Abstract
At the end of the sixteenth century new anatomical knowledge led both empirically minded philosophers and philosophically minded anatomists to rethink theories of light, color, and vision in subtle but significant ways. In this paper I show how anatomy and philosophy conspired to understand the structure and the purpose of the parts of the eye in two important, but largely overlooked, works by professors at the University of Padua: the natural philosopher Jacopo Zabarella’s De visu (first published in 1590) and the anatomist and physician Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente’s De visione (1600). How they understood the roles of the various parts of the eye reveals much about the strategies different disciplines used to reconcile ancient authorities (particularly Galen and Aristotle) with new anatomical observations and experiments. Importantly, the two professors offer identical accounts of the size, shape, and clarity, as well as the usus (or Galeno-Aristotelian final cause), of the vitreous humor, the transparent gel that fills the space between the crystalline humor (or lens) and the retina. This account of the vitreous is at the center of a theory of vision that differs in crucial ways from previous perspectivists, natural philosophers, and anatomists. Given this striking similarity, I argue that the two must have interacted significantly at Padua. I also argue that (by way of a former student of Fabricius, the anatomist and physician Jan Jessenius) this theory of vision influenced Kepler’s revolutionary account in his Ad Vitellionem paralipomena (1604) in certain respects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Lindberg 1976, 175.
- 4.
Ibid., 173.
- 5.
- 6.
Ibid., 630.
- 7.
Koelbing 1990, 395. See also his incorrect assessment on page 365.
- 8.
Ibn al-Haytham (c. 965–c. 1040), most frequently called Alhacen in Latin before Friedrich Risner’s 1572 printing, after which Alhazen became the dominant spelling. For simplicity I follow Fabricius- -> and call him Alhazen throughout.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Zabarella - -> 1590; Fabricius - -> 1600. De visu was also included (along with many other books in De rebus concerning the soul- ->) in Zabarella’s posthumous De anima commentary. All citations below are to the column number the 1617 Frankfurt edition. I also include the book number and chapter of De visu as: (DV book.chapter).
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Vesalius 1555, 799–806.
- 15.
Saunders and O’Malley 1950, 200. They write that the view of the eye- -> as a microcosm also hindered works in geometrical optics, but this is overly simplistic. Their opinion on this is cited in Vesalius 2014, 1301 n. 1.
- 16.
Heseler and Eriksson 1959, 290–291. Vesalius also says that “anyone can see for himself at home.” One wonders if Vesalius ever did so.
- 17.
- 18.
Nutton 2012, 435.
- 19.
Galen 1968, 475–476.
- 20.
Nutton 2012, 435. Translation his. In a footnote Nutton mentions that a referee pointed out that it would be difficult to determine the place of the crystalline humor once the aqueous humor had leaked out and the bulbus collapsed, but in my experience this is not difficult if one is attending to this issue at all during dissection. Nutton also notes that earlier anatomists divided the eye- -> into two equal cavities, which is not entirely correct. I would like to thank Gideon Manning for bringing this article to my attention.
- 21.
- 22.
Benedetti and Ferrari 1998, 280; Carpi and Mondino 1521, 462r. Alhazen and Witelo describe only the front of the crystalline as lenticular, although how to reconcile their characterizations of the shape of the crystalline humor seen through dissection with their geometrical account is not altogether clear. See Alhacen 2001a, lvii–lx, 12; Witelo 1991, 294–297.
- 23.
Galen 1968.
- 24.
Note that, in the annotations to his 1555 Fabrica, Vesalius gives no indication that his opinion had changed. See Nutton 2012.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
On unpacking this phrase, see Palmieri 2007.
- 29.
Galen 1988, 471–473.
- 30.
DA 419a1–21, 424a20. All quotations of Aristotle refer to the 1984 Barnes edition. Aristotle 1984.
- 31.
For Zabarella- ->’s discussion of this in Aristotle, see DV 1.8, Zabarella 1617, 874 C-D.
- 32.
DA 418b27.
- 33.
PN 438a13-438b6; PA 647a14.
- 34.
PN, 439b1–14.
- 35.
PN, 439b20–440a6.
- 36.
A more detailed account on color in Aristotle is Sorabji 2004.
- 37.
DA, 418b5.
- 38.
- 39.
Zabarella- ->’s lengthy discussion of lux and lumen is at DV 1.4–1.7, Zabarella 1617, 867–874.
- 40.
DV 1.9–11. Ibid., 876–881.
- 41.
DV 1.10. Ibid., 880 F.
- 42.
DV 2.5. Ibid., 900 E. “…quia propter perspicuitatem recipiunt lumen introrsum, & propter densitatem retinent, atque uniunt.”
- 43.
- 44.
DV 1.8. Zabarella - -> 1617, 874 B. “Galenus enim tum de visione, tum de plerisque aliis rebus scribens, nescivit artem medicam distinguere à naturali philosophia: quum enim plurima ad naturalem philosophum attinentia constituere potius, quam exquisitae tractare debuisset.”
- 45.
- 46.
DV 1.8. Zabarella - -> 1617, 875 B–C. His refutation of Galen is developed at length in DV 2.5. “nam ut ego iudicare videns potui, [vitreus] est fortasse quadruplo, vel etiam quintuplo maior [quam crystallinus]; sed maxime clarus, & albus, & in hoc manifestissimum est, deceptum esse Galenum… deceptus etiam in eo est Galenus, quod dixit huius humoris officium esse, ut ex eo crystallinus nutriatur.”
- 47.
DV 2.5. Ibid., 901 D–F.
- 48.
DV 2.5. Ibid., 902 A.
- 49.
For example, GC 321a30-322b1.
- 50.
DV 2.5. Zabarella - -> 1617, 901 F–902 B. “quia mutatur in ea generatione color in colorem conveniente rei generandae, vel nutriendae, quod praestare sagacissima natura, quando ita expedit, facile potest. Est etiam absonum rationi, quod tanta moles, quanta est humor vitreus, crystallino ad eius nutritionem tradita sit; nam multo maior est crystallino vitreus, ac si sensui credimus, est quadruplo, & fortasse quintuplo maior, videmus autem in omnibus alimentum esse re nutrienda longe minoris quantitatis, idque omnino necessarium est: quia, quum alimentum in principio sit contrarium, & cum re alenda pugnet, si maius esset, opprimeret eam potius, quam aleret, tanquam validius, quoniam in maiori corpore vis maior inest; potius igitur natura crystallini in naturam vitrei mutaretur, quam è contrario.”
- 51.
Von Staden 1997.
- 52.
DV 2.5. Zabarella - -> 1617, 902 C.
- 53.
DV 2.5. Ibid., 902 D–F. “hoc est absque dubio vitrei humoris oficium; nam experientia docet, lumen transiens per vitreum aliquod cavum uniri in illa cavitate, & permeans ultra vitrum in quadam certa ab eo distantia facere conum, in cuius extremetate intensissimum lumen apparet, sed minimae quantitas instar milii, nempe, si in illa certa distantia ponatur corpus aliquod solidum, in quod angulus impingat; nam si propinquius vitro corpus illud ponatur, maiore eius pars illuminabitur, & eo maior, quo sit propinquius vitro; at si paulatim removeatur, minuetur continue, donec ad minimam superficiei illuminatae quantitatem perveniat, ideo in illa minima quantitate ita est unitum & validum illud lumen, ut etiam accendat, & urat, quoniam ibi definit conus, & angulus a concursu radiorum productus; ideo si adhuc magis removeatur corpus illud, nullum amplius lumen ab illo vitreo ad ipsum pervenit, sed exinanitum, quia quum ad conum, & ad acumen tendat, non praetergreditur quoddam determinatum punctum.”
- 54.
Smith 2004, 181.
- 55.
- 56.
Dupré 2005.
- 57.
