Fabricius's and Harvey's representations of animal generation

Summary

Fabricius ab Aquapendente commissioned coloured paintings of the reproductive parts and foetuses of a vast spectrum of animals. His published works on generation feature corresponding engravings. In contrast, his student William Harvey questioned the accuracy and usefulness of anatomical illustrations and used alternative approaches to represent his observations. I discuss these anatomists' criteria for selecting specimens, their techniques of investigation, and how these decisions affected their observations and representations of animal generation. I consider what each medium—paintings, intaglios, written accounts—discloses or highlights and also their respective limitations. My study of Fabricius's colour plates also reveals the possibility that they served as inspiration for the first colour anatomical prints: a copy of the illustrations of foetuses is bound with drafts of Aselli's plates, and I suggest a possible link between the colour images.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Ed Bernstein, Nico Bertoloni Meli, Ann Carmichael, Sarah Cohen, Sandi Ekholm, Sandy Gliboff, Anita Guerrini, Melina Hoggard, Sashiko Kusukawa, Jutta Schickore, the members of the Indiana University history of medicine reading group for their insightful comments on the images and earlier drafts of this paper. I also greatly appreciate Sandy Gliboff making it possible for me to carry out dissections of gravid pig and sheep uteruses and foetuses, which gave me a clearer understanding both of the anatomical parts and of the challenges anatomists faced. Funding was provided by the Philadelphia Area Consortium of Sciences Visiting Dissertation Fellowship, the Ferenc Gyorgyey Research Travel Award in the History of Medicine from the Medical Historical Library at Yale University, and the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant for Overseas Research 0823258.

Notes

¹William Harvey, Exercitationes de generatione animalium (London, 1651), I quote from the first translation into English, which was anonymous, Anatomical exercitations, concerning the generation of living creatures (London, 1653). I have also consulted the translation by Gweneth Whitteridge, Disputations touching the generation of animals (London, 1981). Harvey studied medicine in Padua from 1599–1602. His copies of Fabricius's De formato foetu and De formatione ovi et pulli were published as Opera physica anatomica cum indicibus capitum et rerum notatu dignarum (Padua, 1625), are held by the Lilly Library at Indiana University, Bloomington.

²It is impossible to determine decisively whether they are strictly engravings or engravings supplemented by etchings. Special thanks to Ed Bernstein for examining the printed images with me. Classic accounts of Fabricius's images include G. Sterzi, ‘Le tabulae anatomicae ed i codici marciani con note autografe di Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente’, Anatomischer Anzeiger, 35 (1909), 335–48; Loris Premuda, Storia dell'iconografia anatomica (Milano, 1957), 144–51; Ugo Stefanutti, ‘Le pitture dell'anatomia di Girolamo Fabrici d'Acquapendente’, Atti del Rassegna Medica – Convivium Sanitatis, (1957), 37–40, and ‘L'opera scientific ed artistic di Girolamo Fabrici d'Aquapendente (ca. 1533–1619)’, Ateneo Veneto, 181(1994), 181–8. Fabricius's illustrations are also briefly discussed in K.B. Roberts and J.D.W. Tomlinson, The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of Anatomical Illustrations (Oxford, 1992), 249–54, and in Harald Moe, The Art of Anatomical Illustrations in the Renaissance and Baroque Periods (Copenhagen, 1995), 53–8. Surprisingly, Ludwig Choulant Geschichte und Bibliographie der anatomischen Abbildung nach ihrer beziehung auf anatomische Wissenschaft und Bildene Kunst (Leipzig, 1852) omits mention of Fabricius. The Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice hosted an exhibit of the coloured plates in December 2004–May 2005, and published a collection of essays on Fabricius's tavole, Il teatro dei corpi, edited by Maurizio Rippa Bonati and José Pardo-Tomas (Milan, 2004).

³Fabricius, De visione, voce, auditu (Venice, 1600), introduction.

⁴G. Favaro, Biografia (note 2), 325–39, includes a copy of Fabricius's will. I examined Fabricius's copy of De formato foetu in the Marciana.

⁵In contrast, in the treatise on birds, the discussion of the hen's anatomy is the only written part that directly references engravings. The parts of viviparous animals in the colour plates in the Philadelphia copy are not labelled with letters, but in Venice three tavole, Rari 119.10, 14, and 16, feature letters that serve to identify parts.

⁶Fabricius, De formato foetu, letter of dedication. Both Latin and Italian use the same word for dining tables and pages of images in books.

⁷Giuseppe Favaro, ‘ L'insegnamento anatomico di Girolamo Fabrici d'Acquapendente’, Contributo del R. Instituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti alla celebrazione del VII centenario della Università di Padova (Venice, 1921), 117. The best source of biographical information on Fabricius (1533–1619) is Giuseppe Favaro, ‘Contributi alla biografia di Girolamo Fabrici d'Acquapendente’, in Memorie e documenti per la storia della Università di Padova, vol. I (Padova, 1922), 241–348. Also see M.Muccillo's entry in the Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 43 (1993), 768–74. Adelmann's biographical sketch in The Embryological Treatises of Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente (Ithaca, 1942), 6–31, relies on Favaro.

⁸In the Marciana, 167 tavole are bound in eight volumes that consist only of paintings. The remaining plates are bound with his printed books on corresponding subjects. Ugo Stefanutti, Pitture (note 2), 37, and the inventory in Teatro (note 2), 320, agree on the number of tavole that are not incorporated into books, but there is disagreement over those that are. The Marciana catalogue and exhibition catalogue list 24 included in De formato foetu (Rari 119). I found there to be 25, which is in agreement with Adelmann (note 7), 33, who relied on personal correspondence with the director of the library. Marciana Rari 119.1 and 2 do not have corresponding engravings and are not described in the text. The first appears to be a uterus and the second is very indistinct—it has the appearance of a plant with fine white roots. Rari 119.9, which depicts a sheep foetus enclosed in its chorion, also lacks a corresponding engraving.

⁹The De formato foetu is partitioned into two books: the first focuses on describing the extra-foetal structures of conceptuses (including the membranes, placenta, umbilical vessels, and fluids) followed by a brief account of the internal structures of foetuses (including the vessels from the umbilicus and their contents, and structures unique to the foetal heart). Of the 10 chapters (19 pages) comprising Part I, only the final chapter (pp. 18–19) treats internal parts of the foetus. In Part II, he discusses the action and use of each part. The treatise on avian generation consists of two sections, one on the reproductive parts, the other on the egg; each of these is divided into the characteristic three sections, i.e. historia, action, use. On this three-part structure see note 24.

¹⁰According to Adelmann (note 2), (665, n. 149) and Rippa Bonati, ‘Anatomia in mostra’ in Teatro, 24, these are the only two known copies. I have examined those in Venice and in Philadelphia, but not in Montreal. The catalogue to an exhibition at the Museum of Human Anatomy at McGill University, Exhibition of the History of Anatomical Illustration (Montreal, 1930), 20, explains, ‘In this copy the plates are in duplicate, in two states. The duplicates have been painted over in oils on a black background and have special printed explanations.’ As I discuss below, it is decidedly not the case in the Marciana or Philadelphia copies that the paintings are coloured-in engravings. Adelmann's descriptions of the plates in the Marciana rely on personal correspondence with the then director of the Marciana, and M. Rippa Bonati reprimands Adelmann for focusing on the North American copies and not providing images of those in the Marciana. In defense of Adelmann, his volumes on Fabricius were published in 1942, an inopportune time to be visiting Italy.

¹¹The Philadelphia volume includes a copy of the painting of a sheep foetus enclosed in its chorion that resembles Marciana Rari 119.9 and lacks a corresponding engraving. The Philadelphia copy has seven paintings of human uteruses and foetuses that are represented by engravings, but are not found in the Marciana.

¹²Aselli, De lactibus sive lacteis venis (Milan, 1627).

¹³Fabricius, De formato foetu, 4–5 [251–54]. The exception to the uniformity of texture are the pig and horse, the exception to the relatively uniform colour is the cow.

¹⁴Realdus Columbus, De re anatomica, XII (Venice, 1559), 248.

¹⁵Andreas Vesalius, De fabrica (Basle, 1543), is significantly different from the second edition in its discussion of the fleshy substance. In the former, Vesalius begins treatment of foetal membranes (V, 17, 540, Plate 62) by noting he had been limited to dissecting gravid animals because of the scarcity of pregnant human cadavers, and that he would therefore refrain from a long discussion of the formation of foetuses. Nevertheless, he includes an illustration of a human foetus, albeit represented with a canine placenta. In the second edition, he correctly represents the placenta of a human as disc-shaped, of a dog as girdle-shaped, and of the buffalo as cotyledonary.

¹⁶Fabricius, De formato foetu, human placenta: engr.3–9; mouse: engr.24; guinea pig engr.30.

¹⁷Fabricius, De formato foetu, human placenta: engr.3–9; mouse: engr.24; guinea pig engr.30., dog placenta: engr.27–28, labelled ‘C’ in Figures 53 and 56.

¹⁸Confusingly, Fabricius uses the terms cotyledon and caruncle interchangeably. ‘Cotyledons’ is derived from the Greek term for cup. In both Fabricius and contemporary works, ‘acetabula’ (from the Latin term for little dishes in which vinegar was served) is used to designate the same structures as ‘cotyledon.’

¹⁹Thomas A. Horrocks, ‘Historical collections of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia’ lists Fabricius's coloured plates as one of the crowning glories of the collection. The image reproduced is mistakenly identified as a horse foetus. It is actually a foetal lamb, and it is the coloured version of the engraving that I label Figure 5. The cow uterus with carunculae and cotyledons is depicted on tavola XVII [=engr.29, Figure 42]. In the written description accompanying the plates, Fabricius notes that their cotyledons are blackish and concave, and that they are thinner and broader than in sheep. In the text, p. 6 [254], he notes that that the cow's are larger and not reddish (as are those of the sheep), and that the cotyledons are perforated and not unlike the fungi that common people call sponzuoli. I am indebted to Nico Bertoloni Meli for finding that ‘sponzuoli’ are morchella rotunda, or round morels, in the Venetian dialect.

²⁰The coloured plates are accompanied by prose explanations of the paintings. In the explanation of the horse, Adelmann (note 2), 633 [366], he notes that the horse and pig both appear to lack a placenta, which he omits from the legend to the corresponding engraving. Here he also notes that the vessels distributed between the outer and inner coats of the uterus are ‘a thing which it is better to see than to hear described’.

²³Fabricius, De formato foetu, 2–3 [249].

²¹Julius Caesar Arantius, De humano foetu (Rome, 1564); Harvey (note 1), (1651), 287, (1653), 429, (1981), 435; Fabricius, De formato foetu (note 2), 121–8 [297–308] discusses Arantius’ opinion and presents objections to this view.

²²His own publications, as well as lecture notes and letters written by his students, reveal that he publically dissected and vivisected many kinds of gravid animals and foetuses. On Fabricius's education and teaching appointments, see G. Favaro (note 2), 109–36. Antonio Favaro, Atti della nazione germanica artista nello Studio di Padova, 2 vols (Venice, 1911–1912), provide the notes of the German Nation, which record dissections Fabricius performed during lectures. The following reveal his consistent attention to generation from the mid-1570s through 1600:

Jan.1576: dissection of living gravid ewe and foramen ovale (which according to a letter by the German Councilor, was followed by a long and interesting discussion) in J. Crato Consiliorum et epistolarum medicinalium, lib V (Frankfurt, 1671) 343–6.

Jan.1579: dissected three human cadavers, including a woman in labour; demonstrated by dissection the Galenic doctrine that the ‘liver is the source not only of the governance but also of the generation of the veins, and that the umbilical veins arise from the liver like plants from the earth’ (J. Crato Consiliorum, lib VI, 592–5).

Jan.1584: dissection of living pregnant ewe (Atti, I, 193–4).

Jan.1586: demonstrated uterus and placenta of pregnant woman (Atti I, 210, 223, 225–7).

Jan.1589: formation of foetus in utero subject of lecture (Atti I, 267–71).

Winter ‘92:private course on anatomy of foetus (Atti II, 32, 36–7).

Mar.1593: demonstrated genital organs in many cadavers of both sexes (Atti II, 32, 36–7).

Dec.1597: discussed anatomy of foetal sheep (Atti II, 109, 114).

Nov.1600: publicly demonstrated anatomy of foetal horse and sheep (Atti II, 171, 180).

²⁴On this three-part structure in Fabricius's work see Andrew Cunningham ‘Fabricius and the “Aristotle Project” in anatomical teaching and research at Padua’, in The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, edited by Andrew Wear et al. (Cambridge, 1985), 195–222, and The Anatomical Renaissance (Aldershot, 1997), chapter 6. Also see Cunningham, ‘Il ‘Teatro della struttura di tutto il mondo animale’: Fabrici e le sue illustrazioni anatomiche’, Teatro (note 2), 74–82. Nancy G. Siraisi in ‘Historia, action, utilitas: Fabrici e le scienze della vita nel Cinquecento’ in the same volume, especially, 66–67, supplements Cunningham's argument by pointing out that the three-fold approach was part of the Galenic as well as the Aristotelian traditions. As an example of what constitutes a historia, Siraisi quotes Vesalius, ‘the position, form, dimensions, construction, substance, connection of the veins, origins and implantations, ligaments and others things of such kind that are necessary to observe attentively in the historia of the uterus’.

