studies_in_renaissance_philosophy_and_science_excerpt_schmitt.pdf

•'~-------~--

Dr Charles B. Schmitt

Charles B. Schmitt

Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 198~

·- ------ ---··-------···- . ----------------

British Library CIP data

Copyright© 1981 by

Schmitt, Charles B. Studies in Renaissance philosophy and science. -(Collected studies series; CS146) 1. Philosophy - History - 16th century 2. Science- History- 16th century I. Title 190' .9 B29

"ISBN 0-86078-093 -7

Variorum Reprints

B /15

fACULTAD DE ClERC~ ·

13 18LIOTECA.

.EJtudios Posg~

Published in Great Britain by Variorum Reprints

Printed in Great Britain by

20 Pembridge Mews London Wl l 3EQ

GaJJiard (Printers) Ltd Great Yarmouth Norfolk

VARIORUM REPRINT CS146

CONTENTS

Preface

THE PLATONIC TRADITION

I

II

m

IV

Perennial Philosophy: from Agostino Steuco to Leibniz

Journal of the History of Ideas XXVJI New York, 1966

Prisca theologia e philosop!zia perermis: due temi del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna

fl pensiero italiano del Rinascimento e il tempo nostro. Atti del V Convegno internazionak del Centro di studi umanistici, Montepulci.ano, J 968. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 19 70

L'introduction de la plulosophie platonicienne dans l'enseignement des universites a la Renaissance

Platon et Aristote a la Renaissance. XVJe Colloque international de Tours. Paris: J. Vrin, 1976

Reappraisals in Renaissance Science

History of Science XVI. Chalfont St Giles, I 978

..

i - ii

505 - 532

211 - 236

93 - 104

200- 214

r

GALILEO AND RENAISSANCE SCIENCE AND PH1LOSOPHY

v

VI

vrr

VIII

IX

X

Philosophy and Science in Sixteenth-Century Universities: Some Preliminary Comments

T71e Cultural Context of Medieval Learning, ed. J. E. Murdoch & E. D. Sylla. Dordrecht-Boston: D. Reidel, 1975

Towards a Reassessment of Renaissance Aristotelianism

History of Science XI. Chalfont St Giles, 1973

Experimental Evidence for and against a Void : the Sixteenth-Century Arguments

Isis LVIII. Washington, 196 7

Experience and Experiment: a Comparison of Zabarella's View with Galileo's in De motu

Studies in the Renaissance XVI. New York, 1969

The Faculty of Arts at Pisa at the Time of Galileo

Physis XIV. F7orence, 1972

Filippo Fantoni, Galileo GaliJei's Predecessor as Mathematics Lecturer at Pisa

Science and History. Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen, ed. E. Hilfstein, P. Czartoryzski & F D. Grande. Wroclaw etc.: Ossolineum, 19 78

r '

485 - 530

159- 193

352-366

80-138

243- 272

53-62

XI

xn

Girolamo Borro's Multae sunt nostrarum ignorationum causae (Ms. Vat . Ross. 1 009)

Philosophy and Humanism. Renaissance Essays in Honor o[Paul Os:kar Kristeller, ed. E. P. Mahoney. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1 ':J 76

A Fresh Look at J\1ec l1 2nics in

462-476

16th-Century Italy 161 - 175

Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science I London, 1970

Addenda and Corrigenda 1-3

Index of Names l-13

Index of Manuscripts 14

r---------- ---------·-------1 Thi~ volume co ;;l;1i J~ " a total of 342 pages '----

