Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T01:27:08.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Niels Stensen: A 17th Century Scientist with a Modern View of Brain Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2014

André Parent
André Parent*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
*
Centre de Recherche, Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Québec, 2160, Chemin de la Canardière, Beauport, Québec, G1J 2G3, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1665 the Danish scholar Niels Stensen (1638-1686) reached Paris, where he pronounced a discourse on brain anatomy that was to orient neuroscientists for years to come. In his lecture, Stensen rejected ancient speculations about animal spirits and criticized René Descartes and his followers who, despite a poor knowledge of brain anatomy, elaborated complex models to explain the multifaceted function of what he considered the principal organ of the human mind. He advocated the need for studying the brain through a comparative, developmental and pathological convergent approach and called for appropriate dissection methods and accurate illustrations. His own careful anatomical studies permitted him to precisely depict many brain structures. After pioneering works in paleontology and geology, he devoted himself to theology. In 1677 Stensen converted from Lutheranism to Catholicism and, while working relentlessly as a bishop and apostolic vicar in Northern Europe, he died in self-imposed poverty at age 48.

Résumé:

Résumé:

En 1665, le savant Danois Nicolas Sténon (1638-1686) arrive à Paris où il prononce un remarquable discours sur l'anatomie du cerveau. Dans cette allocution, il dénonce d'abord l'ancienne théorie des esprits animaux pour ensuite critiquer vertement les philosophes comme Descartes qui, malgré une piètre connaissance de l'anatomie du cerveau, développent des modèles complexes pour expliquer le fonctionnement de ce qu'il considère être l'organe suprême. Il souligne l'importance d'utiliser une approche multidisciplinaire, impliquant l'anatomie comparée, l'embryologie et la pathologie et insiste sur la nécessité de méthodes de dissection et d'illustration adéquates. Ses propres études anatomiques lui permettent de décrire très précisément et pour la première fois plusieurs structures cérébrales. Après des travaux remarquables en géologie, il délaisse définitivement la science pour la théologie. Consacré évêque et vicaire apostolique en 1677, Sténon, l'un des plus grands esprits de son temps, meurt dans une pauvreté extrême à Schwerin en Allemagne à 48 ans.

Type
Review Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 482 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2013

