HISTORICAL NOTES

Role of Anatomy in Our Contemporary Age andthe History of the Anatomy Museum of NaplesVINCENZO ESPOSITO* AND SIMONA CHIAPPARO

This work analyzes the significance of anatomical knowledge in the contemporary age through the history of aprestigious institution, the Anatomy Museum of Naples. The museum’s past was ineluctably linked not only to thelocal sociopolitical events but also to the scientific developments of medicine. The museum is an academic placewhere the importance of the anatomic science in the contemporary age both in the scientific and in the cultural forais evident. Anat Rec (Part B: New Anat) 289B:92–97, 2006. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

KEY WORDS: anatomy; medicine; history; museum

Within the contemporary debate onscientific and cultural research, thecentrality of the human body is moreand more manifest thanks to the so-called biopolitical paradigm byMichel Foucault. According to him,the vicissitudes of the body—its de-scription, the studies on it, its medicalassistance and management—containa political dimension, hence they can-not be dealt with only from a medicalperspective. In fact, medical science,as well as all science in general, has inthis regard failed because of its reiter-ated objective methodology that, inregard to the vicissitudes of the body,has nowadays become alien. The bio-

political paradigm has unveiled theurgency of a philosophical practicethat again accompanies medicine inorder to gather the multifacetedmeaning of the experience of the body(Foucault, 1969). While this need waswell satisfied in the classical epochwhen the philosopher-medical doctorwas common, it is nowadays opposedby some scientist such as the neuro-physiologist Anthony Damasio (2003).Indeed, this new awareness of thecomplexity of the vicissitudes of thebody reaffirms the crucial significanceof such a prestigious institution as theMuseo Anatomico di Napoli (theAnatomy Museum of Naples). Due toits intricate history, this institutionappears to configure itself well as anacademic place fit to receive the actualcentrality of the vicissitudes of the hu-man body and able to explicate itsmultifaceted meanings.

The current scientific methodolo-gies based on criteria of objectivenessthat have gradually increased the ten-dency of procedures and methods tobecome abstract urge the reestablish-ment of the fundamental role of thehuman body. Indeed, an abstract andobjective science differentiates itselfmore and more from the vicissitudesof the human body. The crisis of West-ern scientific culture as clearly statedby Edmund Husserl (1972) at the be-ginning of the 20th century inevitablyleads to epistemological actions

aimed at filling the gap between West-ern culture and day-by-day life thatmaterializes in single and subjectivebodies.

Nevertheless, a renewed approachto the human body is required toavoid cognitive attitudes that considerthe body as the sum of parts withoutany interconnecting structures anddynamics (Solano, 2001). This idea ofthe body has had many consequenceson the psychic life of communities aswell as on their cognitive activities(Merricks, 2001).

According to such a theory, thebody appears as divided in portionswithout any reciprocal relation and,thereafter, alienated by more andmore insisting on anatomophysi-ologic close-ups. Based on this ap-proach, in 1986 the United States Na-tional Library of Medicine launchedthe Visible Human Project (VHP),aimed at creating “complete, anatom-ically detailed, three-dimensional rep-resentations of the normal male andfemale bodies” (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html).

While undoubtedly characterizedby scientific aims similar to those thaturged anatomists to establish the firstcabinets to prepare and preserve ana-tomical specimens, the VHP high-lights the current attitude of humananatomy to propose itself as a set of“data . . . that could be reassembled,

Dr. Esposito is full professor of humananatomy, head of Anatomy Unit Depart-ment of Public and Preventive Medicine,head of Anatomical Museum, presidentof Committee for University Sport, inSecond University of Naples, Italy. Hehas realized many studies on the ana-tomical collection of the museum,where he has initiated transdisciplinaryresearches together his pupil, Ms.Chiapparo, who is interested in childpsychiatric/somatic disease, which shestudies through an integrated scientific/philosophical methodology.*Correspondence to: Vincenzo Es-posito, Human Anatomy Unit, Depart-ment of Public, Clinical, and PreventiveMedicine, Seconda Universita di Napoli,Via Luciano Armanni 5, 80138 Napoli,Italy. Fax: 39-081-5665053; E-mail:vincenzo.esposito@unina2.it

DOI 10.1002/ar.b.20297Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).

THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 289B:92–97, 2006

© 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

navigated and manipulated with com-puter software” (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/dreamanatomy/da_visible_vishum.html). Therefore, dueto self-generated attitudes based oncriteria of eliminativism, the axiomthat affirms the urge of dividing upthe macrophysical objects into theirelemental parts (Merricks, 2001), thepresent pervasion of the human bodytransforms the excessive presence ofthe body into its absence, or obsoles-cence. This obsolescence recalls thepseudoscientific anxiety toward evolu-tion of body morphology that intrin-sically coincides with insane attemptsto overcome technically the deathwhich, due to its disintegrating effecton bodies, set up the tradition of earlystudies about human anatomy and,nowadays, is significantly deprived, inour opinion, of any significance by sci-entific projects and computer-basedparadigms, such as VHP, that clearlyrefer to the telepresence of the body.The concept of the telepresence, intro-duced by Marvin Minsky (Kac, 1993),expresses the contemporary need forvirtual dimension of human bodily ex-istence. It is akin to the similar con-cept of tele-existence, which “refers tothe situation where the main senses ofan operator, like sight and hearing,are transferred to a remote place bymeans of telecommunications so thathe/she has the ’feelings of presence’”(Suomela and Halme, 2001). So thisvision of the body has alarming con-sequences on collective imagination,as the posthuman artistic faction hastestified and indeed fed at an increas-ing pace (Kac, 1993; Grau, 2000).

Furthermore, amplifying the con-cept of obsolescence, this cognitiveapproach to the body justifies manymedical practices based on a “multi-transplanted” body “supported bynew drugs and supplied with numer-ous prosthesis.” These biomedicalpractices aim at bridging the bordersbetween the organic and the inor-ganic, the biological and the techno-logical, in order to escape the naturaldestiny of diseases, individual deficits,and malformations.

While keeping off conservative ide-ologies, which oppose scientific andtechnological progress, we recognizethe urgency of restating the centrality

of the body in all aspects—not onlyscientific ones—of the human cogni-tive praxis.

Taking into account the aforemen-tioned considerations, the AnatomyMuseum of Naples plays a very crucialrole thanks not only to its past—shaped more by complex human vicis-situdes than by cultural and scientificfacts—but also to its recent history,equally evocative and valuable, as weanalyze in the following pages.

ANATOMY MUSEUM OF NAPLES:ORIGINS

The intricate beginning of the Anat-omy Museum of Naples appears sig-nificantly linked to the city’s institu-tional and sociopolitical events, whilebeing clearly influenced by the con-current development of the medicalscience.

The oldest nucleus of the currentanatomical collection derives fromthe dissection cabinet (a place inwhich the anatomists made their sci-entific experiments) that, in the 17thcentury, the anatomist and famoussurgeon Marco Aurelio Severino es-tablished at the Ospedale di San Gia-como Apostolo.

A second nucleus was establishedby Domenico Cotugno, a follower ofMorgagni and a supporter of anatom-ical dissections’ relevance, at the Os-pedale degli Incurabili, where manymedical cabinets of Naples’s hospitalswere moved.

At the end of the 18th century, thefuture Anatomy Museum of Naples’shistory was linked with that of twomore Neapolitan institutions, theMineralogy Cabinet and the ZoologyCabinet. Indeed, it was strongly influ-enced by the perpetual clash betweenscience and political power (Spadac-cini, 1991).

While Italy was under French dom-ination (1806–1815), on GiuseppeBonaparte’s specific directive, theMinister of Interior, Mr. Miot, startedrestructuring the kingdom’s publicschool and university as well as muse-ums and libraries (Borrelli, 2000).

