LAUSR

cussed in chapter 4, for instance, are not necessarily related to the classroom (as Robison herself concedes). This makes it exceedingly difficult to draw firm conclusions about developments within anatomy teaching. Also hard to rely on are the statutes (whether of the student universitas [1405] or of the College of Arts and Medicine [1410]) on which much of the book is based. Finally, in terms of new perspectives, there is only so much that a book based entirely on published sources (and with a shaky command of Latin) can do. This book would have been vastly improved had it offered a clear and dependable presentation of the nature of practical medicine (there is a fundamental misunderstanding throughout about what medicina theorica and practica were), the institutional and civic context (it is surprising to read that, by 1410, “Bologna was no longer ruled by a communal constitution, but rather a papal representative” [38]), and a precise analysis of the lecturae universitatis (72–76). It could have made use of known archival documents such as salary records and should have received a thorough copyediting for both English and Latin. As it stands, many of its points are both confused and confusing. Still, it is right to emphasize the centuries-long background in which the work of Vesalius must be placed, and which scholars such as Roger French and Nancy Siraisi have done so much to illuminate.