A history of surgery, with emphasis on the Netherlands

Antiquarian interest apart, the value of the book for students of ancient medicine ultimately depends on the quality of Caius' textual criticism. As far as the modern editor is concerned, this value is not great. Caius' knowledge of Greek was not particularly sensitive (certainly he was not as good as Cornarius). Nutton is realistic about this throughout, yet he shows a considerable amount of charity towards his subject. He sees Caius as an important figure in the history of Galenic textual scholarship because "a modern editor of Galen is perforce a pioneer"; as a witness to the reading of certain manuscripts, "his pedantry here proves to be a virtue". Nutton himself indicates what might be stressed rather more: that much of Caius' work on Galen was polemically motivated, with an eye on contemporary rivals. Galen had established the precedent, in "reinterpreting" Hippocrates to the point not only where Hippocrates could do no wrong, anticipating much of the natural philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, but also to the point where he was always in agreement with Galen. The case seems to have been similar with Caius. In my view, we are not dealing here with a transparent case of a medical philologist at work. I came away from this book with a far higher regard for Dr Nutton's historical detective work than for Dr Caius' reaction and pedantry. As an introduction to the development and criticism ofthe early printed editions ofGalen, however, this monograph is one of the best pieces available today. J. T. Vallance Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge