Schmitt C.B. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Traditional
natural philosophy
227
generally
viewed as eclectic because of the diversity of teachings they
embraced, but their authors invariably worked in one or other school
tradition and were consistent in assimilating divergent
views
within it.
Though
all were acquainted with nominalist thought, most had some realist
affiliation
in which they were also interested. Thus Mair inclined towards
Scotism,
Dullaert towards the Augustinianism
of
Giles
of
Rome
and Paul of
Venice,
and Petrus Crockaert towards Thomism. Their
views
on natural
philosophy were incorporated mainly into expositions of the
Physics;
in
some instances they extended their summaries to the De
caelo
and De
generatione
et
corruptione,
and even to the De
anima,
but these were less
frequent.
A
distinctive feature of such Parisian texts was the amount of space they
devoted to the study of motion and the
ways
in which they integrated
English
calculatory techniques into their presentation. As already noted,
Aristotle's
ratios and rules were presented in the fourth and seventh books of
the
Physics,
and not in the third book, whose
chief
subjects were change in
general and the infinite. Dullaert's
Questions
on the
Physics
transfers all of
this material to the third book, whose exposition covers 62 of the 151 folios
that
make up the entire work.
105
Luis Coronel and
Juan
de
Celaya,
both
Spaniards who taught at Paris, show a similar emphasis, the latter offering
especially
good analyses of problems relating to kinematics and dynamics
from three different perspectives, namely those of the nominalists, the
realists and the Thomists, the last of whom he saw as intermediate between
the other two. Mathematicians from the Iberian peninsula who also taught
at Paris, notably Gaspar Lax and
Alvaro
Thomaz, influenced these Spanish
natural philosophers to favour the use of mathematics in physics more
than
commentators who worked from Aristotle's text alone.
106
In the 1530s and 1540s there was a diminution of this activity, though
Simon
Brossier produced a brief epitome of natural philosophy in twelve
books
(totalling but fifty-nine pages) at Paris,
107
and Frans Titelmans a
somewhat longer compendium from the Franciscan viewpoint, like
Brossier's
extending to the De
anima,
at Antwerp. Melanchthon wrote a
Physicae
seu naturalis philosophiae compendium at
Wittenberg
in 1543
that
survives
only in manuscript form, but he also published introductions to
physical
doctrine
(Initia
doctrinaephysicae)
that
went through many editions.
105.
Wallace
1981a, pp.
64-90.
106. See Dictionary of Scientific Biography
1970-80,
m, pp.
420—1
('Coronel');
111, pp. 171-2
('Celaya');
viii,
p. 100
('Lax');
xm, pp.
349-50
('Thomaz');
Lohr 1975, pp.
723-4
on
Coronel
and pp.
708-9
on
Celaya. See
also
Rey
Pastor
1926;
Muñoz
Delgado
1964a
and 1967a.
107. On
Brossier,
see Lohr 1974b, p. 278.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
228
Natural philosophy
More
extensive summaries
of
the
Physics and
of
all
the libri
naturales,
paying
close
attention
to the
Greek commentaries, were produced
by
Jacob Schegk
at Basle
in 1546 and 1550. At
around
the
same time,
the
Dominican
Crisostomo
Javelli composed
a
voluminous
Epitome
of all of
Aristotle's
physical
works, furnishing
a
Thomist interpretation
of
their doctrine
and
combatting alternative Averroist
views
then
being entertained
in
Italy.
More
progressive were Soto's
Commentaria
and Quaestiones on the Physics,
partially published
at
Salamanca around
1545 and in
complete editions
in
15
51,
but
based
on his
teaching
at
Alcalá
after returning from Paris
in the
1520s.
These were companion volumes containing Latin summaries
of the
Greek
text
and
questions argued from
a
position intermediate between
those
of the
nominales
and the
realissimi.
The
'questionary',
in
particular,
made available
to
Spanish
students
the
wealth
of
teachings developed
by
Mair
and his
Parisian associates
in the
first decades
of the
century.
Soto's
synthesis
of
physical doctrine found
an
appreciative disciple
in
Toletus,
who had
studied under
him at
Salamanca before entering the
Jesuit
Order
and
being sent
to
Rome
to
teach
at the
newly founded
Collegio
Romano. Toletus' expositions
of the Physics and the De
generatone
et
corruptione
are
similar
to
Soto's, except
that
they combine summaries
of
Aristotelian
teachings with related
quaestiones in
single volumes.
A
quite
different type
of
textbook
was
produced
by
Toletus' colleague
at the
Collegio,
Benito Pereira. This
was
printed
at
Rome
in
1576 with
the
title
De
communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis
et
affectionibus,
though
an
earlier version
had
appeared
there
in
1562.
In
512 pages, divided into fifteen
books,
the De
communibus
presents
a
systematic exposition
of
Aristotle's
Physics,
taking full account
of the
Greek
and
Latin commentary traditions,
and among
the
Latins favouring Thomist positions, though
not to the
exclusion
of
Scotist
and
nominalist
views.
108
Pereira
was
also more open
to
Averroist
interpretations
than
other
Jesuits
at
Rome
and
disparaged
mathematics both
as a
science
and as a
usable tool
in the
development
of
physical
doctrine.
109
The
latter tactic alienated
him
from
Clavius,
the
senior mathematician
at the
Collegio,
who
urged
a
more positive
attitude
108. The titles of the books in Pereira 1576 are as follows: 'Primus liber est de philosophia. II. De
philosophia naturali. III. De via et ordine doctrinae physicae. UH. De antiquis philosophis, et varus
eorum, circa principia rerum naturalium, opinionibus. V. De materia et privatione. VI. De forma.
VII.
De natura.
Vili.
De caussis. IX. De fortuna, casu, et contingentia. X. De quantitate. XI. De
loco. XII. De tempore, aeternitate, et aevo.
XIII.
De natura motus.
XIIII.
De varietate et praecipuis
divisionibus motus. XV. De motus et mundi aeternitate.'
109.
Wallace 1984, pp.
136-7;
Giacobbe 1977; Lohr
1976b;
Scaduto 1964, part 4, pp.
283-6.
Scaduto
writes, p. 284, that Pereira had conceded too much to the philosophy of
Averroes:
'dato troppo alla
filosofia
d'Averroe'.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional
natural philosophy
229
towards his discipline and had a specific endorsement of mathematics
written into the
Ratio
studiorum
of the Society.
110
After
Pereira a succession of young Jesuits taught natural philosophy in
the Roman
college;
more respectful of
Clavius,
they developed new
teaching materials for their courses.
111
Reportationes
of the lectures of
Antonio
Menu, Paolo
Valla,
Muzio Vitelleschi and Ludovico Ruggiero are
still
extant, and show a remarkable command of current literature and of
problems arising from empirical investigations.
112
None of their notes
were
published, but Galileo based his expositions of the De
caelo
and the De
generatione
et
corruptione
on them, later used ideas derived from them in
composing
his De
motu
antiquiora
and earlier appropriated Paolo
Valla's
lectures on the
Posterior
Analytics
for his notes on the same.
113
Ruggiero's
synthesis is noteworthy, for a manuscript copy of his entire philosophy
course has been preserved, with all lectures numbered and the dates on
which
he began and ended various tracts indicated.
114
This shows
that,
over
the three-year period from 1590 to 1592, Ruggiero gave 1,090 lectures in all;
of
his entire course, 63 per cent of the time was given over to natural
philosophy, 28 per cent to logic and only 9 per cent to metaphysics
—
which
indicates how importantly the study of
nature
then figured in the
curriculum of the
Collegio
Romano.
Around
this time the Portuguese Jesuits began to publish a complete
course of studies in philosophy as it was being taught in their college at
Coimbra,
the
famous
Conimbricensis
Collegii
Societatis lesu commentarii. The
work
of several authors, the course covers much the same matter as was
taught in Rome, but somewhat more conservatively, with greater attention
paid to speculative issues important for theology and less to empirical detail.
Reprinted repeatedly, it became a standard reference work throughout
Europe for the scholastic Aristotelianism being taught by the Jesuits in the
late Renaissance. A similar work was the extensive commentary on
Aristotle,
four
of
whose
volumes were devoted to natural philosophy, by a
Spanish Jesuit who had taught for many years in
Mexico,
Antonio Rubio.
115
A
more compendious treatment of the whole of philosophy from the
no.
Cosentino
1970, 1971;
Crombie
1977.
in.
Galilei
1977 and
Wallace
1981a and 1984. passim.
112.
Wallace
1981a, pp. 110-26,
243-52
and
320—40,
and 1984, pp.
99-216.
113.
Galilei
1977passim;
Wallace
1984, pp. 16-23,
33-53,
230-48;
Reinterpreting
Galileo
1986, pp. 3-28
(Wallace).
114.
Bamberg,
Staatsbibliothek,
Msc. Class. Cod. 62-1
(anno
1589)
through
Cod. 62-7
(anno
1592).
115.
On
Rubio,
see Lohr 1980, pp.
702-3.
Earlier
the
Augustinian
Alonso
Gutierrez
de la Vera Cruz
(Lohr
1977, pp. 711-12),
also
working
in
Mexico,
had
composed
textbooks
of
logic
and
natural
philosophy,
drawing
heavily
on the
works
of
Domingo
de
Soto.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
230
Natural philosophy
Augustinian
viewpoint, which included a substantial section on natural
philosophy, was published by
Diego
de Zúñiga at Toledo in 1597; its author
wrote also a commentary on Job wherein he allowed
that
Scripture could
be interpreted in
ways
not opposed to the Copernican system, and later
achieved
notoriety on
that
account.
116
Also
noteworthy is a two-volume
summary
of
the
Physics
by the Valencian Dominican
Diego
Mas, published
in
1599.
117
This is especially valuable for the attention it pays to sixteenth-
century natural philosophers, mainly those writing in Spain, Italy and
France, as its author works out a Thomist via
media
between the extremes of
nominalism and the varieties of realism proposed by Scotists and textual
Aristotelians.
Somewhat later, the Carmelites of
Alcalá
produced their
cursus
artium;
the three volumes of the
cursus
devoted to natural philosophy,
written by Antonius a Matre Dei, are more general, briefer and even less
empirical
than
the corresponding treatises in the
cursus
philosophicus
of the
Coimbran Jesuits.
118
Three synthetic treatises written by non-scholastic philosophers are
particularly worthy
of
mention. The first
of
these is the De
motu
libri
decern
of
Francesco Buonamici, published at Florence in 1591, important if only for
the fact
that
Buonamici was Galileo's teacher at the University
of
Pisa
in the
early 1580s.
119
Its ten books
treat
successively the
nature
of natural
philosophy, matter, form, the elements, local motion, generation and
corruption, growth, alteration, mutation and the movers of the heavens.
Buonamici's
method consists in providing a causal analysis of each of these
subjects.
His style is eclectic and prolix (the volume contains over a
thousand folio-size pages), with extensive citation
of
the Greeks and Arabs,
less
sympathetic treatment of the Latins and intermittent interpolations of
Greek
and Latin poetry. More compact and systematic is the
Physiologia
peripatética
of
Johannes Magirus, first published at Frankfurt in 1597 and
often thereafter, including a Cambridge 1642 edition
that
was used by Sir
Isaac Newton in his early studies.
120
In six books it explains the principles of
natural things, the universe in general, the elements and their properties,
meteorology,
composite substances (metals, plants and animals) and the
soul
and its powers. Finally there are the
Ancilla
philosophiae
and the
Lapis
116.
Lohr 1982, pp. 178-9. 117. Lohr 1978, pp.