By the royal decree issued on 30May 1806 and by the following one in1808, among other things, the Frenchgovernment expressed its intention to

create the Museum of Natural Historyon the model of the Musee d’HistoireNaturelle in Paris.

By Minister Capelacetro’s decree in1811, the number of chairs of medi-cine was increased to nine while thepathologic anatomy chair was for thefirst time joined with the anatomychair. However, due to the shortFrench ruling period, the plan was re-alized only partially, with the estab-lishment of the Zoology Cabinet in1813 on the first floor of the Collegiodel Salvatore (Monticelli, 1901; Mez-zogiorno, 2000).

The institutional care of public ed-ucation continued under the govern-ment of King Ferdinando IV, who hadrecovered the Naples crown in 1816.By his royal decree, the whole collec-tion of anatomical preparations be-longing to the University and to theOspedale di San Giacomo Apostolo(which was to be demolished in orderto build the new Palazzo delle Fi-nanze) was transferred to the contig-uous rooms of the Zoology Cabinetwhere the Human and PathologicAnatomy Cabinet of the universitywas then established. First FrancescoFolinea (1816–1833), then AntonioNanula (1833–1844), directed thiscabinet. With passion, Nanula de-voted himself to the development ofthe University’s Anatomy Cabinet, infavor of which he devolved his richpersonal collection, which includedboth human anatomy specimens (271pieces) and comparative anatomypreparations such as skeletons, or-gans of various animals, and stones(calculi) derived from urinary blad-ders of dogs, foxes, horses, and pigs(Panceri, 1868).

During the decade 1830–1840, thecollections increased significantlythanks not only to the donation ofdried and in-spirit specimens pre-pared by Nanula (1834), but also be-cause of wonderful new wax modelsordered by the anatomist from thesculptor Francesco Saverio Citarelli(Fig. 1), a pupil of the ceroplastics art-ist Clemente Susini, of the famousCabinet of the Museo della Specola diFirenze.

In 1844, Nanula urged the academicauthorities to decree the enlargementof the anatomical room, by that timeinadequate to contain all the speci-mens. The new rooms were inaugu-

HISTORICAL NOTES THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 93

rated during the Seventh Congress ofItalian Scientists in Naples on 20 Sep-tember 1845.

In 1846, Stefano delle Chiaie (Spa-daccini, 1991) succeeded Nanula(1846–1860) and continued the en-largement of the collections, addingmore comparative anatomy and tera-tology specimens, a set of wax models(some of which belonging to the firstanatomical collection, at the Ospedaledi San Giacomo Apostolo), as well asanatomical specimens from the Surgi-cal Clinic Cabinet.

When Italy was unified, the activi-ties of Naples University were stronglyinfluenced by the changing politicalcircumstances that, for instance, pro-duced institutional proceedings, suchas the 27 October 1860 decree, bywhich no less than eight professorswere discharged.

The director of the anatomy chairand its respective cabinet was namedGennaro Barbarisi, who added crania,from the excavations in Pompeii, Er-culaneum, and Cumae and the Testedella Vicaria (Vicaria’s heads; Fig. 2),to the Anatomy Cabinet (Miraglia,1876). The latter are crania of exe-cuted men that were left hanging foralmost 30 years in iron cages on thewalls of the Neapolitan district knownas Vicaria. Moreover, Barbarisi ac-quired numerous wax models of em-

Figure 1. Fetus within uterus: (A) breechbirth and (B) cephalic birth. Wax models byFrancesco Saverio Citarelli.

Figure 2. Vicaria’s crania, phrenologicalpreparations. Cranium of Giuditta Guas-tamacchia.

94 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) HISTORICAL NOTES

bryology and human organogenesisby the naturalist and French modelerGuy Aine.

The Imbriani law in 1861, whileseparating the general and pathologicanatomy chair in three new chairs,stated the redistribution of anatomi-cal collection in three sections, one foreach new chair: normal human anat-omy, pathologic anatomy, and com-parative anatomy (Russo, 1997).

