L'Individualisme anarchists (1904). Transition period:—J. Dejacque, Les Lazareennes rj85I); Le Libertaire, weekly, New York, 1858—1861, containing Anarchist Collectivism of the International:—The papers Egalite, Progres (Locle), Solidaritet; James Guillaume, Idees sur l'organisation seciale (1876); Bulletin de la .federation jurassienne (1872-1879); A. Schwitzguebel, OEuvres; Paul Brousse, Le Suffrage universel (1874); L'Etat a Versailles et dans l'association internationale (1874); newspaper L'Avant-garde (suppressed 1878); Arthur Arnould, L'Etat et la revolution (1877); Histoire populaire de la commune (3 vols., 1878); Cesar de Paepe, in Rive gauche and La liberte (1867-1883). Many others are in the Comptes rendus of the congresses of the International Working Men's Association. All these ideas, conceived as a whole, may be found in Bakunin's Federalisme, socialisme et anti-theologisme, published first in portions under the names of L'Empire knouto-germanique, Dieu et l'etat, The State-Idea and Anarchy (Russian), and only now reproduced in full in his OEuvres (Paris, 1905 and seq.); Sozialpolitischer Briefwechsel (1894); Statuts de l'alliance internationale (1868); Proposition motivee au comite central de la ligue de la paix et de la llberte (1868.) The famous Revolutionary Catechism attributed to Bakunin, was not his work. Biographie von Michael Bakunin, by Dr M. Nettlan, 3 large vols., contains masses of letters, &c. (hectographed in 50 copies; in all chief libraries).
MODERN ANARCHISM.—The best sources are the collections of newspapers which, although compelled sometimes to change their names, were run for considerable lengths of time and are appearing still: J. Most, Freiheit, since 1878; Le Revolte—La Revolte—Temps nouveaux, since 1878; Domela Nieuwenhuis, Recht voor Allen, since 1878; Freedom, since 1886; Le Libertaire; Pouget's Pere Pesuard; Reveil-Risveglio; see Nettlan's Bibliographie. These papers and a great number of pamphlets are indispensable for those who intend to know anarchism, as the works published in book form are not numerous. Of the latter only a few will be mentioned:—Elisee Reclus, Evolution and Revolution, many editions in all languages; ``Anarchy by an Anarchist,'' in Contemp. Review (May, 1884); The Ideal and Youth (1895); Jean Grave, La Societe au lendemain de la revolution, many editions since 1882; La Societe mourante et l'anarchie (1893); L'Autonomie selon la science (1882); La Societe future (1895); L'Anarchie, son but, ses moyens; Sebastien Faure, La Douleur universelle (1892); A. Hamon, Les Hemmes et les theories de l'anarchie (1893); Psychologie de l'anarchiste-socialiste (1895); Enrico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, transl. in all languages—Eng. trans. A Talk about Anarchist Communism, in ``Freedom Pamphlets'' (1891); Anarchy (do. 1892); Au cafe; and many other Italian pamphlets, as also several papers started at various times in Italy under different names: F. S. Merlino, Socialismo o Menopolismo (1887). Pamphlets, reviews and papers by P. Gori, L. Molinari, E. Covelli, &c. The manifestos of the Spanish Federations contain excellent expositions of Anarchism; cf. also many books, pamphlets and papers by J. Llunas y Pujals, J. Serrano y Oteiza, Ricardo Mella, A. Lorenzo, &c. John Most, the paper Freiheit, of which a few articles only have been reprinted as pamphlets in the Internationale Bibliothek (``The Deistic Pestilence,'' ``The Beast of Property'' in English); Memoiren, 3 fascicules. F. Domela Nieuwenhuis, Le Socialisme en danger (1895); C. Malato, Philosophie de l'anarchie (1890); Charlotte Wilson, Anarchism (``Fabian Tracts,'' 4); Anarchism and Violence (``Freedom Pamphlets''); Albert Parsons, Anarchism, its Philosophy and Scientific Basis (Chicago, 1888); The Chicago Martyrs: Speeches in Court; P. Kropotkin, Paroles d'un revolte (1884); Conquest of Bread (1906) (1st French ed. in 1890); Anarchist Morality; Anarchy, its Philosophy and Ideals; Anarchist Communism; The State, its Historic Role; and other ``Freedom Pamphlets''; Fields, Factories and Workshops (5th popular edition, 1807); Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution (1904). Modern Individualist Anarchists:—B. Tucker, the paper Liberty (1892 sqq.); Instead of a Book, by one too busy to write one (Boston, 1893); Dyer Lum, Social Problems (1883); Lysander Spooner, Natural Law, or the Science of Justice (Boston, 1891). Religious Anarchists:—Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God in Yourselves; My Faith; Confession; &c.
The best work on Anarchism, and in fact the only one written with full knowledge of the Anarchist literature, and quite fairly, is by a German judge Dr Paul Eltzbacher, Anarchismus (transl. in all chief European languages, except English). Prof. Adler's article ``Anarchismus'' in Conrad's Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, vol. i., is less accurate for modern times than for the earlier periods. G. v. Zenker, Der Anarchismus (1895); and Prof. Edmund Bernatzik, ``Der Anarchismus,'' in Schmoller's Jahrbuch, may also be mentioned—the remainder being written with absolute want of knowledge of the subject.
A most important work is the reasoned Bibliographie de l'anarchie, by Dr M. Nettlan (Brussels, 1897, 8vo, 294 ff.), written with a full knowledge of the subject and its immense literature. (P. A. K.)
1 It is imoortant to remember that the term ``Anarchist', is inevitably rather loosely used in public, in connexion with the authors of a certain class of murderous outrages, and that the same looseness of definition often applies to the professions of ``Anarchism'' made by such persons. As stated above, a philosophic Anarchist would repudiate the connexion. And the general public view which regards Anarchist doctrines indiscriminately is to that extent a confusion of terms. But the following resume of the chief modern so-called ``Anarchist'' incidents is appended for convenience in stating the facts under the heading where a reader would expect to find them.