569-70.
118. Lohr 1975, pp. 716-17.
119.
The
full
title
of
Buonamici's
work
is De motu libri X, quibus generalia naturalis philosophiae principia
summo studio collecta continentur, necnon universae quaestiones ad libros de physico auditu, de
caelo,
de ortu
et interitu pertinentes explicantur; multa item Aristotelis
loca
explanantur, et Graecorum, Averrois,
aliorumque doctorum sententiae ad theses peripatéticas diriguntur. Apart
from
citations
of
individual
authors, Buonamici
cites
the Graeci as a
group
249
times,
the Latini 153
times
and the Árabes 24
times.
See
also
Helbing
1976, 1982. 120. See
Newton
1983 for his
excerpts
from
Magirus.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional natural philosophy
231
philosophicus
of
John
Case,
both printed at Oxford in 1599, which are
expositions of Aristotle's
Physics.
Case's aim, like Magirus', is primarily
pedagogical,
but for one writing in Elizabethan England he manifests a
surprising knowledge of scholastic authors, including Thomas Aquinas,
Toletus,
Pereira, the
Collegium
Conimbricense,
Mas and most
of
the syntheses
already mentioned.
PHILOSOPHICAL
MEDICINE
Traditional natural philosophy, as detailed thus far, proved useful for
general education and for formation in theology; it was also seen as an
essential preparation for medicine, particularly in Italian universities, then
the leaders in medical education.
121
In the period under discussion medicine
was
viewed not only as an art but also as a science with both speculative and
practical branches, which required an underpinning in the study of nature.
One consequence of this requirement was
that
courses in philosophy came
to be taught mainly by physicians, and even
physica,
the classical term for
natural philosophy, took on the connotation of'physic' as used in medical
practice. The training of medical doctors was based heavily on Galen and
Avicenna,
both
of
whom
were in
turn
indebted to Aristotle, but differences
of
emphasis and orientation altered the content of their philosophical
syntheses to a considerable degree.
122
In this area Pietro d'Abano, working at Padua, exerted an influence
somewhat analogous to
that
of the
calculators
in the study
of
motion. Early
in the fourteenth century Pietro produced his
Conciliator
differentiarum
philosophorum
etpraecipue
medicorum
(from whose title he came to be known
as 'the Conciliator') to explain and reconcile differences
that
had developed
between philosophers and physicians.
123
With the invention of printing
this work received wide circulation and thus set the
pattern
for later
discussions. Structured into 210 'differences'
(differentiae),
it outlined the
main medical teachings of the Greeks and the Arabs and proposed
ways
in
which
they might be reconciled with more general teachings on nature.
The
first ten queries
(quaesita,
a term used with the same connotation as
differentia
by Pietro) are concerned with problems common to theoretical
and practical medicine; following this the next hundred queries are
concerned with theory, and then the last hundred with practice.
124
Among
121.
Siraisi
1973, 1981. 122.
Bylebyl
1979 and
forthcoming.
123. Dictionary of Scientific Biography
1970-80,
1, pp. 4-5;
Siraisi
1973 passim.
124.
Abano
1472, f. i
r
: 'In
quarum
utique
prima
quesita
statuentur
communia
et
velut
forinseca
modi
reique
utriusque
partis
medicine:
theorice
videlicet
et
practice
. . .
Secunda
vero
theorice
continebit
dubitata.
In
tertia
quidem
que
practice
subdentur
finalia
. . .'
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
232
Natural philosophy
the theoretical questions
are
those relating
to
elements, complexions
and
humours;
the
concepts
of
membrum, virtus
and
spiritus;
the
naturals,
non-
naturals
and
preternaturals; signs
and
their various uses;
and
finally
the
notions
of
crisis
and
critical days.
Of the
practical queries
few
have
philosophical
import: twenty
are
devoted
to
procedures conservative
of
health
and the
remaining eighty
to
restorative
or
curative measures.