I

532

resent one strand of early modern thought, an element whjch seems to me to be underestimated and imperfectly understood. Not only has there been lack of understanding of the whole tradition leading UP_ to Steuco's De perenni philosophia and of the whole tradition streammg from it, the very notion of phi[osophia perennis has been cons1st.ently applied to traditi?ns with _,vhich it has little or no h1stoncal connec-

tion. f ll · From this study I think that we can safely present the o owmg

significant, if mod·e~t, conclusions. First of all ,. Leibniz was not the originator of the notion of philosophU: perer:.~J.S. Secondly, 1t iS not a concept which grew up in the scholastic traditiOn and Jt does not seem to have any particular affinity to the philosophy and theology . of Thomas Aquinas. Thirdly, it does not seem to have been ~ppropnaLed by scholastic philosophy until the dawning of the XXth century. Fourthly, the conception of perenn_ial philosop?y is an outgrowth of the Neoplatonic interest in ~he pnsca_ the?logw and_ of the attem

1pt

to produce harmony from d1scord, umty nom mu:tJphcl~Y· F1hh.~~ Agostino Steuco probably originated the term ph~losophw pere7d~k and certainly gave to it a definite meaning, which seems to ha.ve _become Jess precise as it became more widely used. Steuco's menm1:g, strongly tied to Ficino's notion that truth derived ~rom the "percnmal

f t ·n" of Platonism exerted a limited but noticeable mfluence en oun a1 ' d :x:V" II ·

philosophers and theologians of the XVTth, X'V1Ith, an _ .. J tn centmies, ultimately finding a pla.ce in the writings of Le1bmz, the most eminent concordist of them alL

• • f- J._ t, Finally-although, on this point I cannot be _as :nsJs,er,. as ~n ne

others-the evidence seems tD indicate that Le1bl1l?- was che first to speak of philosophia perennis without specifically referri:1g t.o Ste~co as the author of the notion. In his letter to Remond, wmch '~~s often been cited as the first use of the ter::-n, Le-lbniz does not speclncallv mention Steuco. From this time onward the connection of "perennial philosophy" with the theolopan from Gubbio was often lost .. At some later point in its history the term was a.ppropnated by ~lle Scholastics and others, gaining something in emotive value, bu~ losmg its precise T.Jhilosophical meaning in the process. These are some of the questio~s wl1ich remain to be treated elsewhere.

144

Fordham University. H< 'fhi read to the Columbia. University Semim.r on l he R.enaiosa.nee

s paper was c n . J ' 1 ')'1

on December 1.5 1964 and to the U.C.L.A. Philosophy .. G oqumm on l ctu:'er -~ . 1965. I am indebted to Professors P. 0. Kristeller, Edward Mahoney, and l~oben. Mulvaney for a. number of helpful. ruggestions in connection w1th tts prepar&tton.

II

Prz'sca Theologz·a e Phdosophia Perenni:S.

due tem1 del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna*

Fra i movimenti intellettuali, che si svilupparono dal Rinascimento italiano, uno dei pili caratteristici fu la tendenza verso il sincretismo '. Forse il piu famoso esponente di questo punto di vista fu Giovanni Pica della Mirandola (1463-1494), il quale tento di fare una sintesi fta tutte le teorie filosoficbe, teologiche, e scientifiche precedenti. Pica, sebbene fosse il piti noto esponente di questo modo di pensare, certamente non ne fu il solo rappresentante nella sua epoca, e nemmeno fu il Rinascimento l'unico periodo storico in cui si noti una spinta verso il sincretismo . Infatti, una piti attenta indagine ci mostra che ci sono poche epoche nella storia europea senza un pensatore o un gruppo di pensatori che dimostrino che, nonostante alcune diversita superficiali, c'e un nucleo di verita. in tmti i sistemi filosofici e teologici. Tra colora che potremmo elencare come appartenenti alla detta trad izione sincretica si trovano personalita molto diverse, fra cui Clemente Alessandrino, Giamblico, Niccolo Cusano, il Leibniz, e, nel nostro secolo, lo Jung e il Teilhard de Chardin.