Between 1852 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned. In England, Most, one of the German Anarchist leaders, founded Die Freiheit, and, for defending in it the assassination of Alexander II. at St Petersburg, was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour. After this he moved to the United States, and re-established his paper there in New York, in May 1886. During this period there were several Anarchist congresses in the United States. In one at Albany, in 1878, the revolutionary element, led by Justus Schwab, broke away from the others; at Allegheny City, in 1879, again there was a rupture between the peaceful and the revolutionary sections. The Voice of the People at St Louis, the Arbeiter Zeitung at Chicago, and the Anarchist at Boston, were the organs of the revolutionary element. In 1883, at Pittsburg, a congress of twenty-eight delegates, representing twenty-two towns, drew up an address to the working men of America. The programme it proposed was as follows:—
First, Destruction of the existing class rule by all means, i.e. energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international action.
Second, Establishment of a free society, based upon co-operative organization of production.
Third, Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organizations, without commerce and profit-mongery.
Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and equal basis for both sexes.
Fifth, Equal rights for all, without distinction of sex or race. the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.
This, together with an appeal to the working men to organize, was published in Chicago, November 1883, by a local committee of four, representing French, Bohemian, German and English sections, the head of the last being August Spies, who was hanged in 1887 for participation in the Haymarket affair in Chicago, 4th May 1886. This affair was the culmination of a series of encounters between the Chicago working men and the police, which had covered several years. The meeting of 4th May was called by Spies and others to protest against the action of the police, by whom several working men had been killed in collisions growing out of the efforts to introduce the eight hours' day. The mayor of the city attended the meeting, but, finding it peaceful, went home. The meeting was subsequently entered by the police and commanded to disperse. A bomb was thrown, several policemen being killed and a number wounded. For this crime eight men were tried in one panel and condemned, seven—Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Fielden, Schwab, and Ling—to death, and one—Neebe—to imprisonment for fifteen years. The sentences on Fielden and Schwab were commuted by Governor Oglesby to imprisonment for life, on the recommendation of the presiding judge and the prosecuting attorney. Ling committed suicide in jail, and Spies, Parsons, Engel and Fischer were hanged, 11th November 1887. On 26th June 1893 an unconditional pardon was granted the survivors, Fielden, Schwab and Neebe, by Governor Altgeld. The reasons for the pardon were stated by the governor to be that, upon an examination of the records he found that the jury had not been drawn in the usual manner, but by a special bailiff, who made his own selection and had summoned a ``prejudiced jury''; that the ``state had never discovered who it was that threw ihe bomb which killed the policemen, and the evidence does not show any connexion whatever between the defendants and the man who did throw it,'' . . . or that this man ``ever heard or read a word coming from the defendants, and consequently fails to show that he acted on any advice given by them.'' Judge Gary, the judge at the trial, published a defence of its procedure in the Century Magazine, vol. xxiii p. 803.
A number of outbreaks in later years were attributed to the propaganda of reform by revolution, like those in Spain and France in 1892, in which Ravachol was a prominent figure. In 1893 a bomb was exploded in the French Chamber of Deputies by Vaillant. The spirit of these men is well illustrated by the reply which Vaillant made to the judge who reproached him for endangering the lives of innocent men and women: ``There can be no innocent bourgeois.'' In 1894 there was an explosion in a Parisian cafe, and another in a theatre at Barcelona. For the latter outrage six men were executed. President Carnot of the French Republic was assassinated by an Italian at Lyons in the same year. The empress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in September 1898. These events, all associated by the public with ``Anarchism,'' led to the passage by the Uniied States Congress of a law, in 1894, to keep out foreign Anarchists, and to deport any who might be found in the country, and also to the assemblage of an international conference in Rome, in 1898, to agree upon some plan for dealing with these revolutionists. It was proposed that their offences should no longer be classed as political, but as common-law crimes, and be made subject to extradition. The suppression of the revolutionary press and the international co-operation of the police were also suggested. The results of the conference were not, however, published; and the question of how to deal with the campaign against society fell for a while into abeyance. The attempt made by the youth Sipido on the (then) prince of Wales at Brussels in 1900 recalled attention to the subject. The acquittal of Sipido, and the failure of the Belgian government to see that justice was done in an affair of such international importance, excited considerable feeling in England, and was the occasion of a strongly-worded note from the British to the Belgian government. The murder of King Humbert of Italy in July 1900 renewed the outcry against Italian Anarchists. Even greater horror and indignation were excited by the assassination of President McKinley by Czolgoscz on the 6th of September 1901, at Buffalo, U.S.A. And a particularly dastardly attempt was made to blow up the young king and queen of Spain on their wedding-day in 1906. (ED. E.B.)
ANASTASIUS, the name of four popes. ANASTASIUS I., pope from 399-401. He it was who condemned the writings of Origen shortly after their translation into Latin.
ANASTASIUS II., pope from 496-498. He lived in the time of the schism of Acacius of Constantinople. He showed some tendency towards conciliation, and thus brought upon himself the lively reproaches of the author of the Liber pontificalis. On the strength of this tradition, Dante has placed this pope in hell.
ANASTASIUS III., pope from 911-913, was a Roman by birth. Practically nothing is recorded of him, his pontificate falling in the period when Rome was in the power of the Roman nobles.
ANASTASIUS IV. was pope from 1153 to 1154. He was a Roman named Conrad, son of Benedictus, and at the time of his election, on the 9th of July 1153, was cardinal bishop of Sabina. He had taken part in the double election of 1130, had been one of the most determined opponents of Anacletus II. and, when Innocent II. fled to France, had been left behind as his vicar in Italy. During his short pontificate, however, he played the part of a peacemaker; he came to terms with the emperor Frederick I. in the vexed question of the appointment to the see of Magdeburg and closed the long quarrel, which had raged through four pontificates, about the appointment of William Fitzherbert (d. 1154)—commonly known as St William of York—to the see of York, by sending him the pallium, in spite of the continued opposition of the powerful Cistercian order. Anastasius died on the 3rd of December 1154, and was succeeded by Cardinal Nicholas of Albano as Adrian IV.