In 1871, Giovanni Antonelli (1870–1914), who succeeded Barbarisi, or-dered the move of the Anatomy Cabi-net from the Collegio del Salvatore tothe former Monastero di Santa Patri-zia. This building, purchased alongwith the former monastery ofSant’Andrea delle Dame by the Fac-ulty of Medicine on dissolution of therespective religious orders, becamethe site of the renewed Anatomy Insti-tute that definitively included theAnatomy Cabinet. A whole wing ofnew institute was set to receive therich anatomical collection in order toallow a more coherent and adequateexhibition, thanks to the availabilityof wider rooms and of elegant woodenthecae.

The Anatomy Cabinet officially be-came the Human Anatomy Museumof Naples that since then sits in the

former Monastero di Santa Patrizia.In its current architectonic structure,this building shows traces of its com-plex construction from the Greek col-onization up to the foundation of theBenedectine nunnery (first conse-crated to Saint Nicandro and SaintMarciano, then to Saint Patrizia), un-til the remaking of the convent super-vised by architect Della Monica in the12th century (Celano, 1858; Pane,1939; Pane et al., 1963).

During the following years, the di-rectors of the Anatomy Museum con-tinued increasing the collections. Newdidactic wax models (Fig. 3) were ac-quired from Ziegler’s Studium (Hop-wood, 2002) and preparations in pet-rifaction by Efisio Marini (1881) wereadded as well. Eventually, NicolaDonadio (1939–1940) devolved hiscollection of self-prepared vascularsystem’s casts by corrosion (Fig. 4) tothe museum.

During the Second World War, themuseum was shut down mainly be-cause of severe lack of governmentalfunding. In September 1980, the activ-ities of the museum were definitivelystopped due to a disastrous earth-quake that hit Naples. The whole an-atomical collection was removed fromthe museum, severely damaged by the

seismic event. The restructuringlasted nearly 10 years and the Anat-omy Museum (Fig. 5) was reopenedonly in 1997 (Mezzogiorno et al.,1997).

CONCLUSIONS

The more recent history of this insti-tution is mainly characterized by deepinterest in subjects often deemed mar-ginal within the present scientific de-bate, e.g., the role of women in thedevelopment of medicine. It is alsomarked by the beginning of studies onthe history of medicine with multidis-ciplinary approach (Voltaggio, 1992).For example, studies on the ritual ofdissection (Carlino, 1994) that requireintegration of historiographical as-pects with more specifically philo-sophical, ethnographical, and anthro-pological ones (Pouchelle, 1983). Thisapproach to research is crucial notonly for the complexity of the subjects,but also to enhance awareness of thevital importance of transdisciplinaryconnections. This approach is impor-tant in all human cognitive activities,either cultural or scientific. In this re-gard, it is worth highlighting the worksof Edgar Morin, who has for manyyears analyzed the crisis of representa-tion in modern sciences. According tomany authors (Elkana, 1989; Cerutiand Preta, 1990; Varela et al., 1992),this crisis requires a critical approachto the traditional categories of analysisof the aforementioned sciences. Identi-fying the need of a drastic reform ofthinking, Morin (1993) hopes for a fun-damental change in human logic-cogni-tive modalities through the realizationof a complex thinking no longer restric-tive, disjunctive, and one-dimension-al—leaving much scope to critics to-ward initiatives such as the Visible

Figure 3. Hepatic vascular system prepared through corrosion by Nicola Donadio.

Figure 4. Organogenesis of the heart. Twowax models of the wide collection by Fried-erich Ziegler.

HISTORICAL NOTES THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 95

Human Project—but, in the perspec-tive of the complexity, involving in adialogue many heterogeneous factorsof the scientific practice as well as of allthe human cognitive and communica-tive processes.