Much
the
same approach
as
Pietro's
is
reflected
in the
Controversiarum
medicarum etphilosophicarum
. . .
editio secundo
published
at
Alcalá
in
1564
by
Francisco
Valles,
professor
of
medicine there.
A
contemporary
of
Soto
but
critical
of the
latter's teachings,
Valles
takes
the
'doctors
and
philosophers'
of
his
title
to
refer primarily
to
Greek
and
Arab authors,
and his
work
is
replete with references
to
Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna
and
Averroes,
with occasional mentions
of
Plato,
the
Epicureans
and the
Stoics.
He identifies
no
contemporaries
by
name, only citing their opinions
as
those
of
hodierni philosopht
or
neoterici.
Of the ten
books making
up the
Controversiae,
he
characterises
the
first
two as
concerned with matters
common
to
philosophy
and
medicine;
the
third,
he
says,
is
devoted
to
questions
on the
pulse
and on
urine,
the
fourth
and
fifth
to
questions
of
pathology,
the
sixth
to
preserving health,
the
next three
to
curative
measures
and the
last
to
prognostics.
125
As
Valles
conceives
it, the
last part
of
philosophy deals with physiology,
and this
is
itself
the
beginning
of
medicine.
Not
only must
the
physician
know
the
body's members,
its
humours
and
temperaments,
but he
must
understand
all of
these
in
terms
of the
elements
that
compose them with
their distinctive qualities
and
virtues.
To
this
end he
discourses
on how
elements
are
present
in
compounds,
the
ways
in
which their qualities
act on,
or interact with, each other, their relation
to
temperament
and how
medicines
of
different types
can be
effective
in the
treatment
of
disorders.
126
125.
Valles
1564,
f. i
va
:
'Quoniam
vero in quovis opere nihil contingere potest legentibus,
aut
iocundius,
aut
utilius ordine delectationi, et memoriae eorum, qui in hunc librum inciderunt,
consulentes, in decern libros totum opus censuimus distribuendum, quorum priores duo,
controversias, quas philosophi habent cum medicis communes, contineant: tertius quaestiones de
pulsu et
urina habeat: (Debetur enim signorum dignitati propria disputado) nam 4 et 5
pathologicas dabimus questiones: sexto eas, quae ad artem tuendae valetudinis spectant. Tres
sequentes habebunt curativas: ultimus prognosticas, quinqué enim his, tanquam praecipuis
partibus,
tota medicina constat.'
126. Ibid.,
ff. i
va
—7
rb
:
'Ergo
eas, quae ad physiologicam spectant partem, primum pertractabimus. Nam
haec, ut philosophiae finis, ita medicinae principium est. Sternit enim philosophia medicinae viam:
potissimum qua parte temperamenti, et compositionis humani corporis notitiae
sese
accommodat.
Componitur
vero humanum corpus, composition quadam ac propria constitutione, ex membris
organicis: capite (inquam), thorace, ventre, cruribus, brachiis, et reliquis. Sed ante hanc singula
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional natural philosophy
233
It
is
interesting
to
observe
that
Galileo,
in his
early notebooks,
is
critical
of
Vallés'
analysis
of
elemental reaction
and
resistance
in
chapter
5 of
book
1 of
the
Controversiae,
just
as he is
critical
of the
teaching
of a
Pisan physician,
Flaminio Nobili,
on the
same subject.
127
Vallés,
he
writes, regards
resistance
as
being formally
the
same
as
action, which
it is not,
whereas
Nobili
distinguishes
two
kinds
of
resistance,
one an
action
and the
other
an
impotency, which
is
also
not
correct.
128
This example, plus
the
differences
already mentioned between Cardano, Telesio
and
Scaliger
on
active
qualities,
gives
some idea
of the
content
of
philosophical medicine
in the
Renaissance. Obviously
it was a
considerable advantage
for
medical doctors
to
be
able
to
organise their entire discipline
in a way
that
put it
into
continuity with
the scientia
naturalis
of
their
day.
