22. Johnson, T.N. The works of that Famous Chirurgeon, Ambroise Parey. London, Clarke, 1678, p. 215.
23. Johnston, T.N. Loc. cit., p. 713.
24. Guillemeau, J. The Nursing of Children. London, Anne Griffin, 1635, p. 116.
25. Austrius, S. De puerorum morb. Lugd., 1549.
26. Ferrarius, Omnibonus. De arte med. infantum. Brix., 1577.
27. Hucher, J. De sterilitate utriusque sexus. Coloniae Allobrogum, Crispinus, 1610, p. 744.
28. Pic. Guy Patin. Paris, Steinheilt, 1911, p. 44.
29. Gesner, C. Opera. 4 vols. Tigur, 1551. (Presumably Historiae animalium, Tiguris, apud Froschenerum, 1551.)
30. Nordenskiöld, E. The History of biology. London, Kegan Paul, 1929, p. 93.
31. Aldrovandus, U. Monstror. hist. Bonon., 1642. Musaeum metallicum. Ibid., 1648. Serpent. & draconum hist. Ibid., 1640. Quadrupedum bisulc. hist. Ibid., 1642. De quadrupedib. digitatis viviparis & oviparis, 1637. Ornithologia sive de avibus hist. Franc., 1610. De quadrupedib. Animalibus & piscibus. Ibid., 1623.
32. Gosse. Loc. cit., p. 77.
33. Browne, Sir Thomas. Loc. cit., 2:291. [Pseudodoxia Epidemica III.xxvii]
34. Montuus, H. De activa med. scientia. Lugd., 1557.
35. Montuus, H. Anasceves morborum. Lugd., 1560.
36. Astruc, J. Loc. cit., p. 246.
37. Borelli, P. Hist. et obs. cent. prima. Castris, Colomerius, 1653, p. 88.
38. Mistral, F. Lon. tresor dou felibrige. Ed. du Centenaire. Paris, Delagrave, 1932.
39. Ettmuller. Acta eruditorum. Lipsiae, Grossius, 1682, p. 316.
40. Redi, F. Osservazioni intorni alli pellicelli del corpo umano. (Published by Redi, under the name of Bonomi, in Florence, 1687, in the form of letters, and in effect constituting the 1st edition of Cestoni's Observations.)
42. Andrey, M. De la generation des vers. Paris, la veuve Alix, 1741, p. 125.
43. Le Clerc, D. A Natural and Medicinal History of Worms. London, Wilcox, 1721, p. 280.
44. Leuwenhoeck, A. Arcana naturae. Delphis, Bat. Krooneveld, 1695, p. 46.
45. Bassignot, M. Hist. et Mem. Soc. Roy. de Med. (Memoires), pp. 173-176, 1779.
46. Wolf, J.G. Dessertatio inauguralis medica de comedonibus. Lipsiae, Klaubarthia, 1789.
47. Journal de Medecine. Paris, 87: 430, 1791.
48. Bruguières. Encyclopedie methodique. Histoire naturelle des vers. Paris, 1792, 1:137.
49. Laënnec, R.T.H. Dictionnaire des sciences médicales. Paris, Panckoucke, 1813, 1:365.
50. Simon, G. Dic. de med. comp. (Rayen.)
51. Küchenmeister, F. On Animal & Vegetable Parasites. London, Sydenham Soc., 1857, 2:15.
52. Crocker, R. Lancet, 1:704, 1884.
53. Caesar, J. Lancet, 1:1188, 1884.
54. MacLeod, J.M.H. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., (Dermat. Sect.) 1:14, 1907-08; 7: 11, 1913-14; 11: 111, 1917-18.
55. Cauty, H.E. Lancet, 1:12, 1882.
56. Harries, E.H.R. Brit. J. Dermat., 13:5, 1911.
57. Dore, S.E. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., (Dermat. Sect.) 2:130, 1908-09.
58. Fox, T.C. Lancet, 1:665, 1888.
59. Glisson, G., Bate, G., and Regemorter, A. A Treatise of the Rickets, Being a Disease common to Children. Trans. by Phil. Armin., London, Cole, 1681, p. 193.
60. Michelet. Loc. cit., 1:246.
* The note is almost certainly misplaced. See note 36 and note 33 of "A Letter to a Friend". Notes in Browne's works are not infrequently misplaced, and in the case of the Letter to a Friend it must remembered that publication was posthumous.
**There are several holes in the logic of this argument. The first is that, while it is perfectly plausible to presume most or all older medical books in the Browne collection belonged to Sir Thomas Browne, it is not necessary to conclude that all the books that belonged to Sir Thomas Browne remained in the collection. (Note that Kellett himself later assumes that Browne owned Schenckius, although it is not included in the catalogue.) The second is that Sir Thomas Browne is unlikely to have provided a note to a book that he did not own, especially if the note is erroneous; why not supply another erroneous note, after all? The third is the possibility, pointed out above, that the note itself is misplaced. A fourth, related, point is that Browne needed no reference to describe a disease he had seen himself. Finally, it should be considered that if on pages 18–24 of "De rheumatismo" there is "ample opportunity" for making a note of the disease, it is quite possible that Browne simply misremembered the source, thinking of the work of, say, Schenckius, and incorrectly attributing it to Picotus. (Which again leads to a strong presumption that he owned Picotus.) It should be remembered that "A Letter to a Friend" was published posthumously; Browne had no opportunity to correct misplaced or mistaken notes. These points should be kept in mind when considering Kellett's argument on the date of the "Letter".
***Nine times in Pseudodoxia Epidemica. Browne calls him a "memorable author", but usually cites him when Gesner is wrong. Aldrovandus is cited about three times as often, and is in fact referred to as a compiler and source as well as in other capacities. The opinions of Gosse should be entertained only with a good deal of caution. His critical biography of Browne is a most peculiar example of somebody reading works that, so to speak, aren't there. (Browne, perhaps because he is difficult to read, seems to invite this particular brand of criticism. For another instance, read Joan Bennett's critical biography, in which she insists that the sentence "God who can onely destroy our souls, and hath assured our resurrection, either of our bodies or names hath directly promised no duration" means that Browne did not believe in the resurrection of the body; mistaking, presumably for personal reasons, duration and resurrection and thus twisting the meaning of both the sentence and, necessarily, the entire section of Hydriotaphia in which it is found.)
§ The implicit allegation of Browne's obsession with witches is more a product of Kellett's time than of Browne's writings or biography. Certainly Browne believed in witches, or at least in witchcraft, and so testified in a trial of witches. That was, no doubt, the majority opinion of the time, and probably the majority opinion of our time, once again; it was certainly the opinion of the law. In any case, the controversy over Browne's anti-witchiness had flared up on the occasion of a proposed memorial to Browne on his three-hundredth birthday and went on for some years, particularly in the medical press; this was probably in Kellett's mind. Neither political correctness, nor the ahistorical bias that applies it retroactively, is a new phenomenon.