²⁵Fabricius, De formato foetu, 280 and 294.

²⁶Fabricius, De ovi et pulli, 4 [146]. His inability to do so leads him to believe that the semen does not physically join the egg, but rather that the male seed has a formative power which acts on the egg by irradiation from a pouch, the so-called bursa of Fabricius. He discovered this receptacle, which he believed was intended to collect the male seed.

²⁷Fabricius, De ovi et pulli, 35 [187].

²⁸For a copy of the will, see Favaro (note 2), 327 and 331. Favaro 295, notes that the coloured plates of chicks are lost.

²⁹The fineness of blood vessels is remarkable in several paintings, most notably Marciana Rari 119.17, the mice, and 18, the guinea pigs.

³⁰Marciana, Rari 119.17, displays intricate details of foetal mice. Similarly, in the text that accompanies the painting of a two-month gravid human uterus, tavola I, fig. 1, he notes its small superficial veins. These veins are neither included in the prints nor in its key. Presumably the fine structure of these vessels would be lost among the engraving's shading. Particularly noteworthy are the crystalline bladders of the sheep and dog, and the amniotic sack enclosing the fetal pigs, Marciana Rari 119.4, 24, 12, 13.

³¹Marciana Rari 119.20.

³²Facimile in Adelmann (note 2), 635[367] ‘eius laevitatem admireris’. Further striking examples of the paintings conveying a sense of smoothness which is not conveyed by the engravings are the silver slippery-looking dogfish foetuses in Rari 119.19.

³³Including the parts of a human conceptus (notes this about the uterus in tavola I, fig. 1; about the placenta in fig. 4 [=engr.5]; and about the foetus in fig. 5 [=engr.6]) and a canine foetus (tavola XXV, fig. 5 [=engr.28, fig. 59]) in which a pup is freed of membrane to reveal its ‘position, size, and other attributes more precisely. All these features were altogether difficult to observe in so small a fetus’.

³⁴Guiseppe Ongaro, ‘Fabrici: dai manoscritti alla stampa’, in Teatro (note 2), 163.

³⁵Tavole in Marciana Rari 119 which are marked ‘intagliato’: 4, 5, 6, 15, 19. The claim that the paintings preceded the engravings is also put forth by Martin Kemp, ‘Il mio bell'ingenio’. L'anatomia visiva nel Theatrum totius animalis fabricate di Fabrici’ in Teatro (note 2), 94.

³⁶Tavole in Marciana Rari 119 of which parts have been cut and pasted: 7, 8, 17, 18, 19.

³⁷This is immediately clear while leafing through the volume. Historians agree that the tavole are the work of several artists, see G. Sterzi (note 2), 335–48; L.Premuda (note 2), 150–1; U. Stefanutti, Pitture (note 2), 38–9; Martin Kemp (note 36), 99–100, reaches the same conclusion on the basis of differences between the kinds of paper, the consistency of solvent, and the execution of plates—both in the rendering of details as in the quality of representations. He notes that in some images the dark background appears to have been carried out in a hurry with off-hand brushstrokes while other features are outlined with care. Kemp, 100–103, speculates about the reason for the striking dark backdrop that characterises most plates and suggests that it creates a sense of three-dimensionality.

³⁸Harvey (note 1), Preface. On Harvey's Aristotelianism see James G. Lennox, ‘The Comparative Study of Animal Development: William Harvey's Aristotelianism’, Problem of Animal Generation, edited Smith, as well as Andrew Cunningham (note 24). A classic treatment of Harvey's Aristotelianism is Jacques Roger's Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siècle: La génération des animaux de Descartes à l'Encyclopédie (Paris, 1963), 112–21.

⁴³Harvey (note 1), (1651), 279; (1653), 514; (1981), 424.

³⁹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 1, (1653), 2, (1981), 21. On Harvey's studies of avian generation, see my article, ‘Harvey's and Highmore's Accounts of Chick Generation’, Early Science and Medicine, 13 (2008), 568–614.