Still,
their reasoning
remained largely
at a
speculative
and
qualitative
level,
and it was
only with
the
new
observational
and
experimental methods developed towards
the
end
of
the sixteenth century
that
progress began
to be
made
in the
direction
of
modern science.
CRITICISM
AND
DECLINE
From
the
foregoing survey
it is a
simple
matter
to
discern
flaws
in
Aristotelian
natural
philosophy
as it
developed
in the
Renaissance.
Its
very
pluralism worked against
it, and its
inability
to
integrate materials coming
from mathematical
and
empirical investigations
led to its
decline
and
ultimate rejection
by the end of the
seventeenth century.
To
oversimplify,
the
conservative
and
textual strain within
the
discipline
proved
too
attached
to the
authority
of
Aristotle
and too
insistent
on
illorum ex hoiomeris, ut carne, nervo, arteria, et vena: haec rursus
elementis
quibusdam, qua ab
Hippocrate
et Galeno dicuntur secunda, humoribus, inquam componuntur. Hanc compositionem
habet
homo cum omnibus sanguine praeditis, communem: ante quam rursus habet illa omnium
primam,
ex primis elementis, quae illi cum omnibus mixtis natura constantibus communis est.
Merito
igitur compositiva doctrina nobis instituentibus, primum habet in disputatione locum ea
quaestio, quae de modo quo dementa in mixto sunt inter philosophos et medicos intercedit.
Caput
primum. De modo quo dementa prima sunt in corporibus substantiis . . .
Caput
secundum. Sit ne aqua humidior aere?. . .
Caput
tertium. Sit ne aer calidus, anfrigidus?. .
.Caput
quartum.
De qualitatibus contrariis in eadem substantia . . .
Caput
quintum. De actione reciproca,
quae vulgo reactio dicitur, et de antiperistasi.'
127.
Galilei 1977, pp. 243-5; °n Renaissance teachings relating to action and reaction, see Russell 1976.
128.
Galilei 1890-1909, 1, p. 170: 'Prima dubitatio sit, quid sit resistentia. Vallesius, primo
Controversiarum
capite 5, et alii, dixerunt, resistentiam
esse
actionem, et
resistere
esse
quoddam
agere...
Dico, primo: resistentia non est formaliter actio...'; p. 172: 'Ex quo apparet error Nobilii
qui,
primo De generatione dubio 11 in capite 7, distinxit duplicem resistentiam: aliam animalium,
quae consisteret in nixu quodam, qui est quaedam actio; aliam in caeteris rebus, quam reduxit ad
impotentiam ad patiendum; ubi, ut videtis, accepit causam extrinsecam resistentiae pro resistentia
formaliter, cum tamen distinguantur.'
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
234
Natural philosophy
apodictic proof before making adjustments
in the
entire system. Admit-
tedly such proof was
hard
to
come
by, for
empirical data were difficult
to
collect
and
evaluate,
and
many
of the
claims
of
those proposing them were
certainly arguable.
On the
other hand,
the
basic Aristotelian theses
concerning
the
heavens
and the
elements were themselves disputable,
and
their proponents seemed largely unaware
of the
vast amount
of
dialectical
construction,
as
opposed
to
demonstrative reasoning,
on
which their
own
system
was
based.
The progressive strain,
as
seen
in the
work
of
the Jesuits,
for
example,
ran
into obstacles
of
another sort. Most
natural
philosophy
was
then
geared
to
an educational system
that
was
pragmatically oriented
to the
professions,
with theology more often
than
not
occupying
the key
position.
As the
reforms
of the
Council
of
Trent were implemented,
the
more specialised
areas
of
natural
philosophy,
that
is,
those making contact with empirical
disciplines, were sacrificed
to
make greater room
for
metaphysics
and
moral
philosophy. This meant
that
professors
who
taught such subjects,
and
these
were
the
principal
natural
philosophers
of the day,
could devote little time
to precisely
the
issues
that
required attention. Then
there
was the
problem
of
censorship, pervasive throughout
the
church
and
especially troublesome
among
the
Jesuits.
