Casseri’s Tabulae Anatomicae is of course directly influenced by that of Vesalius,
including the organisation of the text.52 Of the illustrations, only the skeletons are taken directly from the Fabrica. Like many contemporary and later anatomical treatises, the natural progression of knowledge was demonstrated through evolving and increasingly complex plates of muscles. The skeletons of Vesalius were often used but very occasionally improved upon. This is due in part to their high degree of accuracy and their emotive beauty. The muscles, on the other hand, while classically inspired and correct,
49B.A. Rifkin, M.J. Ackerman and J. Folkenberg,Human Anatomy: Depicting the Body from the
Renaissance to Today, 114.
50
I. Casseri,Anatomische Tafeln, Franckfurt (T.M. Götze) 1656. Copies of this edition survive in the following libraries: Linkoping Stadsbibliotek, Sweden; Countway Library, Harvard University Medical School, MA, USA; Chandler Medical Centre, University of Kentucky, KY, USA; School of Medicine Library, Washington University, MO, USA; University of Oklahoma, Norman OK, USA; UC Berkley, CA, USA; and the Bancroft Library, University of California, CA, USA. I. Casseri,Anatomische Tafeln, zusamt derselben höchstnöhtigen Erklärung, Francfurt (G.H. Oehrling) 1707. As with the 1656 edition, a number of copies of the 1707 edition survive in the following libraries: Yale University Library, CT, USA; Yale University Medical Library, CT, USA; Thomas Jefferson University Library, PA, USA; National Library of Medicine, Bethesda MD, USA; Cleveland Health Science Library, OH, USA; and UCLA Library, Los Angeles CA, USA. In respect to both editions, I have been as yet unable to consult either because of their relative geographical inaccessibility.
51J. Browne,Myographia Nova: or a Graphical Description of All the Muscles in the Humane Body, As
they arise in Dissection. Distributed into Six Lectures,London (Thomas Shelmerdine) 1705. [WEL, 15696/C]
were seen as static and stagnant by the Seicento. It is this sense of animation and vivacity for which Fialetti is praised by both Malvasia in the Felsina Pittrice and Gigli in La Pittura Trionfante. Of his bodies, Malvasia copies Boschini’s La Carta del Navegar Pittorescowhen he writes that they are well drawn, with exquisite form, full of substance and full of life, and that his bodies approach the living. 53 Gigli continues with similar praise, even becoming more overt in his descriptions of Fialetti’s abilities in relation to
anatomy. 54 Fialetti’s prowess in these accounts, alongside both good colorito and
disegno is equated with anatomy. In to the eighteenth century, one finds similar descriptions, including that from Giovanni Gori Gandellini, which regards his anatomy more as curiosity than great art.55
Even as late as the nineteenth century, in William Anderson’s address to the Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas’ Hospital, Fialetti is mentioned in the context of good and artistic anatomy:
“We have no Lionardo [sic] de Vinci, Calcar, Fialetti, or Berrettini, but the modern draughtsman makes up in comprehension of the needs of science all that he lacks in artistic genius”.56
The genius of Casseri, the artistic abilities of Fialetti (and to a lesser degree Valesius), and the facility and willingness of printer Evangelista Deuchino57combined to create this
53
C.C. Malvasia,Felsina Pittrice. Vite de Pittori Bolognesi, 314.
54G.C. Gigli,La Pittura Trionfante, 19. [BAV, Cicognara, IV.M.107, (int. 17)] See No. 6, Appendix IV.
This particular description “ mostrando di valor genio immortale” is interesting and echoes the inscription on Vesalius’ “Skeletal Yorrick”, stating that genius is immortal
55
G. Gori Gandellini,Notizie Istoriche degl’Intagliatori, tomo II, Siena (Vincenso Pazzini Carli e Figli) 1771, 23. [BL, Rare Books, 277.e.6] Most of this description of Fialetti’s anatomy suggests that the author is familiar with Malvasia’s account. See No. 7, Appendix IV.
56W. Anderson, “An Outline of the History of Art in Its Relation to Medical Science”, introductory address
delivered at the Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas’ Hospital, 1885,St Thomas’s Hospital Reports
15, 1886, 170; as cited in L. Daston and P. Galison, “The Image of Objectivity”,Representations40, Special Issue: Seeing Science, 1992, 100.
unique work. The title page of the 1627 edition is skilfully executed, both iconographically and technically, and was reproduced with less success in the 1632
edition [Fig. 4.3]. Here, we see Fialetti breaking away from the Vesalian model and
demonstrating his own creative capabilities. Instead of a crowded dissection theatre, the viewer is shown an architectural framework, surmounted by the personified virtues of Diligence (DILIGENTIA), Anatomy (ANATOMIA), and Genius (INGENIVM). Diligence holds a scalpel in her left hand and a bifurcated hook (potentially the surgical retractor which also appears on the table of anatomical instruments) in her right, and turns to face Anatomy. Anatomy sits on an architectural throne, behind which is a curtain, the form of which is almost reminiscent of the Virgin Mary seated upon the throne of Wisdom as seen in Quattrocento and Cinquecento painting, as well as classically inspired depictions of Virtues. Anatomy holds a mirror upon her right knee, and a skull in the left, quite literally reflecting humanity and mortality. The far right figure of Genius sits apart from the other two and does not interact in the same way. She holds a staff with a sun-disc at the top, and gestures to it, suggesting that the light and brilliance of genius is an integral part of the study of anatomy. The architectural frame itself is very detailed and the rounded space (flanked by the two anatomical figures) recalls the space as created in the Vesalian title page of 1543. Two central putti hold the banner with the title page inscription above a table containing “INSTRVMENTA ANATOMICA”, including a bone saw, scalpel, surgical retractor, scissors, and a hammer and chisel. The Skeletal Gravedigger on the left of the image is taken directly from Vesalius’ figure of the same name, though here he has been reversed (potentially a result
57
See Chapter III, section 4.1 for information on Evangelista Deuchino and his role in the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori.
of copying) and compacted to form a column and his right hand turned in to a more natural position (as opposed to anatomical position with the palm facing outward as in the original). Fialetti has elongated the figure, departing from the Vesalian reliance on classical proportions, in order to create a more beautiful and sinuous body. He has also increased the size of the pelvis, and decreased the breadth of the ribcage, creating a skeleton more in keeping with female proportions, rather than the strict ‘triangle’ as one expects to see in male figures.58 The écorché is much the same, taken from Prima, the first plate of muscles, it has been reversed, the arms pushed closer in to the sides of the body and the length increased, whilst still retaining the accuracy and emotive quality to the face as the original. Of copies after the originals, these are some of the most faithful. When one considers other uses of the muscle men and skeletons, in particular Valverde de Amusco’s treatise of 1560,Anatomia del corpo humano, it becomes clear that the skill required to complete even a copy of these works is extraordinary. Underneath the skeleton, is a tondo of a monkey holding an apple, under which is engraved: “Franc. Valesius Sculpsit”; whilst underneath the écorché is a boar, bearing the inscription: “Odoardus Fialettij delineauit”. The date and year are also indicated as “VENETIIS / MDCXXVII”, on the left and right respectively.