ANASTASIUS I. (c. 430-518), Roman emperor, was born at Dyrrhachium not later than A.D. 430. At the time of the death of Zeno (491), Anastasius, a palace official (silentiarius), held a very high character, and was raised to the throne of the Roman empire of the East, through the choice of Ariadne, Zeno's widow, who married him shortly after his accession. His reign, though afterwards disturbed by foreign and intestine wars and religious distractions, commenced auspiciously. He gained the popular favour by a judicious remission of taxation, and displayed great vigour and energy in administering the affairs of the empire. The principal wars in which Anastasius was engaged were those known as the Isaurian and the Persian. The former (492-496) was stirred up by the supporters of Longinus, the brother of Zeno. The victory of Cotyaeum in 493 ``broke the back'' of the revolt, but a guerilla warfare continued in the Isaurian mountains for some years longer. In the war with Persia (502-505), Theodosiopolis and Amida were captured by the enemy, but the Persian provinces also suffered severely and the Romans recovered Amida. Both adversaries were exhausted when peace was made (506) on the basis of status quo. Anastasius afterwards built the strong fortress of Daras to hold Nisibis in check. The Balkan provinces were devastated by invasions of Slavs and Bulgarians; to protect Constantinople and its vicinity against them he built the ``Anastasian wall,'' extending from the Propontis to the Euxine. The emperor was a convinced Monophysite, but his ecclesiastical policy was moderate; he endeavoured to maintain the principle of the Henotikon of Zeno and the peace of the church. It was the uncompromising attitude of the orthodox extremists, and the rebellious demonstrations of the Byzantine populace, that drove him in 512 to abandon this policy and adopt a monophysitic programme. His consequent unpopularity in the European provinces was utilized by an ambitious man, named Vitalian, to organize a dangerous rebellion, in which he was assisted by a horde of ``Huns'' (514-515); it was finally suppressed by a naval victory won by the general Marinus. The financial policy of Anastasius was so prudent and economical that it gained him a reputation for avarice and contributed to his unpopularity. He died in 518.
AUTHORITIES.—Sources: Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle, ed. Wright, with English translation, Cambridge, 1882; Marcellinus, Chronicle; Zachariah of Mytilene, Chronicle (Eng. trans. by Hamilton and Brooks, London, 1899); Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History; John Lydus, De Magistratibus; John Malalas, Chronicle. Modern works: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iv. (ed. Bury); Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. i.
ANASTASIUS II. (d. 721), Roman emperor in the East, whose original name was Artemius, was raised to the throne of Constantinople by the voice of the senate and people in A.D. 713, on the deposition of Philippicus, whom he had served in the capacity of secretary. The empire was threatened by the Saracens both by land and sea, and Anastasius sent an army under Leo the Isaurian, afterwards emperor, to defend Syria; adopted wise and resolute measures for the defence of his capital; attempted to reorganize the discipline of the army; and equipped and despatched to Rhodes a formidable naval force, with orders not only to resist the approach of the enemy, but to destroy their naval stores. The troops of the Opsikian province, resenting the emperor's strict measures, mutinied, slew the admiral, and proclaimed Theodosius, a person of low extraction, emperor. After a six months' siege, Constantinople was taken by Theodosius; and Anastasius, who had fled to Nicaea, was compelled to submit to the new emperor, and, retiring to Thessalonica, became a monk (716). In 721 he headed a revolt against Leo, who had succeeded Theodosius, and receiving a considerable amount of support, laid siege to Constantinople; but the enterprise failed, and Anastasius, falling into Leo's hands, was put to death by his orders.
AUTHORITIES.—Sources: Theophanes, Chronicle: NicephorusPatriarches, Breviarium. Modern works: Gibbon, Decline andFall, vol. v. (ed. Bury); Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii.
ANASTOMOSIS (a Greek word in which the second o is long, from anastomoun, to furnish with a mouth or outlet), the intercommunication between two vessels; a word used in vegetable and animal anatomy for the communication between channels (arteries and veins) containing fluid, and also for the crossing between the veins or branches of leaves, trees, insect-wings or river-connexions, and by analogy in art-design.
ANATASE, one of the three mineral forms of titanium dioxide. It is always found as small, isolated and sharply developed crystals, and like rutile, a more commonly occurring modification of titanium dioxide, it crystallizes in the tetragonal system; but, although the degree of symmetry is the same for both, there is no relation between the interfacial angles of the two minerals, except, of course, in the prism-zone of 45 deg. and 90 deg. . The common pyramid {111} (fig. 1) of anatase,1 parallel to the faces of which there are perfect cleavages, has an angle over the polar edge of 82 deg. 9', the corresponding angle (111): (111) of rutile being 56 deg. 52 1/2'. It was on account of this steeper pyramid of anatase that the mineral was named, by R. J. Hauy in 1801, from the Gr. anatasis, ``extension,'' the vertical axis of the crystals being longer than in rutile. There are also important differences between the physical characters of anatase and rutile; the former is not quite so hard (H= 5 1/2-6) or dense (sp. gr. = 3.9); it is optically negative, rutile being positive; and its lustre is even more strongly adamantine or metallic-adamantine than that of rutile.
Two types or habits of anatase crystals may be distinguished. The commoner occurs as simple acute double pyramids {111} (fig. 1) with an indigo-blue to black colour and steely lustre. Crystals of this kind are abundant at Le Bourg d'Oisans in Dauphine, where they are associated with rock-crystal, felspar and axinite in crevices in granite and mica-schist. Similar crystals, but of microscopic size, are widely distributed in sedimentary rocks, such as sandstones, clays and slates, from which they may be separated by washing away the lighter constituents of the powdered rock. Crystals of the second type have numerous pyramidal faces developed, and they are usually flatter or sometimes prismatic in habit (fig. 2); the colour is honey-yellow to
brown. Such crystals closely resemble xenotine in appearance and, indeed, were for a long time supposed to belong to this species, the special name wiserine being applied to them. They occur attached to the walls of crevices in the gneisses of the Alps, the Binnenthal near Brieg in canton Valais, Switzerland, being a well-known locality.