De calore coelesti chapter 10; Zabarella - -> 1617, 574 F–575 B. “proiecti nanque radii Solis in terram resiliunt à terra refracti, & in aere duplicantur, nimirum descendentes, atque ascendentes, & ex radiorum inter se collisione extenuatur aer, & calidior fit: credendum quidem est radios Solis etiam rectà proiectos, ac simplices aliquid caloris efficere.”
- 58.
De calore coelesti chapter 3. Zabarella - -> 1617, 559–562. The relationship between heat and motion was an important and contested issue in the seventeenth century. Zabarella’s treatment here is quite involved, and my short discussion necessarily omits a great deal.
- 59.
DV 2.5. Zabarella - -> 1617, 903. A–B. “Ego igitur in oculorum sectione vidi crystallinum ab aliis humoribus separatum, cui quum accensa candelula apponeretur, totius fiebat lucidus, & splendens tanquam candelae lumine imbutus ob suam perspicuitatem, & trans totam crystallini substantiam meabat lumen, & in posteriore crystallini parte transibat in conum, & in acumen, non multo post intimam crystallini gibbositatem, ita ut acumen illud, & linearum concursus parum distaret à crystallino, imo ipsum fere attingere videretur; ideo certum est, illius coni acumen exinaniri in humore vitreo, qui magnam habet profunditatem, ideoque ad posteriores tunicas pervenire non posse.”
- 60.
Alhacen 2001a, lx–lxi, 26–43; Lindberg 1976, 71–80. Note that for Alhazen the glacialis and the vitreous are not always treated as distinct humors, but sometimes separate regions of a single humor. For the edition that Zabarella and Fabricius would have examined, which differs in some important ways from Latin mediaeval manuscripts, see Alhazen and Witelo 1572.
- 61.
- 62.
Lindberg 1976, 244 n. 106.
- 63.
- 64.
Peckham 1970, 118–119.
- 65.
Ibid., 38.
- 66.
How to interpret Pecham on this point is not always clear. See ibid., 118–119.
- 67.
Witello 1992, 319. On transparency of the humors in Witelo, see ibid, 105, 128–129. See also Unguru’s assessment at ibid., 216 n. 8.
- 68.
Cunningham 1985.
- 69.
See, for example, his discussion of the color of the crystalline humor due to age or boiling and its connection to the elements at Fabricius - -> 1600, 12.
- 70.
Ibid., 48.
- 71.
“Atque haec sola lux existit, quae si colorem corporis attingat, coloratur;” Ibid., 40. The collapse of light and color in the seventeenth century was a radical conceptual change in the history of vision- -> and demands far more analysis than has hitherto been given, but there is no space for anything like an adequate discussion here.
- 72.
Ibid., 41.
- 73.
Ibid., 44–45.
- 74.
For this last point, see his discussion of the parts of the egg in Fabricius- -> and Adelmann 1967, 215, 220–221.
- 75.
Ibid., 109. “vitreus enim quadruplo, & amplius Crystallino est copiosior, quae res omninò Crystallinum à tunicis quàm maximè distare facit, ut scilicet omninò lux in tanta vitrei amplitudine prius evanescat & obumbretur, quàm ad tunicas pertingere, atque ab ipsis reflecti possit: atque hoc ita evenire, si Crystallinum & vitreum adversae luci opponas, facilè conspicies. See also page 13, where the vitreous “ferè quadruplo crystalloidem exsuperans.”
- 76.
Valverde and Colombo both say that the vitreous occupies three-fourths of the interior. Valverde 1556, 82: “Este umor llamaron los Griegos Udatoydes, los Latinos Vitreo, el qual occupa las tres partes del huesco del ojo.” Colombo 1559, 219: “Neque ibi solum sed anterioris quoque non exiguam portionem, ita ut ex quatuor oculi partibus tres occupet hialoides [i.e., the vitreous].”
- 77.
Fabricius - -> 1600, 107.
- 78.
Ibid., 105.
- 79.
Ibid., 106.
- 80.