D'altro canto, c'e una tendenza intellettuale molto diversa, ugualmente evidente neUo svolgimento della storia, la quale si dirige verso

• Vorrei ringraziare i miei colleghi della Universitit di Leeds, J. E. McGuire e C. Webster, per le !oro indicazioni bibliografiche, specialmente sui pensiero inglese del Seicento e del Settecento, che mi hanna aiutato moltissimo nella preparazione di questo anicolo. Sono anche malta graro a Professoressa Corinna Lonergan e Dottoressa M. G . King le quali ne hanna rivedulo la mia versione italians.

1 Sull'argomento del sincretismo del Rinascimento in generale cfr. IACOBI BRUCKERJ, Historia critica pbilosophiae, seconda edizione (Leipzig 1767}, IV, par. I, pp. 750-75 (<<De syncretistis philosophicis >> ); D . P . \XI Al.KER, Orphem the Theologian and Renaissance Platonists, <<Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes», XVI (]9.53 ), pp. 100-120, spec. nota 9, pp. 104-105 e la sezione <<The Beginnings of Renaissance Religious Syncrerism >>, pp. 107-109; C. B. SO!MlTT, Perennial Pbiiosopby: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz, <<Journal of the History of Ideas», XXVII (1966), pp. 505-32. Non ho potuto consultare G . GERSUNY, Orpheus der Logostrdger. Ein P motivgeschichtlichc Vntenuchung zur fraJ;zosichen Literalur im Synkretismus des 16. Jahrhundert (diss. , Ti.ibingen , 1959).

II

212

un tipo d'esclusivita. Secondo questa si pensa che un singolo sistema filosofico, teologico, o scientifico possa comprendere tutti gli dementi della verita e percio tutti gli altri sistemi vengono creduti falsi. Mentre la tendenza sincretica tollera il dissenso - poiche secondo i sincretisti, i1 dissenso sarebbe in realta solo un fenomeno alla superficie - l'attegaiamento esclusivo e intollerante di ogni dissenso. Per gli esclusivisti le cose sono soltanto onere o bianche o vere o false, o valide o invalide . Fra le figure storiche che si potrebb~ro considerate tendenti all'esclus~vismo vorrei menzionare Tertulliano, S. Bonaventura, il Savonarola, tl Locke, i positivisti del W i>ener Kreis, e piu recentemente, i seguaci di alcune variazioni della scolastica, ed anche i seguaci del Wittgenstein.

Una caratterizzazione cost vaga non puo avere quella precisione che vorremmo desiderate; ci fornisce, pero, un sensa d'orientamenro genetale e uno sfondo su cui possiamo tracciare un ritratto piu parti~ol~reggiato di solo una parte dell'insieme. Piu specificamente vorre1 dtscutere alcuni aspetti della tendenza sincretica, che vennero sviluppati durante il Rinascimento italiano. Non si possono discutere intelligibilmente gli sviluppi intellettuali pili significativi senza far riferimento alle lora fonti e alla !oro fortuna, e bisogna dunque considerate sia le fonti antiche e roedievali del sincretismo rinascimentale, sia alcuni degli esempi pili significativi della sua continuita come una forza vivente nel Seicento e Settecento. Attualmente possiamo alludere solo a pochi degli aspetti piu importanti di questo movimento, che divenne una delle idee fondamentali che contribuirono alla formazione della « mente mo-derna ».

Fra i metodi impiegati dai pensatori rinascimentali per dare so-stanza a una visione sintetica dell'universo due furono di importanza particolare: prisca theologi.a e philosophia perennis. Poiche avreroo occasione di usare molto spesso questi concetti vorremmo dame una specie di definizione generale, sebbene i loro significati siano molto complessi, e saranno chiarificati nel corso del mio scritto. Queste due idee sono strettamente connesse e, tutte e due, asseriscono di trovare un'unita e una continuita fra le scienze legittime attraverso i secoli. Infatti, non si puo fare una distinzione troppo chiara fra di esse, sehbene possiamo darne le linee generali per un interpretazione. Il concetto di prisca theologia indica che la vera scienza avrebbe anticipato la filosofia greca e che si troverebbe realmente, benche forse in una forma enigmatica ed esoterica, fra i sapienti pre-classici come Zoroastro, Mercurio Trismegisto, ed Orfeo. Di solito si pensa che questi naessero la loro sapienza da Mose, direttamenre o indirettamente, e perdo questi assumono un'autorita di alto livello entro la tradizione giudaico-cristiana. Secondo questa spiegazione dopo che la sapientia si era sviluppata

