“… figuram ipsam mentem concepisse videtur”: i limiti della rappresentazione microscopica nel dibattito Swammerdam-Malpighi sull’anatomia del baco da seta

In Miraculum naturae, sive uteri muliebris fabrica (Leiden, 1672), Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680) for the first time publicly raised a number of challenging objections to Marcello Malpighi’s (1628-1694) treatise on the silkworm, De bombyce, published in 1669: (1) the wrong position of the testes; (2) the failure to recognise the connections between the nervous and reproductive systems; (3) the omission of the brain. Malpighi’s reply, which appeared posthumously in his Opera posthuma (London, 1697), refuted all the criticisms, also on the basis of further observations made in 1689. Beyond the anatomical issues, Swammerdam denounced the limitations of Malpighi’s techniques of observation and representation. He went so far as to question the plausibility of some of his illustrations. This paper examines the development of this debate using Malpighi’s unpublished notes (BUB, mss. 936 and 2085/II), which are preserved in the University Library of Bologna.