⁴⁰Harvey (note 1), Preface. In De ovi et pulli, representations of the parts as they appear the first thirteen days of gestation are accompanied by a legend. Unfortunately, the remaining four plates lack such a key. On the unnumbered page facing engr.4, the editor notes that the reader can deduce the remaining parts. In actuality, discerning certain parts is problematic. It is particularly unclear what the illustrations in the second row of engr.4, parts of a 15-day foetus, are meant to represent.

⁴¹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 214, (1653), 390–1; (1981), 331.

⁴²Harvey (note 1), (1651), 217–8 and 226, (1653), 396–7 and 413; (1981), 336 and 350.

⁴⁴Harvey (note 1), (1651) Preface, ‘atque indefessis laboribus varia rerum experimenta inquirentes’; (1653), Preface; (1981) 9–10.

⁴⁵The passage that Harvey quotes from Aristotle's Analytics is a paraphrase, not an exact quotation, see Harvey (note 1), (1651) and (1653), Preface; (1981) 10.

⁴⁶Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II.19, translated by Paolo C. Biondi (Laval, 2004), 99b, 20–35.

⁴⁷Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II.19, translated by Paolo C. Biondi (Laval, 2004), 100a,10–100b,5.

⁴⁸Harvey (note 1), (1651) and (1653), Preface; (1981) 12.

⁴⁹Harvey (note 1), (1651), Preface, ‘Secus si feceris, opinionem quidem tumidam, & fluctuantem acquires; solidam autem, ceramque scientiam non assequeris. Quemadmodum iis usu venit, qui in sculptis pictisve tabulis, longinquas terras, atque urbes, vel corporis humani partes interiors, sub falsâ imagine intuentur’. For this passage I quote the 1981 translation, 13, which in this instance is closer to the Latin than the 1653 translation. The latter renders the passage, ‘As it happeneth to those, who see forraign countries only in Mapps, and the bowels of men falsly described in Anatomical tables. And hence it comes about, that in this rank age, we have many Sophisters, and Bookwrights; but few wise men, and Philosophers’.

⁵⁰Harvey (note 1), (1651), 47; (1653), 85; (1981), 92.

⁵¹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 62, 239; (1653), 113, 436–8; (1981), 116, 367–8.

⁵²Harvey (note 1), (1651), 50, 60 and 232–4; (1653), 90, 109 and 423–8; (1981), 97, 112 and 359–61.

⁵³Harvey (note 1), (1651), 29, 401; (1653), 16, 401; (1981), 46–7, 340–1, cf. note 26.

⁵⁴Harvey (note 1), (1651), 24; (1653), 42; (1981), 57.

⁵⁵Harvey (note 1), (1651), 25; (1653), 44; (1981), 59.

⁵⁶Harvey (note 1), (1651), 240, 287; (1653), 438–9, 529–30; (1981), 368–9, 435.

⁵⁷Harvey (note 1), (1651), 243; (1653), 446; (1981), 373.

⁵⁸Harvey (note 1), (1651), 235; (1653), 429; (1981), 362.

⁵⁹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 50 and 60; (1653), 90 and 109; (1981), 97 and 112. Curiously, he never references the viviparous plates.

⁶⁰Harvey (note 1), (1651), Preface, (1653), Preface; (1981), 19.

⁶¹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 8; (1653), 15; (1981), 35.

⁶²Harvey (note 1), (1651), 92; (1653), 93; (1981), 99.

⁶³Harvey (note 1), (1651), 56; (1653), 101; (1981), 107.

⁶⁴Harvey (note 1), (1651), 61; (1653), 110; (1981), 113.

⁶⁵Harvey (note 1), (1651), 61; (1653), 111; (1981), 113.

⁶⁶Harvey (note 1), (1651), 61; (1653), 111; (1981), 115.

⁶⁷Harvey (note 1), (1651), 62; (1653), 113; (1981), 116.

⁶⁸Harvey (note 1), (1651), 62; (1653), 113; (1981), 116.

⁶⁹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 68; (1653), 123; (1981), 124.

⁷¹Harvey (note 1), (1651), 227; (1653), 414–5; (1981), 351–2.

⁷⁰Harvey (note 1), (1651), 281, 287–8, 225, 240; (1653), 517, 529–31, 411, 430; (1981), 426–7, 435–6, 349, 367. Harvey notes the etymologies of ‘cotyledon’ and ‘acetabula’, respectively Greek for cup and Latin for vinegar dish. He explicitly disagrees with Aristotle's claim, in Historia animalium, VII, 8, 586b 11–12, that the cotyledons diminish in size as the foetus grows. On (1651), 235; (1653), 429–30; (1981), 362–3, he also compares the wombs of hind and ewe and describes the latter as embossed with an infinite number of carunculae that resemble crabs’ eyes or hanging warts.