' .b-.......

n

PRISCA THEOLOGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS 213

fra i pris~i ,o sapienti antichi, passo ai greci atitraverso Ja corrente nlatonlca: _ewe da Orfeo, _ad Aglaofemo, a Pit:agora, e finalmente a Phtone_. D1 c~_nsegu~nza s~ pensa che il platonismo abbia una prerniner .. za sp~cr~l e. L_ m~e~a :pot~sl e~a basata in gran parte sulla validita di akuni scmtr a~tn?mtl a1 sap~en~1 antichi, che nei tempi piu recenti sono stati r~conoscmtt cor:tra~a~wn~ dell'eta ellenistica. Poiche questa tradizione SI basa s~ alcun~ scnttl emgm_atici, il cui vero significato si sarebhe perso dur~nte I ~ecol~ I~tercorrentl , venne naturah:ne:m:e collegata con il mistlctsmo~ l alchi~ma, l'occultisroo, _ i rnovimeuti radicali religiosi e \1 mtllenansmo. D altro canto, Ia phzlosophza pere:nr.is, gualcbe volta conn~ssa strettamente ~or:- la prisca e ancora sempre nell'ambito del p1atomsi?o, sembra abb1a tmphcazioni piu larghe. Anche essa fa risalire la sap1enza a u ' · hi · · · d · _ n ~p?ca antrc ss1ma, Hnp1egan o spesso Ja sressa gene:~lo-gJa dell_a tr~sm1sstone della sapientia come la prisca theologia, m'";. mUte anche m nhevo la continuita della scienza valida attrav-erso 11.1tre le epoche della stona. Non si crede che la scienz>l! - come raaionano a volte coloro_ che scrissero sul}a prisca - sia st:ata persa pe~ qualche secolo, rna SI const_ata che la s_l puo trovare in ccgni epoca, sebbene qnalche volta soltanto m grado ridotto. Secondo questa dottrina, la filo~o:Ha, o la, SCJ~nza, sarebbe « perenne », trovai?dosi c-ontinuamente in ogni epo~ ~a stor~ca. Ovvtamente. non P?sso _anal_Izzare tune le varianti di questi conce~tl ~he s~ trovano 1? m~lu scntton durante il Rina<;cimento , spesso con stgmficatt m?lt? divers!. Qualche volta i due concetti sembrano aJvere lo stesso_ s1gmficato, rna alt~e volte vengono usati divcrsameate. E,rzsca_ th~ologza_ frequentemente ha una sfumawra cJj millenarismo e \ t~p-hcaz~on~ ~h una imro~tantissima ri:cop-erta contempor.ane:! del1e ' . eot~ antJch1ss~me. Quest~ stgmficatt, guas1 sempre mancano alla « pJ.doJophra perennzs ». Quest ultima, d altro c:mtD, indica un'unitii. della soenza ; ess~ trov~rebb~ qualche esempio della vera sapientia fuori delle ~ortrm~ de1 przs~t, e s~ pre~ta piu facilmente della prisca theologia sll assorbtmento dt tradtzlOm d1vergenti in mm singola lilosofia uniil-cante. ·

_ Be~che _tentativi conciliatori si trovino ir1 1ma vasta sf'.rie di scritton cn~tJant dei p~imi s~coli della nostra era 2 , sono forse maggiormente ev1dentt_ negh scnttl d1 Clemente Alessandrino 3 (ca . 150-215). Clemente, rl quale occupa una posizione cos! rnoportante nella storia del--

