Changes

Sugita Genpaku was a prominent ''[[Rangaku]]'' (Dutch Studies) scholar and physician of the [[Edo Period]]. He is known for his engagement with Dutch medicine, and his criticism of Chinese medicine and other aspects of Chinese science & philosophy which he believed had been proved invalid and incorrect by Dutch science.

Sugita Genpaku was a prominent ''[[Rangaku]]'' (Dutch Studies) scholar and physician of the [[Edo Period]]. He is known for his engagement with Dutch medicine, and his criticism of Chinese medicine and other aspects of Chinese science & philosophy which he believed had been proved invalid and incorrect by Dutch science.

Active in cultural and scholarly circles, Genpaku collaborated or associated with many prominent figures of his time, including [[So Shiseki|Sô Shiseki]] and [[Hiraga Gennai]], and studied under [[Yoshio Kosaku|Yoshio Kôsaku]]. In [[1771]], he enjoyed the opportunity to observe the dissection of a human body, that of an executed criminal, after being contacted by Tokuno Banbei, a man in the service of Nagasaki ''[[machi bugyo|machi bugyô]]'' Magaribuchi Kai-no-kami. As Genpaku writes in his [[1815]] ''Rangaku kotohajime'' ("The Beginnings of Dutch Studies"), he and the ''rangaku'' scholar [[Maeno Ryotaku|Maeno Ryôtaku]], with copies of the Dutch ''Ontleedkundige Tafelen''<ref>A Dutch translation of the German ''Anatomische Tabellen'' by [[Johann Adam Kulm]], or Kulmus.</ref> in hand, observed the dissection, performed by an ''[[eta]]'' man roughly 90 years of age and quite experienced at dissections; the old man pointed out to them what organs he could, saying that many of them had no names (in Chinese, or Japanese) and that in the past, whenever Japanese physicians observed, they never asked such questions. Genpaku and Ryôtaku quickly were able to tell that what they were seeing in the actual body was not in tune with what the [[I Ching]] or other Chinese texts said, and that it was far closer to the illustrations in the Dutch text. He and Ryôtaku also examined a number of skeletons at the execution grounds, and came to the same conclusions.

Active in cultural and scholarly circles, Genpaku collaborated or associated with many prominent figures of his time, including [[So Shiseki|Sô Shiseki]] and [[Hiraga Gennai]], and studied under [[Yoshio Kosaku|Yoshio Kôsaku]]. In [[1771]], he enjoyed the opportunity to observe the dissection of a human body, that of an executed criminal, after being contacted by Tokuno Banbei, a man in the service of ''[[Nagasaki bugyo|Nagasaki bugyô]]'' Magaribuchi Kai-no-kami. As Genpaku writes in his [[1815]] ''Rangaku kotohajime'' ("The Beginnings of Dutch Studies"), he and the ''rangaku'' scholar [[Maeno Ryotaku|Maeno Ryôtaku]], with copies of the Dutch ''Ontleedkundige Tafelen''<ref>A Dutch translation of the German ''Anatomische Tabellen'' by [[Johann Adam Kulm]], or Kulmus.</ref> in hand, observed the dissection, performed by an ''[[eta]]'' man roughly 90 years of age and quite experienced at dissections; the old man pointed out to them what organs he could, saying that many of them had no names (in Chinese, or Japanese) and that in the past, whenever Japanese physicians observed, they never asked such questions. Genpaku and Ryôtaku quickly were able to tell that what they were seeing in the actual body was not in tune with what the [[I Ching]] or other Chinese texts said, and that it was far closer to the illustrations in the Dutch text. He and Ryôtaku also examined a number of skeletons at the execution grounds, and came to the same conclusions.

Genpaku further writes that other Japanese scholars, when they witnessed dissections, also found that reality contradicted the ancient writings, and that this was a continuing source of confusion. Such scholars often came to the conclusion that Chinese and Japanese people must have different anatomies.

Genpaku further writes that other Japanese scholars, when they witnessed dissections, also found that reality contradicted the ancient writings, and that this was a continuing source of confusion. Such scholars often came to the conclusion that Chinese and Japanese people must have different anatomies.