[106] For this syllogism, see _Figuier_, _L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes_, pp. 106, 107. For careful appreciation of Becher's position in the history of chemistry, see _Kopp_, _Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie_, etc., _von Geber bis Stahl_, Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 201, _et seq._ [107] For Tertullian's views, see the _De Anima_, chap. x. For views of St. Augustine, see the _De Civ. Dei_, book xxii., chap. 24. [108] For Boniface VIII. and his interdiction of dissections, see _Buckle's Posthumous Works_, vol. ii., p. 567. For injurious effects of this ecclesiastical hostility to anatomy upon the development of art, see _Woltman_, _Holbein and His Time_, pp. 266, 267. For an excellent statement of the true relation of the medical profession to religious questions, see _Prof. Acland_, _General Relations of Medicine in Modern Times_, Oxford, 1868. For thoughtful and witty remarks on the struggle at a recent period, see _Maury_, _L'Ancienne Académie des Sciences_, Paris, 1864, p. 148. Maury says: "La faculté n'aimait pas à avoir affaire aux théologiens qui procèdent par anathèmes beaucoup plus que par analyses." [109] For uncritical praise of Arnold de Villa Nova, see _Figuier_, _L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes_, 3ème edit. For undue blame, see _Hoefer_, _Histoire de la Chimie_, Paris, 1842, vol. i., p. 386. For a more broad and fair judgment, see _Kopp_, _Geschichte der Chemie_, Braunschweig, 1843, vol. i., p. 66, and vol. ii., p. 185. Also, _Pouchet_, _Histoire des Sciences Naturelles au Moyen Age_, Paris, 1853, pp. 52, _et seq._ Also, _Draper_, _Int. Dev. of Europe_, p. 421. _Whewell_, _Hist. of the Induct. Sciences_, vol. i., p. 235; vol. viii., p. 36. _Frédault_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. i., p. 204. [110] _Renan_, _Averroès et l'Averroisme_, Paris, 1867, pp. 327, 333, 335. For a perfectly just statement of the only circumstances which can justify the charge of "atheism," see Dr. Deems's article in POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, February, 1876. [111] _Whewell_, vol. iii., p. 328, says, rather loosely, that Mundinus "dissected at Bologna in 1315." How different his idea of dissection was from that introduced by Vesalius, may be seen by Cuvier's careful statement that the entire number of dissections by Mundinus was three. The usual statement is that it was two. See _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sci. Nat._, tome iii., p. 7; also, _Sprengel_, _Frédault_, and _Hallam_; also, _Littré_, _Médecine et Médecins_, chap. on anatomy. For a very full statement of the agency of Mundinus in the progress of anatomy, see _Portal_, _Hist. de l'Anatomie et de la Chirurgérie_, vol. i., pp. 209-216. [112] For a similar charge against anatomical investigations at a much earlier period, see _Littré_, _Médecine et Médecins_, chapter on anatomy. [113] The original painting of Vesalius at work in his cell, by Hamann, is now at Cornell University.