2 Per esem~io GrusTINO _MARTIRE, Cohortio ,u! Gen~es; Eu-SEBIO. Praepa•,•iic ~~"t~eli~f: f.- AGOSTINO, De Ctvttate Det, vnr, 1-13; <'.: L~TTANZlO, _DiL·:nae · in .< tit~.tiones,

fra 3 .. ~ul tentativo di Clemente di ass,i~ilare: il ~en:siero pili antico a queno cr!stlan01

Ph}l,n, cfr. K: MERK, Clemens ~l,_lexanarmus m semt:Y <1.b/:.i:ingigkeit mm dc1 griechis.-be-1 .llosophze (Ltpsta, 1879); EuGENE DE FAYE, Cli-ment /.'Alexandria: f:tud,· sur [es rop-

j

l l'

l

f. l t f I

II

214

l 'assimilazione del pensiero greco da parte della cultura cnstrana, si fa notare come uno dei primi scrittori cristiani che mostro una spiccata simpatia per la genealogia intellettuale, che piu tardi divenne una dottrina fondamentale sia della prisca theologia che della philosophia perennis. Come vedremo, la sua posizione preminente duro fino alla fine del Seicento, quando sia il Cudworth 4 che il Newton lo scelsero per una lode particolare. L'atteggiamento generale di Clemente riguardo alla verita e all'errore delle tradizioni antiche con riferimento alla validita incontestabile della Scrittura e stato riassunto concisamente da uno studioso recen te:

There are two main tendenci es in Clement's account of truth. The first is to call the essential elements of Christianity true and everything else false. This is the way Clement speaks when be is talking about heresy. The second tendency is to include within truth not only all valid Christian teaching, but also everything that is consistent with it. This is the way Clement speaks when he 1s talking about philosophy.5

Quest;; formulazione sembra caratterizzare non solo Clemente rna anche molti altri sincretisti cristiani nel corso della storia. Tra questi si trova Agostino Steuco 6 di cui trattero in seguito piti estesamente. Un atteggiamen to come quello di Clemente puo sembrarci un po' strano, quando vediamo che i pen satori del Cinquecento si trovano qualcbe volta in una posizione difficilissima, secondo me, apprezzando maggior:nente_ ~ teologi pagani - specialmente quelli pre-cristiani - cbe gh erettc1 cristiani come Lutero e Calvina.

ports du cristwn;sme et de Ia philosophic grecque au II' siecle (Parigi, 1906); J. MEII'OP.T , Der Platonismur bei Clemens Alcxandrinus (Tiibinge.n, 1928); EINAR MeLLAND,

Clement of Alexandria on the Origins of Greek Philosophy, << Symbolae Osloenses "• X\1-h.'VI (1936), pp. 57-85.

4 f: molto in1eressante notare che , sebbene il Cudworth esitasse ad .accettare la validita del Corpus Hermeticum come lo conosceva, insisre che Ermete d0veva essere veramente una figu ra storica a causa della pretesa conoscenza da parte di Clemente d1 42 trattati ermetici. Vedi sotto, nota 74.

s E . F. OsBORN E, The Pbilosophy of Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge 1957), p . 113. 6 Lo Steuco, molto favorevoie al pensiero precristiano, era n01evolmente poco tol

lcrante del Lutero e d e1 protestant!, che credeva eretici. Vedi il suo Pro relzgwne advenus Luthmmos (1530). nelle Opera (Venezia, 1591), III, par, ii, cc. 1•·.24v ; -r:_HEoRALD F REUDENBERGER , Augustinus Steuchus aus Gubbio, Augustinerchorherr und papstlzcher !3ibliothekar (1497-1548) und sein lrteramches Lebenswerk {Munster, 1935), pp. 265-300, F RIEDRICH LAUOIERT, Die italienischen literariscben Ge!!.ner Luthers (Friburgo in Br. , 191 2), pp. 315-28; SCHMITT, Perennial Philosophy . .. , p~ 516.

