摘要日本"古方学派"著名学者山胁东洋(1706—1762)发现中国古代医学典籍中关于身体结构的描述存在差异，于1754年在京都进行了一次尸体解剖，这次解剖被认为是日本解剖学发展的开端，通常被描述为山胁东洋个人的成就。然而，仔细梳理史料却可以发现，日本对解剖的兴趣并不是在此时突然出现，而是伴随着17世纪中期西方医学的到来而开始。笔者论证了外国和本土的医学、社会、政治及宗教因素如何逐渐激发日本人对尸体产生新认识，并使他们更好地认识到解剖观察的价值。早在山胁东洋解剖人体之前的几十年，一位眼科医生就发现了眼睛的功能，他通过观察腐尸绘制了骨骼连接图，并将这种观察方法作为获取新知识的手段。山胁东洋的成就不在于他获得的解剖结果，而在于他的解剖获得了政府允许，成果付诸出版，为后来的解剖者开创了先河。在山胁东洋的效仿者中，河口信任的突破性成就迄今尚未得到足够的认可。1770年，河口信任进行了一次解剖，他既没有参阅古籍，也没有因为刀和体液的刺激引发超然的联想和敬畏之心，而是通过测量大小、确定位置、观察颜色等"临床"研究方法，进行了一次旨在获得新知的冷静而大胆的尝试。文章最后对日本和欧洲解剖插图的基本特征进行了比较。

abstractsThe commencement of human dissections in Japan during the Edo period is often depicted as the individual achievement of Yamawaki Tōyō. In 1754, this renowned scholar of the "School of Ancient Prescriptions, " feeling unable to resolve discrepancies in the Chinese classical literature, succeeded in obtaining permission for a dissection and was allocated a corpse at the execution place in Kyoto. However, a closer look at this issue reveals that the paradigm change to gaining knowledge through anatomical studies did not occur suddenly after centuries of stagnation. Beginning with the arrival of western medicine in the mid-17th century, this paper demonstrates how foreign and indigenous medical, social, political and religious stimuli gradually led to a new attitude toward human dissections and a rising awareness of the merits of anatomical observations. Decades before Yamawaki counted the number of human viscera, an ophthalmologist had discovered the faculty of the eye as a means for new insights and bone-setters had begun to revise textual knowledge by observing and manipulating the skeletons of rotting corpses. Yamawaki’s accomplishment does not lie in the nature of his dissection or the (quickly outdated) results, but in the sheer fact that he carried out the dissection with the permission of the shogunal authorities and managed to publish his findings. Furthermore, among those physicians who quickly followed his example, we find Kawaguchi Shinnin, whose intellectual and mental breakthrough has not been recognized sufficiently yet. In Kawaguchi’s case, there was no searching through the classical literature, no detached reflection and no awe resulting from the knife and the body fluids. The dissection that he conducted in 1770 was an unemotional "clinical" search for new insights by measuring sizes, determining positions, colors and consistencies, and by manipulating and investigating. The paper finishes with a comparison of the basic traits of anatomical illustrations in Japan and Europe.