Ibid., 107. “Id autem mea sententia facile assequemur, si primo vitreum, aut eius diaphanum non adesse imaginemur. Quod si diaphanum post crystallinum non esset positum, necessario opacum collocari corpus oporteret […] igitur retinam, & Choroidem, crystallinum attingere necessarium esset: indeque lux crystallinum transgressa, & has tunicas, quasi coloratum parietem pertingens, pertundensque ac tunicarum coloribus, ob contactum affecta, foedataque denique retro ad crystalloidem reflexa crystallinum potius tunicarum nativis coloribus afficeret, quam extrinsecus assumptis, sine ulla sensus videndi utilitate.”
- 81.
Ibid., 107. “Neque hoc loco illud est astruendum in crystallino, lucem dispergi, & evanescere, & ita reflexum prohiberi.”
- 82.
Ibid., 110. “Crystallini postica extuberantia, quae lucis unionem in vitreo prope Crystallinum finiri cogit.”
- 83.
Ibid., 102–103. “Quae igitur erit propositae rotundus utilitas? Ea certe, mea sententia, ut lux crystallino transvecta, tum in seipsa uniatur, tum longius à crystallino non progediatur, sed in vitreo cesset, ac quodammodo commoriatur.”
- 84.
Ibid., 60. “Aqueus deinde est non aereus; ut intus facilè contineri vicissimque continere visilium formas possit, neque lux vehemens intus in oculo ignem accendere valeat.”
- 85.
- 86.
Aguilón 1613, 6. “Vitreum autem post crystalloidem natura collocavit, ut si quid luminis crystallinum praetergressum fuerit in eo hebetetur, ne, ut iam antè dictum est, ab opaco coloratoque retinae corpore foedatum ad crystallinum reflectatur.” He also says that crystalline is dense and protrudes in the rear “ut lux in ipso commoriatur, ne longiùs progressa vitreumque praetervecta, ad retinam redeat, ab eaque ad crystallinum resiliens nova affectione visum perturbat.”
- 87.
- 88.
Kepler - -> 2000, 171–172.
- 89.
- 90.
To give one more recent example Lefèvre 2007, 55–56: “No anatomical discoveries fed into this [i.e., Kepler- ->’s] model: a seventeenth century anatomist’s knowledge of this organ did not differ significantly from that of a fifteenth century artist-anatomist like Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519).” See also notes 3–7 above.
- 91.
In Witelo the shape of the rear of the crystalline is unclear, while Platter says that the posterior of the crystalline is “sphaericus,” which Kepler- -> does not follow. Furthermore, Platter says that the vitreous is “aequè splendidus ac crystallinus, sed mollior”, though he never explicitly refers to the density/rarity or thickness/thinness of the vitreous, which terms typically denote refractive power. Platter 1583, 187.
- 92.
Kepler - -> 1604, 167. “Sic enim refert Jessenius, non sphaericum esse, quod Platterus aiebat, sed valdè protuberare, & oblongum fieri, quasi in conum assurgat: anteriore verò facie, depresse esse rotunditate.”
- 93.
Jessenius 1601, 117v. “ita posteriùs valdè protuberat, eo fine ut lux crystallino transmissa, cùm in seipsa uniatur, tum longius à crystallino non progressa, illicò in crystallino evanesceret, & quasi commoreretur.” This is repeated and emphasized at 124v–125r.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
On this crucial point, Sven Dupré writes that, prior to the sixteenth century, the “punctum inversionis was not used in the perspectivist tradition of optics. Rather, this point was regarded as either the point of inversion or the point of combustion, but it fell outside the conceptual framework of perspectivist optics that this point could possibly be the locus of both.” Dupré 2012, 515. For more on the conceptual framework of mediaeval and renaissance perspectivists and their failure to treat image projection, see Smith 2005.
- 98.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
Kepler - -> 1604, 170, 204, 220–221.
- 105.
- 106.