·f.

u

PRISCA THEOLOGJA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS 215

Clemente, ad ogni modo, specialmente, ne.gli Stromata sviluppo una teoria coerente, la quale sarebbe molto favorevole sia alla filosofla greca che alla filosofia pre-greca o barbara. Secondo lui - e questa tema riapparira ripetutamente negli scritti dei sincretist i - solamente nd cristianesimo si trova la verita integra , rna le sue parti sono presenti nelle altre sette filosofiche, sia greche che barbare 1 . Inoltre, come egli sostenne in seguito, la fi1osofia greca proverrebbe in maggior parte <k quella dei barbari, data che i filosofi greci ,erano, secondo lui, di origine barbara, oppure avevano ricevuto il loro insegnamento dai barbari ~Gli scritti di Platone, per esempio, che alludono spesso alle fomi barbare della filosofia greca \ vengono citati, naturalmente, in testimoniama.

Possiamo gia discernere negli scritti di Clemente le origini della tradizione apologetica che verd sviluppata piu estesamente sia dai pla-tonici .fiorentini che dai loro moltissimi seguaci nel Cinquecento, Seicento, e Settecento, diffondendosi infine in tutti i paesi europei. Non e possibile discutere ora estesamente la continuita della tradizione apologerica, che venne iniziata dai Padr i. Comunque vorrei sottolineare il fatto che sembra che ci sia stata almena una corrente del movime.nto della prisca che continuo dal principia alia fine del medioevo ed u1timamente unl Clemente al Ficino e al Pica. Sebbene questa aspetto deUa vita intell~ttuale medievale non sia stato studiato con la stessa cura con cui , per · esempio, e stato studiato l'aristotelismo, sembra che il platoni smo, in cui il sincretismo e sempre fiorito, non fosse mai motto d uranie il medioevo. Oltre a questa, l'ermetismo, un altro ingrediente fondamentale nella sviluppo rinascimentale della prisca theologia, ebbe una certa diffusione e influenza nel medioevo.

Benche all'Europa latina del medioevo fosse sconosciuta la maggior parte del corpus Platonicum, la sostanza della dottrina platonica nota all 'epoca era abbasranza considerevole 10

• E rano noti alcuni dialoghi dallegittimo corpus Platonicu.m, qu a!che es tratto dagli scritti neoplatonici e dai platonici cristiani (fra cui Dionigi 1' Areopagita, Giovanni Scoto Eriugena , e altr i), frammenti platonici conserva ti negli scritti classici, e opere d'ispirazione platonica o neop!atonica che si diffusero sotto pseudonimo, come il Liber de cau.sis attribuito ad ' Aristotele. Benche il chiaro elemenlo pla tonico e neoplatonico che si trova nel pensiero di un fJ losofo cosi importantc come S. Tommaso d'Aquino sia

7 Stromata I , 13; dr. V I , 7; VI, 17. s Ibid. I , 15. 9 E. g. Phaedo 78 A ; T imaeus 47 A; Phnt:drus 263 E ; Prot agoras 322 C ; Alcibi11.id

I l 22 A. 10 Cfr. R. KLIBANSKY, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition During the .Middle

Ages (Londra , 1939) .

•

I

,I

'-

IIER1

II

216

stato riconosciuto soltanto neg]i ultimi anni, non si puo pero confonderlo 11

. Oltre alia scuola di Chartres molti elementi platonici e neoplatonici sono palesi nelle opere dell~ scuola agostiniana .

Abbastanza importante, sebbene meno dell'influenza platonica, fu 1~ fortuna .de~li scrit~i pseu~o.ermetici nel pensiero medievale ?~~ mezzo de1 trattatr L~.ber_ X~I': phzlosopborum e De VI rerum prznczpus. Queste due comprlaziOnl del seco)o dodicesimo hanna almeno qualche collegame~to con i pi_u ar:tic~ scritti pseudo-ermetici e fann~ parte_ di u~: tradtziOne ermetJca m~Ipendente che duro per tutto tl med10evo .