When strongly heated, anatase is converted into rutile, changing in specific gravity to 4.1; naturally occurring pseudomorphs of rutile after anatase are also known. Crystals of anatase have been artificially prepared by several methods; for instance, by the interaction of steam and titanium chloride or fluoride.
Another name commonly in use for this mineral is octahedrite, a name which, indeed, is earlier than anatase, and given because of the common (acute) octahedral habit of the crystals. Other names, now obsolete, are oisanite and dauphinite, from the well-known French locality. (L. J. S.)
1 For the notation see CRYSTALLOGRAPHY.
ANATHEMA (from Gr. anatithenai, to lift up), literally an offering, a thing set aside. The classical Greek form anathema (Lat. anathema) was the technical term for a gift (cf. donarium, oblatio) made to a god either in gratitude or with a view to propitiation. Thus at Athens the Thesmothetae (perhaps all the archons) made a vow that, should they break any law, they would dedicate a life-size gilt statue in the temple at Delphi. Similarly, of spoils taken in war, a part, generally a tenth, was dedicated to the god of the city (e.g. to Athena); to this class probably belong the trophies erected by the victors on the field of battle; sometimes a captured ship was placed upon a hill as an offering to Poseidon (Neptune). Persons who had recovered from an illness offered anathemata in the temples of Asclepius (Aesculapius); those who had escaped from shipwreck offered their clothes, or, if these had been lost, a lock of hair, to Neptune (Hor. Odes, i. 5. 13; Virg. Aeneid, xii. 768). The latter offering was very commonly made by young men and girls, especially young brides. Works of art of all kinds and the implements of a craftsman giving up his work were likewise dedicated. Such presents were far more common, as also more valuable, among the Greeks than among the Romans. Similar practices were prevalent, to an extent hardly realized, among the Christians up to the middle ages and even later. Just as the ancients hung their offerings on trees, temple columns and the images of the gods, so offerings were made to the Cross, to the Virgin Mary and on altars generally.
In the form anathema, the word is used in the Septuagint, the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers as the equivalent of the Hebrew herem, which is commonly translated ``accursed thing'' (A.V.) or ``devoted thing'' (R.V.; cf. the Roman devotio.) In Hebrew the root h-r-m means to ``set apart,'' ``devote to Yahweh,'' for destruction; but in Arabic it means simply to separate or seclude (cf. ``harem''). The idea of destruction or perdition is thus a secondary meaning of the Word, which gradually lost its primary sense of consecration. In the New Testament, though it is used in the sense of ``offering'' (Luke xxi. 5), it generally signifies ``separated'' from the church, i.e. ``accursed'' (cf. Gal. i. 8 ff.; 1 Cor. xvi. 22), and it became the regular formula of excommunication from the time of the council of Chalcedon in 451, especially against heretics, e.g. in the canons of the council of Trent and those of the Vatican council of 1870. See EXCOMMUNICATION; PENANCE. The expression maranatha (``the Lord cometh''), which follows anathema in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, is often erroneously quoted as though it were an amplification of the curse.
ANATOLI, JACOB (c. 1194-1256), Hebrew translator from theArabic. He was invited to Naples by the enlightened ruler FrederickII., and under this royal patronage and in association with MichaelScot, made Arabic learning accessible to Western readers. Amonghis most important services were translations of works by Averroes.
ANATOLIA (Gr. anatole, sunrise, i.e. eastern land), in ancient geography, the country east of the Aegean, i.e. Asia Minor. It was the name of one of the three themes (provinces) into which Phrygia was divided in the military reorganization of the East Roman empire. It is now used (by the Turks in the form (Anadoli) to denote a division of the Turkish empire, practically coincident with Asia Minor (q.v..)
ANATOMY (Gr. anatome, from ana-temnein, to cut up), literally dissection or cutting asunder, a term always used to denote the study of the structure of living things; thus there is animal anatomy (zootomy) and vegetable anatomy (phytotomy). Animal anatomy may include the study of the structure of different animals, when it is called comparative anatomy or animal morphology, or it may be limited to one animal only, in which case it is spoken of as special anatomy. From a utilitarian point of view the study of Man is the most important division of special anatomy, and this human anatomy may be approached from different points of view. From that of the medical man it consists of a knowledge of the exact form, position, size and relationship of the various structures of the human body in health, and to this study the term descriptive or topographical human anatomy is given, though it is often, less happily, spoken of as Anthropotomy. An accurate knowledge of all the details of the human body takes years of patient observation to gain and is possessed by only a few. So intricate is man's body that only a small number of professional human anatomists are complete masters of all its details, and most of them specialize on certain parts, such as the brain, viscera, &c.; contenting themselves with a good working knowledge of the rest. Topographical anatomy must be learned by each person for himself by the repeated dissection and inspection of the dead human body. It is no more a science than a pilot's knowledge is, and, like that knowledge, must be exact and available in moments of emergency.
From the morphological point of view, however, human anatomy is a scientific and fascinating study, having for its object the discovery of the causes which have brought about the existing structure of Man, and needing a knowledge of the allied sciences of embryology or ontogeny, phylogeny and histology.
Pathological or morbid anatomy is the study of diseased organs, while sections of normal anatomy, applied to various purposes, receive special names such as medical, surgical, gynaecological, artistic and superficial anatomy. The comparison of the anatomy of different races of mankind is part of the science of physical anthropology or anthropological anatomy. In the present edition of this work the subject of anatomy is treated systematically rather than topographically. Each anatomical article contains first a description of the structures of an organ or system (such as nerves, arteries, heart, &c.), as it is found in Man; and this is followed by an account of the development or embryology and comparative anatomy or morphology, as far as vertebrate animals are concerned; but only those parts of the lower animals which are of interest in explaining Man's structure are here dealt with. The articles have a twofold purpose; first, to give enough details of man's structure to make the articles on physiology, surgery, medicine and pathology intelligible; and, secondly, to give the non-expert inquirer, or the worker in some other branch of science, the chief theories on which the modern scientific groundwork of anatomy is built.
