Specimen of a Historical and Critical Library of Rare Physical and Medical Books

And although it cannot be denied that all these figures have been prepared in such a way that it was necessary to inscribe names on their misshapen forms, and they signify more than they represent the parts of the human body: we nevertheless rightfully conclude that something must be granted to the time in which they appeared. But whether our MAGNUS HUNDT was the first of all after the rebirth of letters to set out to fashion the seats and figures of the animal body for anatomical uses in tables is still a matter under judgment. For the glory of those anatomical icons having been invented, or if you please, restored (g), some have attributed to MUNDINUS (h), others to JACOPO BERENGARIO DA CARPI, others to CHARLES ESTIENNE; but the praised PLATNER has shown that all have fallen into a certain assumed opinion, by which they persuaded themselves that these arts were cultivated and nurtured only by Italians and Frenchmen, and completely neglected by our own people.

(g) For the glory of the first invention, as IOH. RIOLAN the son Anthropogr. Book I. Ch. XVI. p. 51. Edit. Opp. Paris 1649., CASP. HOFMANN, Instit. Med. Book II. Ch. XXII. and he who followed him IOH. HENR. SCHULZE Hist. Anat. spec. II. §. 6. have observed, is rightly owed to ARISTOTLE, insofar as he, who spent most of his effort on the dissection of animals, made mention of tables visible in anatomical books more than a single time, although those, which is certainly to be lamented, have not reached our age.

(h) Among whom stands out ANDR. OTTOM. GOELICKE. loc. cit. p. 42. and although Stolle, or rather Kestner, in the Medical Learned History p. 404, accused him of error on that account, it will nevertheless be evident from things to be said below that Goelicke did not err as much as is thought.