Sebbene le opere dt Clemente e anche d'Eusebio, che contengono molta dottrina della prisca oltre che un atteggiamento molto favorevole ad essa, non si conoscessero ne] medioevo, furono molto noti altri scritti, ugu~lmente favorev?h alia tradizione, tra cui soprattutto quelli di Lattanzro: d1 S. Agostm~, due scrittori Ie cui opere furono fra le pili note e Ie p1~ sfruttate d~ll epoca. Rimangono ancora da studiare profonda-

, mente .1 van aspett! ,della continuita della tradizione prisca attraverso . rl medwevo rna non e possibi!e farlo entro i limiti dell'attuale indagine.

Soltanto con Marsilio Ficino e Giovanni Pico della Mirandola possia~o vedere di nuovo gli inizi di un'integrazione, di una sintesi della s_aprenza, che alia £ne avra Ull · influsso enorme suJ pensiero del '500 e del '6~0 e chest estendera a tutte le parti d'Europa. Il Ficino 13 inizio rl rnovrmento nportando alla luce e dando una nuova vitalita alle molte e varie corremi della tradizione platonica. Partendo dal pensiero di Plerone

14 (1355-1~50), i! quale per primo introdusse in Italia gli aspettl del. plato~usmo ~he si erano conservati nell'impero bizantino a,uraverso Il rnedwevo, ~. Ficino l'aumento, l'espanse, lo raffino , e gli mede la forma dt una VIsione pili 0 meno coerente della storia e del-l'evoluzione della conoscenza. _

.,. n Fra gli, studi piu in;Pottanri sono : C. FABRO, Partedpazione e causalitii _secondo S. 1. ommaso d A1uzno (Tonno, 1961); L. B. GEIGER, [A participation dans la phdosophze ~e S. Thoma~ 4Aqum, seconda edizione (Parigi, 1953): R. J. ~NLE, St. Thomas r:nd llat~msm (LAta, 1956), K. taEMER Die neuplatomsche Semsphzlosophze und zhre Vhr.~~ng auf Thomas von Aqu;n (Leida, 1966). . ..

. . Per un sommarJO della letreratura essenziale e un elenco det manoscnttl e delle ed:z1om cfr. P. 0. Kru:STELLta (ed.), Cotalogus translationum et 6ommentariorum lv;'ashillgton, 1960sg.), I , PP: 151_54 (Liber X XlV philosophorum di M.-T. v'A LVERNY }

e < , pp . 155-56 (Llber vr Pnncipiis di T. SILVERSTEIN). Per la conoscenza di Orfeo durante 1! medioevo vedt lunpol'tante articolo con am pia bibliografia , K. HEITMANN, Or· pbeu;

3 1m Mtttelalte,-, « Archtv fiir Kulturgeschichte », XL (1963)? pp. 253-94. .

. .. Sul ~1ctno cfr. sop:attutt0 P. 0 . KRt STELLER, ll penszero fi losofico d z ~· ~· lFJTenzc, _19,3); StudieS m Renaissance T hought and Letters (Roma, 1956) spec. 3)-251; P;-· MARCeL, Marszle Ftcm (Parigi, 1958); G . SAITTA, Marsilio Ficino e [a filosofia dell umaneszmo, terza edtz. (Bologll. 1954)

l4 Cfr. M. ANASTOS, Pleth0~; Calendar and Liturgy, Dumbarlon Oaks Papers IV (1~48 ), 183-305; F . MA SAI, Plethon et le platonisme de Mi.<Lra_ (Parigi, 1956).

