Historical and Critical Library of Rare Physical and Medical Books

And although it cannot be denied that all these figures, without exception, are so constituted that it was necessary to inscribe names upon those inform figures, and that they signify the parts of the human body more than they represent them, we justly conclude that some allowance must be made for the time in which they were produced. But whether our MAGNUS HUNDT was the first of all after the rebirth of letters to institute the depiction of the seats and figures of the animal body for anatomical uses in tables is still a dispute under judgment. For the glory of having invented these anatomical icons, or if you please, of having restored them (g), some have attributed to MUNDINUS (h), others to JACOPO CARPO, and others to CARLO STEPHANO. The praised PLATNERUS testifies that all have been deceived by a certain conceived opinion, by which they convinced themselves that those arts were cultivated and nurtured solely by Italians and Gauls and were thoroughly neglected by our own people.

(g) For the glory of the first invention, as JOH. RIOLANUS the son noted in Anthropogr. Book I. Ch. XVI. p. 51. Edit. Opp. Paris 1649., CASP. HOFMANNUS, Instit. Med. Book II. Ch. XXII., and JOH. HENR. SCHULZIUS, who followed him, in Hist. Anatom. spec. II. §. 6., is deservedly owed to ARISTOTLE, as he, who spent the most effort in the dissection of animals, made mention of tables visible in anatomical books more than once, although they, which is certainly to be lamented, have not reached our age.

(h) Among whom ANDR. OTTOM. GOELICKE stands out, loc. cit. p. 42., and although Stollius or rather Kestnerus accused him of error on that account in the Medical Learned History p. 404., it will become clear from things to be said below that Goelicke has not erred as much as is thought.