129
As
mathematicians
and
scientists
of the
Society
became more specialised they drifted further
apart
from
its
metaphysicians,
and
any of
their teachings
that
seemed
to
compromise
the praeambula jidei
were quickly censured.
130
To be on the
safe side,
as it
were,
there
was
need
for
caution,
and
this
had an
inhibiting
effect
on
practically
all
innovation.
In such
an
atmosphere,
the
tradition itself was easily criticised
and
even
parodied
by
proponents
of
the
new
philosophies. Francis Bacon could offer
a
new
style
of
investigation, with
the
accent
on
inductive reasoning
and
extensive experimentation. Galileo similarly could inveigh against scholas-
tic
logic;
even more
effectively
he
could exploit
the
Peripatetics' reliance
on
the master's text
and
ridicule
the
many details
of
Aristotle's system
that
were
not
easily reconcilable with
the new
data. Both
he and
Descartes,
though
in
different
ways,
could exalt
the
power
of
mathematics
to lay
bare
the secrets
of
nature.
Gassendi
and
others could revive
the
atomism
of the
Greeks
and
propose
it as a
viable alternative
to the
substantial forms
and
occult
qualities
of
the Aristotelians.
And
Moliere could
give
the coup de grace
to
the
speculations
of
medical theorists
who had
situated their entire practice
within
a
Peripatetic framework.
Under such attacks, what
is
remarkable about Aristotelian
natural
129.
Redondi
1983
passim.
130.
Wallace
1984, pp.
17-18,
137, 139, 147, 283-4.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Traditional
natural philosophy
235
philosophy is not so much
that
it declined and passed out of favour but
rather
that
it endured as long as it did. A good
part
of its success no doubt
came from the social institutions
that
tended to preserve its teachings,
notably the universities and church authorities, Protestant and Catholic
alike.
But it also had its own intellectual appeal, and this too serves to explain
why
it remained the dominant
view
of
nature
throughout the Renaissance.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
9
INTRODUCTION
The intellectual ferment of the early sixteenth century profoundly
influenced the education and training of a group of thinkers who by the
middle of the century were beginning to elaborate a new vision of
nature.
Its principal features were first, a new cosmology, showing in some cases
the influence of Copernicus and always critical of the dominant categories
of
Aristotelian physics (space, place and motion), and second, the
view
that
nature
might be usefully transformed in the interests
of
mankind. This latter
view
oscillated between speculations about operative magic linked with
astrology and ideas
of
direct intervention in
nature
armed with an empirical
understanding of the specific causes of particular phenomena.
Despite their differences — and the speculations of some, like Cardano,
Bruno and Campanella, often took on a religious significance of prophetic
inspiration
—
a common theme was the demise
of
the
belief
that
the study of
nature
consisted solely in the study
of
Aristotle,
who had reduced its whole
structure
to a handful of categories capable of explaining its universal
processes. The
natural
philosopher could no longer rest content with glosses
and commentaries
that
clarified textual
rather
than
concretely physical
problems. Indeed, it began to seem as
if
nature
consisted
of
an almost infinite
number of processes awaiting discovery, and any general account of
causality required this unveiling of
nature's
'secrets' to be linked to
empirically acquired knowledge.
A
number of factors influenced this broad line of development.
Florentine Neoplatonism in particular provided a new impetus and
conceptual framework for magical and astrological ideas. There was also
the internal revision
of
Aristotelianism worked out by Pomponazzi and the
influence of humanism, which spread to fields beyond those moral and
practical areas where it had initially flourished. Finally,
there
was the
revolution in astronomy, which polarised these thinkers' anti-Aristotelian
inclinations, lending a new edge to their critiques of the principles of
236
THE
NEW
PHILOSOPHY
OF
NATURE
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008