The following separate anatomical articles will be found under their own headings:—
Alimentary canal. Nervous system.Arteries. Nerve.Brain. Olfactory system.Coelom and serous membranes. Pharynx.Connective tissues. Pancreas.Diaphragm. Placenta.Ductless glands. Reproductive system.Ear. Respiratory system.Epithelial, endothelial and Scalp.glandular tissues. Skeleton.Eye. Skin and Exoskeleton.Heart. Skull.Joints. Spinal cord.Liver. Teeth.Lymphatic system. Tongue.Mammary gland. Urinary system.Mouth and salivary glands. Vascular system.Muscular system. Veins.
HISTORY OF ANATOMY1 In tracing the history of the origin of anatomy, it may be justly said that more learning than judgment has been displayed. Some writers claim for it the highest antiquity, and pretend to find its first rudiments alternately in the animal sacrifices of the shepherd kings, the Jews and other ancient nations, and in the art of embalming as practised by the Egyptian priests.2 Even the descriptions of wounds in the Iliad have been supposed adequate to prove that in the time of Homer mankind had distinct notions of the structure of the human body. Of the first it may be said that the rude information obtained by the slaughter of animals for sacrifice does not imply profound anatomical knowledge; and those who adduce the second as evidence are deceived by the language of the poet of the Trojan War, which, distinguishing certain parts by their ordinary Greek epithets, as afterwards used by Hippocrates, Galen and all anatomists, has been rather too easily supposed to prove that the poet had studied systematically the structure of the human frame.
Hippocrates.
With not much greater justice has the cultivation of anatomical knowledge been ascribed to Hippocrates, who, because he is universally allowed to be the father of medicine, has also been thought to be the creator of the science of anatomy. Of the seven individuals of the family of the Heracleidae who bore this celebrated name, the second, who was the son of Heraclides and Phenarita, and grandson of the first Hippocrates, was indeed distinguished as a physician of great observation and experience, and the first who appreciated the value of studying accurately the phenomena, effects and terminations of disease. It does not appear, however, notwithstanding the vague and general panegyrics of J. Riolan, Bartholin, D. le Clerc, and A. Portal, that the anatomical knowledge of this illustrious person was either accurate or profound. Of the works ascribed to Hippocrates, five only are genuine. Most of them were written either by subsequent authors of the same name, or by one or other of the numerous impostors who took advantage of the zealous munificence of the Ptolemies, by fabricating works under that illustrious name. Of the few which are genuine, there is none expressly devoted to anatomy; and of his knowledge on this subject the only proofs are to be found in the exposition of his physiological opinions, and his medical or surgical instructions. From these it appears that Hippocrates had some accurate notions on osteology, but that of the structure of the human body in general his ideas were at once superficial and erroneous. In his book on injuries of the head, and in that on fractures, he shows that he knew the sutures of the cranium and the relative situation of the bones, and that he had some notion of the shape of the bones in general and of their mutual connexions. Of the muscles, of the soft parts in general, and of the internal organs, his ideas are confused, indistinct and erroneous. The term fleps he seems, in imitation of the colloquial Greek, to have used generally to signify a blood-vessel, without being aware of the distinction of vein and artery; and the term arteria, or air-holder, is restricted to the windpipe. He appears to have been unaware of the existence of the nervous chords; and the term nerve is used by him, as by Grecian authors in general, to signify a sinew or tendon. On other points his views are so much combined with peculiar physiological doctrines, that it is impossible to assign them the character of anatomical facts; and even the works in which these doctrines are contained are with little probability to be ascribed to the second Hippocrates. If, however, we overlook this difficulty, and admit what is contained in the genuine Hippocratic writings to represent at least the sum of knowledge possessed by Hippocrates and his immediate descendants, we find that he represents the brain as a gland, from which exudes a viscid fluid; that the heart is muscular and of pyramidal shape, and has two ventricles separated by a partition, the fountains of life—and two auricles, receptacles of air; that the lungs consist of five ash-coloured lobes, the substance of which is cellular and spongy, naturally dry, but refreshed by the air; and that the kidneys are glands, but possess an attractive faculty, by virtue of which the moisture of the drink is separated and descends into the bladder. He distinguishes the bowels into colon and rectum (o
***Many errors here*** The knowledge possessed by the second Eippochrates was transmitted in various degrees of purity to the descendants and pupils, cheifly of the familys of the Eerachleidae, who succeeded him. Several of these, with feelings of grateful affection, appear to have studied to preserve the written memorpy of his instructions, and in this manner to have contributed to form part of that collection of treatises which have long been known to hee learned world under the general name of the Hippocratic writings. Though composed, like the genuine remains of the physician of Cos, in the Ionian dialect, all of them differ from these in being more diffuse in style, more elaborate in form, and in studying to invest their anatomical and medical matter with the fanciful ornaments of the Platonic philosophy. Hippocrates had the merit of early recognizing the value of facts apart from opinions, and of those facts especially which lead to general results; and in the few genuine writings which are now extant it is easy to perceive that he has recourse to the simplest language, expresses himself in terms which, though short and pithy, are always precise and perspicuous, and is averse to the introduction of philosophical dogmas. Of the greater part of the writings collected under his name, on the contrary the general character is verboseness, prolixity and a great tendency to speculative opinions. For these reasons, as well as for others derived from internal evidence, while the Aphorisms, the Epidemics and the works above mentioned, bear distinct marks of being the genuine remains of Hippocrates, it is impossible to regard the book Peri fusios anthropou as entirely the composition of that physician; and it appears more reasonable to view it as the work of some one of the numerous disciples to whom the author had communicated the results of his observation, which they unwisely attempted to combine with the philosophy of the Platonic school and their own mysterious opinions.
Polybus.