⁷²For the few exceptions, see note 14.

⁷³Siraisi (note 24), 71, argues that Fabricius's project was only possible in its Paduan context and shares some characteristics with much of scientific culture of the period, including aspirations to create encyclopedic works on various aspects of nature; the reprocessing of scientific heritage of antiquity; empirical understanding (as seen in details of observations and descriptions of particulars); elements of competition within the scientific community (Fabricius explains why his work surpasses all others); innovations in the use of scientific illustrations. She shows ways in which these characteristics of the intellectual and scientific ambiance were manifest in Fabricius's work. A further interesting point she makes is that Fabricius's painted plates included in the printed books is both the work of a pioneer and in a certain respect, recalls also the survival and adaptation of the practices of manuscript culture in the course of the first century and a half of printing. For a broader discussion of anatomical illustrations in this period, see Martin Kemp, ‘“The mark of truth”: looking and learning in some anatomical illustrations from the Renaissance and eighteenth century’, in Medicine and the Five Senses, edited by William F. Bynum and Roy Porter (Cambridge, 1993), 85–121.

⁷⁴This method of printing, chiaroscuro woodcuts, developed in the early sixteenth century in German and Italian regions. See Adam Barsch, Le peintre graveur, 21 vols (Vienna, 1803–1821), XII; T.A. Riggs, Italian Chiaroscuro Woodcuts of the 16 ^th and 17 ^th Centuries, exhibition catalogue of the Worchester Art Museum, 1974. Michael Matile, Italienische Holzschnitte der Renaissance und des Barock (Basle, 2003), 13–4. While in German prints an outline was often superimposed on the surfaces, Italian chiaroscuro prints work primarily with surfaces, which create a more painterly affect.

⁷⁵Aselli (note 12) chapter 9, names the witnesses, but not the location. It was in a letter from Ludovico Settala to Pompeo Caimo, written in September 1627 that he relates that the vivisection was carried out in his home. The letter is reproduced in Silvia Rota Ghibaudi, Ricerche su Ludovido Settala: biografia, bibliografia, iconografia e documenti (Florence, 1959), 22. This volume provides the most substantial biographical account of Ludovico. Brief biographical sketches of Tadino, of both Settalas (also Septalius) and lists of their publications are found in Nicholas F.J. Eloy, Vol. 4, Dictionnaire historique de la medecine ancienne et moderne (Paris, 1778), 356, 251–3.

⁷⁶H.P. Bayon, ‘William Harvey, physician and biologist: his precursors, opponents and successors’, part 5, Annals of Science 4 (1940) 328–89, 370, claims that Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc provided the funds for the printing of De lactibus, and is cited by Roger French William Harvey's natural philosophy, (Cambridge, 1994), 179. Neither provides a source for this claim, which is contradicted by Pierre Gassendi, The Mirrour of True Nobility and Gentility, being the Life of the Renowned Nicolas Peiresc (1580–1637) (London, 1657), 28–9, who describes Peiresc's learning about Aselli's book in 1628.

⁷⁷V. Ducceschi, ‘I manoscritti di Gaspare Aselli (1581–1625)’, Archivio di Storia della Scienza 20 (1922), 125–34, 125. Tadino's and the Settalas’ names are primarily associated with their service on the Tribunal of Health during the 1630s plague in Milan—Alessandro Manzoni discusses Tadino and both Settalas in his historical novel The Betrothed, chapters 28–33. The English translation by Fr Kenelm Foster, edited by David Forgacs and Matthew Reynolds (London, 1997), 436, mistakenly describes Lodovico Settala as having been a professor of medicine at Padua, Manzoni correctly has Pavia.

⁷⁸Antonio Favaro ‘Per la storia dello Studio di Padova: due lettere inedite di Senatore Settala’, Bolletino di Museo civico di Padova, 16 (1913), 100–10.

⁷⁹Luigi Belloni. ‘La medicina a Milano sino al Seicento’. In Storia di Milano, volume 11, part 12, edited by Pietro Verri (Milan, 1962), (635–41, 637), references E.Ferrario, ‘La vita di Alessandro Tadino, medico Milanese’, Gazzetta medica Italiano (1857), 197–203, 205–10, 213–7, 221–5, 229–37.