All this will be firmly taken in handin all the future projects of the mu-seum. In fact, the Anatomy Museumof Naples is characterized by a broad-minded approach to some areas of thepresent artistic scenery, a natural out-come of the human anatomy’s tradi-tion, e.g., the cooperation between theanatomists and the artists during the15th and 16th centuries (Voltaggio,1992; Kemp and Wallace, 2001) and,specifically, with famous experts inceroplastics at the Anatomy Museumof Naples.

Significant synergy between anatomyand art is realized by European institu-tions such as the Anatomy Museum ofMadrid (whose teratology collectionwas studied by the photographer Rosa-mund Wolff Purcell in accordance withits director, Professor Fermin Viejo Ti-rado) and the Anatomy Museum ofMontpellier, where the famous artistJan Fabre carried out an interesting au-diovisual study on the body. Therefore,by inaugurating a renewed tradition oftransdisciplinary dialogue, the Anat-omy Museum of Naples expresses thefirm beliefs that the old-fashioned di-chotomy between art and science mustbe overcome (Wilson, 2002). The urgentneed to overcome the gap among arts,philosophy, and science was alreadystated by the winner of the Nobel Prizein Physics in 1977, Ilya Prigogine, ac-

cording to whom a renewed allianceamong arts, philosophy, and scienceneeds to be reestablished—as the Anat-omy Museum of Naples seeks—to stemthe aforementioned crisis of sciences.In this case, it will be feasible to restore“the solidarity of our interior experi-ence with the world we live in,” henceallowing all the sciences, included themedical one, to cure “the scar left whenbreaking with the philosophy” (Prigog-ine, 2003). With this perspective, themedicine may have again a complex di-mension, redefining itself as “art ofhealing,” more precisely “human artand science,” this being one of the mainprojects of the Anatomy Museum of Na-ples. In this regard, the director of theInstitut fur Medizin und Wissenschafts-geschichte in Lubecca, Dietrich VonEngelhardt (1995), said that “medicine,arts and philosophy have multiple links.The cultural or artistic dimension of themedicine is manifest not only in thereproduction of medical phenomena inarts and literature, but mainly in thecontribution of arts such as literatureand philosophy to diagnostic and ther-apy and to the overcoming of pain, ill-ness and death.” This would allow re-stating the unavoidability of a newsearch for sense, which the scientific aswell as the philosophic/artistic contem-porary cultures should regain posses-sion. Only this new search will allowreassembling the unity of the body notonly in the scientific and medical envi-ronment but also in the collective imag-ination. This unity is critical to preventthe spreading of psychiatric illnessescaused by splitting the body more and

more represented, and experienced, asmade up of parts without not only anymental/emotional but also ethical andsociopolitical significance.

It has now become clearer the inno-vative role of a historical institution asthe Anatomy Museum of Naples.Sharing the “live metaphor” repre-sented by the unavoidable links be-tween arts, science, and philosophy,the activities of the Anatomy Museumof Naples may be the basis to newscientific and ethical/cultural revolu-tions that, as “metaphoric redescrip-tions” of the nature (Hesse, 1980), re-affirm the fundamental role of thebody in its unavoidable unity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors thank all the past direc-tors of the Anatomy Museum of Na-ples who significantly involved them-selves in the preservation of thishistorical institution. They also thankBrigadier General Aniello Angelottiand Lieutenant Colonel Maurizio DeGiorgi from the Allied Joint ForceCommand Naples for their editorialsupport.

LITERATURE CITED

Borrelli A. 2000. Le origini della scuolamedica dell’ospedale degli incurabili diNapoli. In: Archivio storico per le prov-ince Napoletane. Napoli: Societa Napo-letana di Storia Patria. p 135–149.

Carlino A. 1994. La fabbrica del corpo, librie dissezioni nel Rinascimento. Torino:Einaudi.

Celano C. 1858. Notizie del bello,dell’antico, del curioso della citta diNapoli. Napoli: Edizioni dell’Anticaglia.

Ceruti M, Preta L. 1990. Che cos’e laconoscenza? Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Damasio A. 2003. Alla ricerca di Spinoza.Milano: Adelphi.