Among those who aimed at this distinction, the most fortunate in the preservation of his name is Polybus, the son-in-law of the physician of Cos. This person, who must not be confounded with the monarch of Corinth, immortalized by Sophocles in the tragic story of Oedipus, is represented as a recluse, severed from the world and its enjoyments, and devoting himself to the study of anatomy and physiology, and to the composition of works on these subjects. To him has been ascribed the whole of the book on the Nature of the Child and most of that On Man; both physiological treatises interspersed with anatomical sketches. His anatomical information, with which we are specially concerned, appears to have been rude and inaccurate, like that of his preceptor. He represents the large vessels of the body as consisting of four pairs; the first proceeding from the head by the back of the neck and spinal cord to the hips, lower extremities and outer ankle; the second, consisting of the jugular vessels (ai sfagitides), proceeding to the loins, thighs, hams and inner ankle; the third proceeding from the temples by the neck to the scapula and lungs, and thence by mutual intercrossings to the spleen and left kidney, and the liver and right kidney, and finally to the rectum; and the fourth from the fore-part of the neck to the upper extremities, the fore-part of the trunk, and the organs of generation.
This specimen of the anatomical knowledge of one of the most illustrious of the Hippocratic disciples differs not essentially from that of Syennesis, the physician of Cyprus, and Diogenes, the philosopher of Apollonia, two authors for the preservation of whose opinions we are indebted to Aristotle. They may be admitted as representing the state of anatomical knowledge among the most enlightened men at that time, and they only show how rude and erroneous were their ideas on the structure of the animal body. It may indeed, without injustice, be said that the anatomy of the Hippocratic school is not only erroneous, but fanciful and imaginary in often substituting mere supposition and assertion for what ought to be matter of fact. From this censure it is impossible to exempt even the name of Plato himself, for whom some notices in the Timaeus on the structure of the animal body, as taught by Hippocrates and Polybus, have procured a place in the history of the science.
Aristotle.
Amidst the general obscurity in which the early history of anatomy is involved, only two leading facts may be admitted with certainty. The first is, that previous to the time of Aristotle there was no accurate knowledge of anatomy; and the second, that all that was known was derived from the dissection of the lower animals only. By the appearance of Aristotle this species of knowledge, which was hitherto acquired in a desultory and irregular manner, began to be cultivated systematically and with a definite object; and among the services which the philosopher of Stagira rendered to mankind, one of the greatest and most substantial is, that he was the founder of Comparative Anatomy, and was the first to apply its facts to the elucidation of zoology. The works of this ardent and original naturalist show that his zootomical knowledge was extensive and often accurate; and from several of his descriptions it is impossible to doubt that they were derived from frequent personal dissection. Aristotle, who was born 384 years before the Christian era, or in the first year of the 99th Olympiad, was at the age of thirty-nine requested by Philip to undertake the education of his son Alexander. During this period it is said he composed several works on anatomy, which, however, are now lost. The military expedition of his royal pupil into Asia, by laying open the animal stores of that vast and little-known continent, furnished Aristotle with the means of extending his knowledge, not only of the animal tribes, but of their structure, and of communicating more accurate and distinct notions than were yet accessible to the world. A sum of 800 talents, and the concurrent aid of numerous intelligent assistants in Greece and Asia, were intended to facilitate his researches in composing a system of zoological knowledge; but it has been observed that the number of instances in which he was thus compelled to trust to the testimony of other observers led him to commit errors in description which personal observation might have enabled him to avoid.
The first three books of the History of Animals, a treatise consisting of ten books, and the four books on the Parts of Animals, constitute the great monument of the Aristotelian Anatomy. From these we find that Aristotle was the first who corrected the erroneous statements of Polybus, Syennesis and Diogenes regarding the blood-vessels, which they made, as we have seen, to arise from the head and brain. These he represents to be two in number, placed before the spinal column, the larger on the right, the smaller on the left, which, he also remarks, is by some called aorta (aorte), the first time we observe that this epithet occurs in the history. Both he represents to arise from the heart, the larger from the largest upper cavity, the smaller or aorta from the middle cavity, but in a different manner and forming a narrower canal. He also distinguishes the thick, firm and more tendinous structure of the aorta from the thin and membranous structure of vein. In describing the distribution of the latter, however, he confounds the vena cava and pulmonary artery, and, as might be expected, he confounds the ramifications of the former with those of the arterial tubes in general. While he represents the lung to be liberally supplied with blood, he describes the brain as an organ almost destitute of this fluid. His account of the distribution of the aorta is wonderfully correct. Though he does not notice the coeliac, and remarks that the aorta sends no direct branches to the liver and spleen, he had observed the mesenteric, the renal and the common iliac arteries. It is nevertheless singular that though he remarks particularly that the renal branches of the aorta go to the substance and not the pelvis (koilia) of the kidney, he appears to mistake the ureters for branches of the aorta. Of the nerves (neura) he appears to have the most confused notions. Making them arise from the heart, which he says has nerves (tendons) in its largest cavity, he represents the aorta to be a nervous or tendinous vein (neuroder fleps.) By and by, afterwards saying that all the articulated bones are connected by nerves, he makes them the same as ligaments.
He distinguishes the windpipe or air-holder (arteria) from the oesophagus, because it is placed before the latter, because food or drink passing into it causes distressing cough and suffocation, and because there is no passage from the lung to the stomach. He knew the situation and use of the epiglottis, seems to have had some indistinct notions of the larynx, represents the windpipe to be necessary to convey air to and from the lungs, and appears to have a tolerable understanding of the structure of the lungs. He repeatedly represents the heart, the shape and site of which he describes accurately, to be the origin of the blood-vessels, in opposition to those who made them descend from the head; yet, though he represents it as full of blood and the source and fountain of that fluid, and even speaks of the blood flowing from the heart to the veins, and thence to every part of the body, he says nothing of the circular motion of the blood. The diaphragm he distinguishes by the name diazoma, and upozoma. With the liver and spleen, and the whole alimentary canal, he seems well acquainted. The several parts of the quadruple stomach of the ruminating animals are distinguished and named; and he even traces the relations between the teeth and the several forms of stomach, and the length or brevity, the simplicity or complication of the intestinal tube. Upon the same principles distinguishes the jejunum (e nestis), or the empty portion of the small intestines in animals (to enteron lepton), the caecum (tuflon ti kai ogkodes), the colon (to kolon), and the sigmoid flexure (stenoteron kai eligmenon.) The modern epithet of rectum is the literal translation of his description of the straight progress (euthu) of the bowel to the anus (proktos.) He knew the nasal cavities and the passage from the tympanal cavity of the ear to the palate, afterwards described by B. Eustachius. He distinguishes as ``partes similares'' those structures, such as bone, cartilage, vessels, sinews, blood, lymph, fat, flesh, which, not confined to one locality, but distributed throughout the body generally, we now term the tissues or textures, whilst he applies the term ``partes dissimilares'' to the regions of the head, neck, trunk and extremities.