References

1. Schertz, G. Nicolaus Steno’s life and work. In: Scherz, G, editor. Nicolaus Steno and his indice. Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalium et Medicinalium. 1958;15:9–86.Google Scholar
2. Scherz, G. Introduction to Nicolaus Steno’s lecture on the anatomy of the brain. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag - Arnold Busck; 1965.Google Scholar
3. Kardel, T. Steno. Life, science, philosophy. Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalium et Medicinalium. 1994;42:1–147.Google Scholar
4. Kardel, T, Maquet, P. Nicolas Steno. Biography and original papers of a 17th century scientist. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2013.Google Scholar
5. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.]. Nova musculorum & cordis fabrica. Thomas Bartholini Epist. Medicin. Cent. IV. Hafnia. 1667; Epist. LXX: 414–21.Google Scholar
6. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.]. De musculis & glandulis observationum specimen cum epistolis duabus anatomicis. Hafniae: M. Godichenii; 1664.Google Scholar
7. Schiller, J, Théodoridès J. Sténon et les milieux scientifiques parisiens. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeen Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 155–70.Google Scholar
8. Borch, O. Olai Borrichii Itinerarium 1660-1665: The journal of the Danish polyhistor Ole Borch. H. D. Schepelern, editor. Copenhagen: The Danish Society of Language and Literature; 1983.Google Scholar
9. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.]. Elementorum myologiae specimen, seu “musculi descriptio geometrica” cui accedunt “Canis carchariæ dissectum Caput” et “Dissectus piscis ex canum genere“. Florenciæ: Ex typographia sub signo Stellæ; 1667. [English translation: Kardel T. Steno on muscles. Introduction, texts, translations. Transaction of the American Philosophical Society 1994:84(1):76–230].Google Scholar
10. Pointer, FLN. Nicolaus Steno and the Royal Society of London. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 273–80.Google Scholar
11. Stensen, N. [Sténon N.]. Discours de Monsieur Sténon sur l’anatomie du cerveau à Messieurs de l’Assemblée, qui se fait chez Monsieur Thévenot. Paris: R. de Ninville; 1669. [English translation by George Douglas, taken from the 1753 edition of Winslow’s work].Google Scholar
12. Willis, T. Cerebri anatome, cui accessit nervorum descriptio et usus. London: J. Martyn and J. Allestry; 1664.Google Scholar
13. Descartes, R. L’Homme de René Descartes et un traité de la formation du fœtus du měme auteur. Paris: T. Girard; 1664.Google Scholar
14. Dewhurst, K. Willis and Steno. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeen Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 43–8.Google Scholar
15. Kelle, KD. Niels Stensen and the neuroanatomy of pain. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 225–31.Google Scholar
16. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.] De Vitulo Hydrocephalo Epistola. Acta medica & philisophica Hafniensia. 1673; 1: 249–62. [English translation: Kardel T. “On a calf with hydrocephalus.” A scientific letter dated June 1669 to Ferdinand, II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, by Niels Stensen, Royal Anatomist. J Hist Neurosci. 1993;2:179-202].Google Scholar
17. Hansen, HM. A traveller in neuroanatomy - Stensen, 1664-1670. J. Hist. Neurosci. 1992;1:219–26.Google Scholar
18. Kardel, T. Steno on hydrocephalus. An introduction to Niels Stensen letter “On a calf with hydrocephalus”, with a short biography. J Hist Neurosci. 1993;2:171–8.Google Scholar
19. Lyons, AE. Hydrocephalus first illustrated. Neurosurgery. 1995;37:511–3.Google Scholar
20. Perrini, P, Lanzino, G, Parenti, GF. Niels Stensen (1638-1686): Scientist, neuroanatomist, and saint. Neurosurgery. 2010;67(1):3–9.Google Scholar
21. Martensen, RL. The brain takes shape. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
22. Willis, T. De Anima Brutorum. Oxonii: R. Davis; 1672.Google Scholar
23. Isler, H. Thomas Willis (1621-1675): Doctor and Scientist. New York: Hafner; 1968.Google Scholar
24. Descartes, R. Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences. Plus, la Dioptrique, les Météores, et la Géométrie. Paris: J. Maire; 1637.Google Scholar
25. Descartes, R. De homine figuris et latinitate donatus a Florentio Schuyl. Leiden: P. Leffen & F. Moyardum; 1662.Google Scholar
26. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.] Observaniones anatomicæ in avibus & cuniculis. Thomas Bartholini Epist Medicin Cent IV Hafnia. 1667; Epist. XXVI:113–20.Google Scholar
27. Olden-Jørgensen, S. Steno, Nicholas and René Descartes: A Cartesian perspective on Steno’s scientific development. In: Rosenberg, GD, editor. The revolution in geology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America, Inc. Memoir 203; 2009, p. 149–57.Google Scholar
28. Hall, TS. Ideas of life and matter. Studies in the history of physiology, 600 B. C.-1900 A. D. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1969.Google Scholar
29. Duchesneau, F. Les modèles du vivant de Descartes à Lebniz (Mathesis). Paris: J. Vrin; 1998.Google Scholar
30. Williams, EA. A cultural history of vitalism in Enlightenment Montpellier. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2003.Google Scholar
31. Winslow, J. B. Exposition anatomique de la structure du corps humain. Paris: G. Desprez, J. Desessartz; 1732. [English translation: Douglas, G. Anatomical exposition of the structure of the human body. London: A. Bettesworth, C. Hitch, J. Osborn, et al. 1733].Google Scholar
32. Tarin, P. Adversaria anatomica. Paris: J. F. Moreaud; 1750.Google Scholar
33. Vicq d’Azyr, F. Traité d’anatomie et de physiologie. Paris: Didot; 1786.Google Scholar
34. Parent, A. Vicq d’Azyr: Anatomy, medicine and revolution. Can J Neurol Sci. 2007;34:30–7.Google Scholar
35. Maar, V. Nicolai Stenonis opera philosophica [2 volumes]. Copenhagen: Tryde; 1910.Google Scholar
36. Faller, A. Die Hirnschnitt-Zeitchnungen in Stensens Discours sur l’anatomie du cerveau. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeen Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 115–45.Google Scholar
37. Bernabeo, RA. The brain anatomy by Stensen (Steno). Medicina nei Secoli: Arte e Scienza. 1990;2:47–60.Google Scholar
38. Tenon, JR. Observations sur les obstacles qui s’opposent aux progrès de l’anatomie. Paris: P. D. Pierres; 1785.Google Scholar
39. Portal, A. Histoire de l’anatomie et de la chirurgie [6 volumes]. Paris: Didot; 1770-1773.Google Scholar
40. Flourens, P. Histoire de la découverte de la circulation du sang. Paris: Baillière; 1854.Google Scholar
41. Neuburger, M. Die historische Entwicklund der experimentelle Gehirn- und Rüchenmarkphysiologie vor Flourens. Stuttgart: Enke; 1897. [English translation: Clarke, E. The historical development of experimental brain and spinal cord physiology before Flourens. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1981].Google Scholar
42. Andrault, R. Niels Stensen (Nicolas Sténon), Discours sur l’anatomie du cerveau. Paris: Garnier; 2009.Google Scholar
43. Bonelli, ML. The Academia del Cimento and Niels Stensen. In: Scherz, G, editor. Steno and Brain Research in the Seventeen Century. Oxford: Pergamon; 1965. p. 253–60.Google Scholar
44. Garboe, A. Nicolaus Steno (Niels Stensen) and Erasmus Bartholinus: Two 17th century Danish scientists and the foundation of exact geology and crystallography. Copenhagen: Geological Survey of Denmark, IV Series. 1954;3(9). p. 1–48.Google Scholar
45. Gould, SJ. Hen’s teeth and horse’s toes. The titular bishop of Titiopolis. New York, NY: Norton; 1983. p. 69–78.Google Scholar
46. Kardel, T. Prompters of Steno’s geological principles: Generation of stones in living being, glossopetrae and molding. In: Rosenberg, GD, editor. The revolution in geology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America, Inc. Memoir 203; 2009, p. 127–34.Google Scholar
47. Cuttler, A. The seashell on the montaintop. London: Heinemann; 2003.Google Scholar
48. Stensen, N. [Stenonis N.] De Solido Intra Solidum Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus. Florenciæ: Ex typographia sub signo Stellæ; 1669.Google Scholar
49. Wells, WA. Niels Stensen (Nicolaus Steno), 1638-1684 [sic]. A famous anatomist who exchanged the scalpel for a bishop mitre. The Laryngoscope. 1948;58:1173–94.Google Scholar
50. Osler, W. Men and Books. 1. Nicolaus Steno. Can Med Assoc J. 1912;2(1):67–8.Google Scholar