Elkana Y. 1989. Antropologia dellaconoscenza. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Foucault M. 1969. Nascita della clinica: ilruolo della medicina nella costituzionedelle scienze umane. Torino: Einaudi.

Grau O. 2000. The history of telepresence:automata, illusion and the rejection ofthe body. In: Goldberg K, editor. Therobot in the garden: telerobotics and tel-epistemology in the age of the Internet.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p 226–246.

Hesse M. 1980. Revolutions and recon-structions in the philosophy of science.Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress.

Figure 5. The Anatomy Museum of Naples.

96 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) HISTORICAL NOTES

Hopwood N. 2002. Embryos in wax: mod-els from the Ziegler Studium. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Husserl E. 1972. La crisi delle scienze eu-ropee e la fenomenologia trascendentale.Milano: Saggiatore.

Kac E. 1993. Telepresence art. In: KriescheR, editor. Teleskulptur. Graz: Kultur-data. p 48–72.

Kemp M, Wallace M. 2001. Spectacularbodies: the art and science of the humanbody from Leonardo to now. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Marini E. 1881. Preparati anatomici di Efi-sio Marini. Milano: Esposizione Indus-triale di Milano.

Merricks T. 2001. Eliminativism. Oxford:Oxford Clarendon Press.

Mezzogiorno V, De Sanctis R, Esposito V,Passiatore C. 1997. Il Museo Anatomicodi Napoli. Napoli: Arte Tipografica.

Mezzogiorno V. 2000. Le scuole di medi-cina in Napoli. Napoli: SUN.

Miraglia BG. 1876. Sul cranio della celebreGiuditta Guastamacchia, di suo padre edi altri complici, grandi delinquenti gi-

ustiziati in Napoli, aprile 1800. Napoli:Tipografia dell’Iride Magnocavallo.

Monticelli FS. 1901. L’Istituto Zoologicodella Real Universita di Napoli. Napoli:Melfi e Joele.

Morin E. 1993. Introduzione al pensierocomplesso. Milano: Sperling e Kupfer.

Nanula A. 1834. Elenco degli oggetti dianatomia umana e comparativa prepa-rati nell’Ospedale di San Francesco.Napoli: Edizioni Universitarie.

Panceri P. 1868. Catalogo sistematicoMuseo di Anatomia Comparata. Napoli:Stamperia del Fibroso.

Pane R. 1939. Architettura dell ‘eta’ ba-rocca. Napoli.

Pane R, et al. 1963. I monasteri napoletanidel Centro Antico, vol. 2, fasc. 6. Con-stantinopoli: La Zona di S. Maria diCostantinopoli.

Pouchelle MC. 1983. Corps et chirurgie al’apogee du Moyen-Age. Paris: Galli-mard.

Prigogine I. 2003. Le leggi del caos. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Russo L. 1997. La nuova Italia dal 1860 al1876. In: AAVV. Storia dell’Universita diNapoli. Milano: Societa Editrice il Mu-lino. p 591–738.

Solano L. 2001. Tra mente e corpo: come sicostruisce la salute. Milano: RaffaelloCortina.

Spadaccini R. 1991. I Musei Scientifici na-poletani nella prima meta dell’ottocento.In: AAVV. Gli archivi per la storia dellascienza e della tecnica. Desenzano delGarda: Atti del Convegno Internazionale.p 371–395.

Suomela J, Halme A. 2001. Tele-existencetechniques of heavy work vehicles. Au-tonomous Robots 11:29–38.

Varela TJ, et al. 1992. Lavia di mezzo dellaconoscenza. Milano: Feltrinelli.

Voltaggio F. 1992. L’arte della guarigionenelle culture antiche. Torino: BollatiBoringhieri.

Von Engelhardt D. 1995. Medicina comearte e scienza umana. Pluriverso 1:111–121.

Wilson S. 2002. Information arts: intersec-tion of art, science and technology. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

HISTORICAL NOTES THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 97