This attack is merely rhetorical. My aim here is to present potential contemporary objections to his theory in order to imagine a time in which it was not at all clear that Kepler- ->’s theory of vision- -> would win out. Good historical work documenting actual objections or reservations towards Kepler’s theory is the proper corrective, but this is a significant project that has yet to be undertaken by scholars in detail.
- 107.
In my view the most succinct and accurate assessment in English is Poppi 2004. For the thesis that Zabarella- -> contributed significantly to the development of the modern scientific method, see Cassirer 1922, 136–143; Randall 1940; Edwards 1960, 323–353; Wallace 1988. For its refutation, see Schmitt 1969; Jardine 1976; Palmieri 2007.
- 108.
See the introduction to De voce in Fabricius - -> 1600.
- 109.
Not addressed here, but see Edwards 1960.
- 110.
See especially Dear 1987; Dear 2006. The former is particularly relevant as it looks at the development of experiment in mathematical optics. A comparison between the use of experience and experiment in works on vision- -> written by anatomists and physicians with those written by mathematicians would be particularly fruitful. I see little reason- -> to privilege the latter over the former, as has thus far been the case.
- 111.
Fabricius- ->, De visione, p. 105. “Ut autem qui Opticae scientiae operam dant, accuratè obervare possint, progressum varium radiorum, quos visuales appellant, dum ab uno in alium humorem transeunt; atque angulos refractionis dimetiri, & inde innumeras utilitates partium excepere: curavimus exactissima diligentia, oculum humanum & ovilem per medium secari, & magnitudinem totius, ac singularum partium, nec non earundem situs, & figuras describi, & loca qua eorum centra obtinent inveniri, & omnia in subiecta tabella delineari. Habebunt enim curiosi indagatores operum naturae, ubi multa contemplari possint.”
- 112.
Shapiro 2008.
- 113.
Aguilón 1613, 11–12, 119–125. Note that he nevertheless reverses the order of the centers of the cornea and crystalline compared to Fabricius- ->, which has a significant effect on his analysis of vision- ->.
- 114.
Scheiner 1619, 20.
References
Aguilón, François de. 1613. Francisci Agvilonii E Societate Iesv Opticorvm Libri Sex. Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana.
Alhacen. 2001a. Alhacen’s theory of visual perception: A critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of the first three books of Alhacen’s ‘De Aspectibus’, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn Al-Haytham’s ‘Kitāb Al-Manāzir’: Volume one., ed. A. Mark Smith. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 91(4): i–337.
Alhacen. 2001b. Alhacen’s theory of visual perception: A critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of the first three books of Alhacen’s ‘De Aspectibus’, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn Al-Haytham’s ‘Kitāb Al-Manāzir’: Volume Two., ed. A. Mark Smith. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 91(5): 339–819.
Alhazen, and Witelo. 1572. In Opticae thesaurus, ed. Risner Friedrich. Basel: Per Episcopios.
Aristotle. 1984. The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, 2 vols., ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle, and Averroes. 1562. Aristotelis Stagiritae De coelo; De generatione et corruptione; Meteorologicorum; De plantis libri cum Averroes Cordubensis in variis eosdem comentariis. Venice: Apud Iuntas.
Averroes. 1986. In Averroes on the substance of the celestial sphere: Critical edition of the Hebrew text with English translation and commentary, ed. Arthur Hyman. Cambridge: Medieval Academy of America.
Benedetti, Alessandro, and Giovanna Ferrari. 1998. Historia corporis humani, sive Anatomice. Firenze: Giunti.
Bylebyl, Jerome. 1979. The school of Padua: Humanistic medicine in the sixteenth century. In Health, medicine, and mortality in the sixteenth century, ed. Charles Webster, 335–370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpi, Jacopo Berengario da. 1959. A short introduction to anatomy: (Isagogae Breves). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carpi, Jacopo Berengario da., and Mondino. 1521. Carpi Commentaria cum additionibus super anatomia Mundini. Bologna: Impressum per Hieronymum de Benedictis.