Next to Aristotle occur the names of Diocles of Carystus and Praxagoras of Cos, the last of the family of the Asclepiadae. The latter is remarkable for being the first who distinguished the arteries from the veins, and the author of the opinion that the former were air-vessels.
Alexandrian school.
Hitherto anatomical inquiry was confined to the examination of the bodies of brute animals. We have, indeed, no testimony of the human body being submitted to examination previous to the time of Erasistratus and Herophilus; and it is vain to look for authentic facts on this point before the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty of sovereigns in Egypt. This event, which, as is generally known, succeeded the death of Alexander, 320 years before the Christian era, collected into one spot the scattered embers of literature and science, which were beginning to languish in Greece under a weak and distracted government and an unsettled state of society. The children of her divided states, whom domestic discord and the uncertainties of war rendered unhappy at home, wandered into Egypt, and found, under the fostering hand of the Alexandrian monarchs, the means of cultivating the sciences, and repaying with interest to the country of Thoth and Osiris the benefits which had been conferred on the infancy of Greece by Thales and Pythagoras. Alexandria became in this manner the repository of all the learning and knowledge of the civilized world; and while other nations were sinking under the effects of internal animosities and mutual dissensions, or ravaging the earth with the evils of war, the Egyptian Greeks kept alive the sacred flame of science, and preserved mankind from relapsing into their original barbarism. These happy effects are to be ascribed in an eminent degree to the enlightened government and liberal opinions of Ptolemy Soter, and his immediate successors Philadelphus and Euergetes. The two latter princes, whose authority was equalled only by the zeal with which they patronized science and its professors, were the first who enabled physicians to dissect the human body, and prevented the prejudices of ignorance and superstition from compromising the welfare of the human race. To this happy circumstance Herophilus and Erasistratus are indebted for the distinction of being known to posterity as the first anatomists who dissected and described the parts of the human body. Both these physicians flourished under Ptolemy Soter, and probably Ptolemy Philadelphus, and were indeed the principal supports of what has been named in medical history the Alexandrian School, to which their reputation seems to have attracted numerous pupils. But though the concurrent testimony of antiquity assigns to these physicians the merit of dissecting the human body, time, which wages endless war with the vanity and ambition of man, has dealt hardly with the monuments of their labours. As the works of neither have been preserved, great uncertainty prevails as to the respective merits of these ancient anatomists; and all that is now known of their anatomical researches is obtained from the occasional notices of Galen, Oribasius and some other writers.
Erasistratus.
From these it appears that Erasistratus recognized the valves of the heart. and distinguished them by the names of tricuspid and sigmoid; that he studied particularly the shape and structure of the brain, and its divisions, and cavities, and membranes, and likened the convolutions to the folds of the jejunum; that he first formed a distinct idea of the nature of the nerves, which he made issue from the brain; and that he discovered lymphatic vessels in the mesentery, first in brute animals, and afterwards, it is said, in man. He appears also to have distinguished the nerves into those of sensation and those of motion.
Herophilus.
Of Herophilus it is said that he had extensive anatomical knowledge, acquired by dissecting not only brutes but human bodies. Of these he probably dissected more than any of his predecessors or contemporaries. Devoted to the assiduous cultivation of anatomy, he appears, to have studied with particular attention those parts which were least understood. He recognized the nature of the pulmonary artery, which he denominates arterious vein; he knew the vessels of the mesentery, and showed that they did not go to the vena portae, but to certain glandular bodies; and he first applied the name of twelve-inch or duodenum (dodekadaktulos) to that part of the alimentary canal which is next to the stomach. Like Erasistratus, he appears to have studied carefully the configuration of the brain; and though, like him, he distinguishes the nerves into those of sensation and those of voluntary motion, he adds to them the ligaments and tendons. A tolerable description of the liver by this anatomist is preserved in the writings of Galen. He first applied the name of choroid or vascular membrane to that which is found in the cerebral ventricles; he knew the straight venous sinus which still bears his name; and to him the linear furrow at the bottom of the fourth ventricle is indebted for its name of calamus scriptorius.
The celebrity of these two great anatomists appears to have thrown into the shade for a long period the names of all other inquirers; for, among their numerous and rather celebrated successors in the Alexandrian school, it is impossible to recognize a name which is entitled to distinction in the history of anatomy. In a chasm so wide it is not uninteresting to find, in one who combined the characters of the greatest orator and philosopher of Rome, the most distinct traces of attention to anatomical knowledge. Cicero, in his treatise De A'atura Deorum, in a short sketch of physiology, such as it was taught by Aristotle and his disciples, introduces various anatomical notices, from which the classical reader may form some idea of the state of anatomy at that time. The Roman orator appears to have formed a pretty distinct idea of the shape and connexions of the windpipe and lungs; and though he informs his readers that he knows the alimentary canal, he omits the details through motives of delicacy. In imitation of Aristotle, he talks of the blood being conveyed by the veins (venae), that is, blood-vessels, through the body at large; and, like Praxagoras, of the air inhaled by the lungs being conveyed through the arteries.
Aretaeus, though chiefly known as a medical author, makes some observations on the lung and the pleura, maintains the glandular structure of the kidney, and describes the anastomoses or communications of the capillary extremities of the vena cava with those of the portal vein.
Celsus.
