Studies in the History and Method of Science

hment, originally of forty-?nine folios, of which the third and fourth are missing. The writing is in the fine Italian hand that the printed typ

nor his work is mentioned in Medici's detailed history of the anatomical school at Bologna180 nor in Martinotti's recent study on

ters of style are encountered also in his published works. The dedication is in Latin, of the same unpleasing quality,

u saw the wonderful works of Nature in the anatomy ... and you parentally urged me, Hieronymo Manfredi, to inscribe to your most noble name this work on anatomy.... I therefore extracted

your noble name! Accept it with your customary benevolence and humanity and in a kindly and graci

d of the republic of Bologna, and played there much the same r?le as did Lorenzo de' Medici at Florence. He adorned Bologna with numerous buildings,183 and acted as patron of the arts and the sciences. The Palazzo

nzo de' Medici among them, encouraged and legalized the practice of dissection, but probably Bentivoglio is the only one recorded as having patronized

the work of William of Saliceto or of Mondino or the anatomy erroneously attributed to Richardus Anglicus; it is more natural than the book of Gabriele de Gerbi, and is far superior to the crude contemporary sketches of Hundt, Peyligk, and Achillini, while it wastes less space than Guy de Chauliac on teleology, though it has none of the charm of the work of that great surgeon.

being the product of a practical dissector, and it provides us with a good example of early Renaissance anatomy as taught in the Italian schools before the reforms of Vesalius. It is perhaps the first complete treatise on its subject written originally in the vernacular.1

he infallibility of any one writer. The work is thus in a sense intermediate between the early printed versions of Mondino, such as that of 1478, and the edition

d into English. All are similar to the accounts of Mondino. We are able to illustrate them by figures