Cassirer, Ernst. 1922. Das Erkenntnisproblem in Der Philosophie Und Wissenschaft Der Neuren Zeit. Vol. 1. Berlin: B. Cassirer.
Colombo, Realdo. 1559. De re anatomica libri XV. Venice: ex typographia Nicolai Builacquae.
Crombie, A.C. 1967. The mechanistic hypothesis and the scientific study of vision. Proceedings of the Royal Microscopical Society 2: 1–112.
Crombie, A.C. 1990. Expectation, modelling, and assent in the history of optics: Part I. Alhazen and the medieval tradition. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21(4): 605–632.
Crombie, A.C. 1991. Expectation, modelling, and assent in the history of optics—II. Kepler and Descartes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 22(1): 89–115.
Cunningham, Andrew. 1985. Fabricius and the ‘Aristotle Project’ in anatomical teaching and research at Padua. In The medical renaissance of the sixteenth century, ed. Andrew Wear, Roger Kenneth French, and Iain M. Lonie, 195–222. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cunningham, Andrew. 1997. The anatomical renaissance: The resurrection of the anatomical projects of the ancients. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
De Angelis, Simone. 2008. From text to the body: Commentaries on De Anima, anatomical practice and authority around 1600. In Scholarly knowledge: Textbooks in early modern Europe, 205–228. Genève: Librairie Droz.
Dear, Peter. 1987. Jesuit mathematical science and the reconstitution of experience in the early seventeenth century. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 18(2): 133–175.
Dear, Peter. 2006. The meanings of experience. In The Cambridge history of science: Early modern period, vol. 3, ed. Lorraine Daston and Katherine Park, 106–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Distelzweig, Peter. 2014. Fabricius’s Galeno-Aristotelian teleomechanics of muscle. In The life sciences in early modern philosophy, ed. Ohad Nachtomy and Justin E.H. Smith, 65–84. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dupré, Sven. 2005. Ausonio’s Mirrors and Galileo’s lenses: The telescope and sixteenth-century practical optical knowledge. Galilaeana 2: 145–180.
Dupré, Sven. 2006. Optica Est Ars Bene Videndi: From Gemma’s radius to Galileo’s telescope. In Astronomy as a model for the sciences in early modern times, ed. M. Folkerts and A. Kühne, 355–368. Ausburg: Rauner.
Dupré, Sven. 2007. Images in the air: Optical games, magic and imagination. In Spirits unseen: The representation of subtle bodies in early modern European culture, ed. C. Göttler and W. Neuber, 71–92. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
Dupré, Sven. 2008. Inside the camera obscura: Kepler’s experiment and theory of optical imagery. Early Science and Medicine 13(3): 219–244.
Dupré, Sven. 2012. Kepler’s optics without hypotheses. Synthese 185(3): 501–525.
Edwards, William F. 1960. The logic of Iacopo Zabarella. PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
Fabricius, Hieronymus. 1600. De Visione, Voce, Auditu. Venice: Bolzetta.
Fabricius, Hieronymus, and Howard Bernhardt Adelmann. 1967. The embryological treatises of Hieronymus Fabricius of aquadenpente. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Favaro, Antonio. 1911–1912. Atti Della Nazione Germanica Nello Studio Di Padova. 2 vols. Venice: Venezia Società.
Frangenberg, Thomas. 1991. Perspectivist aristotelianism: Three case-studies of cinquecento visual theory. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 54: 137–158.
Galen. 1968. Galen on the usefulness of the parts of the body. De Usu Partium. Translated from the Greek with an introduction and commentary by Margaret Tallmadge May. Trans. Margaret Tallmadge. 1st ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Galen. 1980. On the doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato: Books VI – IX. Trans. Phillip De Lacy. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Goldberg, Benjamin Isaac. 2012. William Harvey, Soul searcher: Teleology and philosophical anatomy. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Heseler, Baldasar, and Ruben Eriksson. 1959. Andreas Vesalius’ first public anatomy at Bologna: 1540. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Jardine, N. 1976. Galileo’s road to truth and the demonstrative regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 7(4): 277–318.