The most valuable depository of the anatomical knowledge of these times is the work of Celsus, one of the most judicious medical authors of antiquity. He left, indeed, no express anatomical treatise; but from the introductions to the 4th and 8th books of his work, De Medicina, with incidental remarks in the 7th, the modern reader may form very just ideas of his anatomical attainments. From these it appears that Celsus was well acquainted with the windpipe and lungs and the heart; with the difference between the windpipe and oesophagus (stomachus), which leads to the stomach (ventriculus); and with the shape, situation and relations of the diaphragm. He enumerates also the principal facts relating to the situation of the liver, the spleen, the kidneys and the stomach. He appears, however, to have been unaware of the distinction of duodenum or twelve-inch bowel, already admitted by Herophilus, and represents the stomach as directly connected by means of the pylorus with the jejunum or upper part of the small intestine.
The 7th and 8th books, which are devoted to the consideration of those diseases which are treated by manual operation, contain sundry anatomical notices necessary to explain the nature of the diseases or mode of treatment. Of these, indeed, the merit is unequal; and it is not wonderful that the ignorance of the day prevented Celsus from understanding rightly the mechanism of the pathology of hernia. He appears, however, to have formed a tolerably just idea of the mode of cutting into the urinary bladder; and even his obstetrical instructions show that his knowledge of the uterus, vagina and appendages was not contemptible. It is in osteology, however, that the information of Celsus is chiefly conspicuous. He enumerates the sutures and several of the holes of the cranium, and describes at great length the superior and inferior maxillary bones and the teeth. With a good deal of care he describes the vertebrae and the ribs, and gives very briefly the situation and shape of the scapula, humerus, radius and ulna, and even of the carpal and metacarpal bones, and then of the different bones of the pelvis and lower extremities. He had formed a just idea of the articular connexions, and is desirous to impress the fact that none is formed without cartilage. From his mention of many minute holes (multa et tenuia foramina) in the recess of the nasal cavities, it is evident that he was acquainted with the perforated plate of the ethmoid bone; and from saying that the straight part of the auditory canal becomes flexuous and terminates in numerous minute cavities (multa et tenuia foramina diducitur), it is inferred by Portal that he knew the semicircular canals.
Though the writings of Celsus show that he cultivated anatomical knowledge, it does not appear that the science was much studied by the Romans; and there is reason to believe that, after the decay of the school of Alexandria, it languished in neglect and obscurity. It is at least certain that the appearance of Marinus during the reign of Nero is mentioned by authors as an era remarkable for anatomical inquiry, and that this person is distinguished by Galen as the restorer of a branch of knowledge which had been before him suffered to fall into undeserved neglect. From Galen also we learn that Marinus gave an accurate account of the muscles, that he studied particularly the glands, and that he discovered those of the mesentery. He fixed the number of nerves at seven; he observed the palatine nerves, which he rated as the fourth pair; and described as the fifth the auditory and facial, which he regards as one pair, and the hypoglossal as the sixth.
Rufus.
Not long after Marinus appeared Rufus (or Ruffus) of Ephesus, a Greek physician, who in the reign of Trajan was much attached to physiology, and as a means of cultivating this science studied Comparative Anatomy and made sundry experiments on living animals. Of the anatomical writings of this author there remains only a list or catalogue of names of different regions and parts of the animal body. He appears, however, to have directed attention particularly to the tortuous course of the uterine vessels, and to have recognized even at this early period the Fallopian tube. He distinguishes the nerves into those of sensation and those of motion. He knew the recurrent nerve. His name is further associated with the ancient experiment of compressing in the situation of the carotid arteries the pneumogastric nerve, and thereby inducing insensibility and loss of voice.
Galen.
Of all the authors of antiquity, however, none possesses so just a claim to the title of anatomist as Claudius Galenus, the celebrated physician of Pergamum, who was born about the 130th year of the Christian era, and lived under the reigns of Hadrian, the Antonines, Commodus and Severus. He was trained by his father Nicon (whose memory he embalms as an eminent mathematician, architect and astronomer) in all the learning of the day, and initiated particularly into the mysteries of the Aristotelian philosophy. In an order somewhat whimsical he afterwards studied philosophy successively in the schools of the Stoics, the Academics, the Peripatetics and the Epicureans. When he was seventeen years of age, his father, he informs us, was admonished by a dream to devote his son to the study of medicine; but it was fully two years after that Galen entered on this pursuit, under the auspices of an instructor whose name he has thought proper to conceal. Shortly after he betook himself to the study of anatomy under Satyrus, a pupil of Quintus, and of medicine under Stratonicus, a Hippocratic physician, and Aeschrion, an empiric. He had scarcely attained the age of twenty when he had occasion to deplore the loss of the first and most affectionate guide of his studies; and soon after he proceeded to Smyrna to obtain the anatomical instructions of Pelops, who, though mystified by some of the errors of Hippocrates, is commemorated by his pupil as a skilful anatomist. After this he appears to have visited various cities distinguished for philosophical or medical teachers; and, finally, to have gone to Alexandria with the view of cultivating more accurately and intimately the study of anatomy under Heraclianus. Here he remained till his twenty-eighth year, when he regarded himself as possessed of all the knowledge then attainable through the medium of teachers. He now returned to Pergamum to exercise the art which he had so anxiously studied, and received, in his twenty-ninth year, an unequivocal testimony of the confidence which his fellow-citizens reposed in his skill, by being intrusted with the treatment of the wounded gladiators; and in this capacity he is said to have treated wounds with success which were fatal under former treatment. A seditious tumult appears to have caused him to form the resolution of quitting Pergamum and proceeding to Rome at the age of thirty-two. Here, however, he remained only five years; and returning once more to Pergamum, after travelling for some time, finally settled in Rome as physician to the emperor Commodus. The anatomical writings ascribed to Galen, which are numerous, are to be viewed not merely as the result of personal research and information, but as the common depository of the anatomical knowledge of the day, and as combining all that he had learnt from the several teachers under whom he successively studied with whatever personal investigation enabled him to acquire. It is on this account not always easy to distinguish what Galen had himself ascertained by personal research from that which was known by other anatomists. This, however, though of moment to the history of Galen as an anatomist, is of little consequence to the science itself; and from the anatomical remains of this author a pretty just idea may be formed both of the progress and of the actual state of the science at that time.