Jardine, Nicholas. 1997. Keeping order in the school of Padua: Jacopo Zabarella and Francesco Piccolomini on the offices of philosophy. In Method and order in renaissance philosophy of nature, ed. Daniel A. Di Liscia, Eckhard Kessler, and Charlotte Methuen, 183–209. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Jessenius, Johannis. 1601. Iohannis Jessenii a Iessen, Anatomiae, Pragae, anno M.D.C. abs se solenniter administratae historia: accessit eiusdem de ossibus tractatus. Wittenberg: excudebat Laurentius Seuberlich.
Kepler, Johannes. 1604. Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena, Quibus Astronomiae Pars Optica Traditure. Frankfurt: Apud Claudium Marnium & haeredes Ioannis Aubrii.
Kepler, Johannes. 2000. In Optics: Paralipomena to Witelo & optical part of astronomy, ed. William H. Donahue. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press.
Klestinec, Cynthia. 2005. Juan Valverde de (H) Amusco and print culture. In Zergliedungeren: Anatomie Und Wahrnehmung in Der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Albert Schirrmeister, 78–96. Zeitsprünge: Forschungen Zur Frühen Neuzeit. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.
Klestinec, Cynthia. 2011. Theaters of anatomy: Students, teachers, and traditions of dissection in renaissance Venice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Koelbing, Huldrych M. 1990. Anatomie De L’œil Et Perception Visuelle, De Vésale à Kepler. In Le Corps à La Renaissance. Actes Du XXXe Colloque De Tours 1987, 389–398. Paris: Aux amateurs de livres.
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 2002. Meditations of Zabarella in Northern Europe: The preface of Johann Ludwig Hawenreuter. In La Presenza dell’Aristotelismo Padovano Nella Filosofia Della Prima Modernità, ed. Gregorio Piaia, 199–214. Roma-Padova: Antenore.
Lefèvre, Wolfgang. 2007. Exposing the seventeenth-century optical camera obscura. Endeavour 31(2, June): 54–58.
Lindberg, David C. 1976. Theories of vision from al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindberg, David C. 1986. The genesis of Kepler’s theory of light: Light metaphysics from Plotinus to Kepler. Osiris 2(January 1): 4–42.
Lohr, Charles H. 1982. Renaissance latin Aristotle commentaries: Authors So--Z. Renaissance Quarterly 35(2, July 1): 164–256.
Maclean, Ian. 2002. Meditations of Zabarella in Northern German, 1586–1623. In La Presenza dell’Aristotelismo Padovano Nella Filosofia Della Prima Modernità, ed. Gregorio Piaia, 173–198. Roma-Padova: Antenore.
Magirus, Johann. 1597. Physica peripatetica ex Aristotele, eiusque interpretibus collecta, et in sex libros distincta: in usum Academiae Marpurgensis Studio & opera Johannis Magiri Doctoris Medici & Physiologiae …: acceßit tum capitum, tum verborum ac rerum Index geminus. Frankfurt: Palthenius.
Nutton, Vivian. 2012. Vesalius revised. His annotations to the 1555 Fabrica. Medical History 56(4, October): 415–443.
Palmieri, Paolo. 2007. Science and authority in Giacomo Zabarella. History of Science 14: 404–427.
Peckham, Johannes. 1504. Perspectiva communis. Venice Per Io. Baptistam Sessam.
Peckham, Johannes. 1542. In Perspectiva communis, ed. George Hartman. Nurenburg: Apud Iohan. Petreium.
Peckham, Johannes. 1592. Perspectivae Communis Libris Tres. Cologne: In officina Berkmannica, sumptibus Arnoldi Mylii.
Peckham, John. 1970. In John Pecham and the science of optics: Perspectiva Communis, ed. David C. Lindberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Platter, Felix. 1583. De corporis humani structura et vsu Felicis Plateri… libri III… Basel: ex Officina Frobeniana, per Ambrosium Frob.
Poppi, Antonino. 2004. Zabarella, or Aristotelianism as a rigorous science. In The impact of Aristotelianism on modern philosophy, Studies in philosophy and the history of philosophy 39, ed. Riccardo Pozzo, 35–63. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
Porta, Giambattista della. 1593. De refractione optices parte: libri novem … Naples: Apud Io. Iacobum Carlinum & Antonium Pacem.
Randall, John Herman. 1940. The development of scientific method in the school of Padua. Journal of the History of Ideas 1(2): 177–206.
San Juan, Rose Marie. 2008. Restoration and translation in Juan de Valverde’s Historia de La composition Del Cuerpo Humano. In The virtual tourist in renaissance Rome: Printing and collecting the Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, ed. Rebecca Zorach. Chicago: University of Chicago Library.
Saunders, John B. de C. M., and Charles D. O’Malley. 1950. The illustrations from the works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: With annotations a. Translations, a discussion of the plates a. Their background, authorship a. Influence, and a biographical sketch of Vesalius. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
Scheiner, Christoph. 1619. Oculus, Hoc Est, Fundamentum Opticum. Oeniponti: Apud Danielem Agricolam.
Schmitt, Charles B. 1969. Experience and experiment: A comparison of Zabarella’s view with Galileo’s in De Motu. Studies in the Renaissance 16(January): 80–138.
Sennert, Daniel. 1618. Epitome naturalis scientiae. C. Heiden: Wittenberg.
Shapiro, Alan E. 2008. Images: Real and virtual, projected and perceived, from Kepler to Dechales. Early Science and Medicine 13(3): 270–312.
Siraisi, Nancy G. 1994. Vesalius and human diversity in De Humani Corporis Fabrica. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 57(January): 60–88.
Siraisi, Nancy G. 1997. Vesalius and the reading of Galen’s teleology. Renaissance Quarterly 50(1): 1–37.
Smith, A. Mark. 2004. What is the history of medieval optics really about? Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 148(2): 180–194.
Smith, A. Mark. 2005. Reflections on the Hockney-Falco thesis: Optical theory and artistic practice in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Early Science and Medicine 10(2): 163–186.
Sorabji, Richard. 2004. Aristotle on colour, light and imperceptibles. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 47: 129–140.
Straker, Stephen. 1970. Kepler’s optics: A study in the development of seventeenth-century natural philosophy. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Valverde, Juan de. 1556. Historia de la composicion del cuerpo humano. Roma: Impressa por Antonio Salamanca y Antonio Lafrerij.
Vesalius, Andreas. 1555. Andreae Vesalii… De humani corporis fabrica libri septem… Basel: per Ioannem Oporinum.
Vesalius, Andreas. 2013. The fabric of the human body: An annotated translation of the 1543 and 1555 editions of “De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem”. 2 vols. Basel: S Karger Ag.
Von Staden, Heinrich. 1997. Teleology and mechanism: Aristotelian biology and early hellenistic medicine. In Aristotelische Biologie, ed. W. Kullmann and S. Föllinger, 183–208. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Wallace, William A. 1988. Randall Redivivus: Galileo and the Paduan Aristotelians. Journal of the History of Ideas 49(1): 133–149.
Witelo. 1991. In Witelonis Perspectivae Liber Secundus et Liber Tertius, Studia Copernicana, XXVIII, ed. Sabetai Unguru. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Zabarella, Giacomo. 1590. De Rebus Naturalibus Libri XXX. Venice: Apud Paulum Meietum Bibliopolam Patauinum.
Zabarella, Giacomo. 1617. De Rebus Naturalibus Libri XXX. Frankfurt: Lazari Zetzneri.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baker, T. (2016). Why All This Jelly? Jacopo Zabarella and Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente on the Usefulness of the Vitreous Humor. In: Distelzweig, P., Goldberg, B., Ragland, E. (eds) Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7353-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7353-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7352-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7353-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)