~ . ~ . '

. ~

L

"-W . ·

n

PRJSCA THEOLOGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENNlS 217

Secondo il Ficino Plato noster teneva una posizione centrale nella fliosofia e nella storia e, partendo da questa base, egli poteva concordare gli altri fatti entro una visione comprensiva dell'universo. Benche rite·nesse che Platone era stato il pili significative di tutti i filosofi precedent!, non credeva che la sapienza avesse tratto Ia sua origine dal piu noto seguace di Socrate, rna la trovava nell'antichita egiziana e orientale, cosl lontana e oscura. Sfruttando la tradizione anreriore, non soltanto quella degli scrittori cristiani come Clemente, Eusebio, Lattanzio, e S. Agostino, rna anche quella dei settatori pagani della filosofia platonica come Plotino, Porfirio, Giamblico, e Prodo, il Ficino collego in forma concisa Platone con Zoroastro, Ermete Trismegisto, Orfeo, e anche Mose. Ficino vide inrorno a se un mondo coerente, unito da una «grande catena dell'essere » , che era stato elaborato nelle gerarchie neoplatoniche dell'eta ellenistica e del rnedioevo. 1l mondo, secondo iJ Ficino, e penetrate da una sostanza spirituale - chiamata indifferentemente amor o anima che funziona come un vinculum universi legando insieme il Creatore e le cose create. Nello stesso modo in cui i'universo ci mostra un'unita metafisica che domina ogni apparenza della diversita, ugualmente si trova un'unita fondarnentale nella storia. Con Ficino vediamo ancora una ripetizione del vecchio tema, secondo cui una corrente singola ed ininterrotta della verita scorre nella totalita della storia. della @osofia e della religione. Qualche volta, forse, Ia verita puo essere un po' oscurata dalla falsita e dalla confusione , rna, ciononostante, la si puo scoprire entro la struttura della continuita del platonjsmo, che secondo Ficino includerebbe il « pre-platonismo » di Zoroastro, d'Errnete, d'Orfeo, d'Aglaofemo , e di Pitagora , ed anche il neoplatonismo di Plotino, di Porfirio, di Giamblico, e di Proclo 15

• Alio stesso modo in cui egli vide una tradizione ininterrotta di cristianesimo ortodosso da Gesu al suo tempo il Ficino vide pure una continuita di filosofia vera che si rivelava nella scuola platonica intesa in sensa lato. Questa non voleva dire che si dovessero respingere tutte le altre filosofie ; sebbene il Ficino favorisse il platonismo, nondimeno egli attinse abbondantemente da altre fonti, fra cui Aristotele, Lucrezio, S. Tommaso e molti altri scrittori scolastici 16

• Benche il Ficino vedesse in se stesso un continuatore della filosofia platonica e fosse particolarmenre favorevole a quelli che aderivano al platonismo com'egli lo concepiva, troviarno che volle assimilare gli aspetti che considerava piu preziosi delle varie sette

r 15 F ICINO , Opera (Basilea, 1571',), 156 ,268, 386, 854, 871, 1.537, 1836. Or. anch"

KRISTELLER, II penJ"iero .. . , 16-20; B. KIESZKOWSKI, Studi sui Plotonismo del R inascrmento in I t alia (Firenze, 1936); \1(/ A L KER, art. cit. (nota 1).

16 P. 0. KRt STELLER, The srbolastic ]}tUkgruur:d of Marsilio Ficino in << Studies », pp. 35-97. '

I ,. !• /;•

II

218

. 1 te tolleran te filosofiche, e che ebbe un atteggtamento preva entemen verso Ie scuole filosofiche e teologiche estranee. . . f n-

L 'importanza del Ficino nella storia intellettuale d'occtdente 51 0 .

. . . di _ · · h permanent! da sui suoi molt1 contnbutl, che venne,o carattensttc e.. .b t. d . 1. . U d. esn contrt u 1 dell'orientamento culturale e1 seco 1 seguent1. no 1 qu l .. . d. . . . 1 .. neop atoniC! ,

fu il suo ritrovamento dt un gran numero 1 scntti p aton1C1, d .. . . d 11' - , - . no ca uti m

e Pseudo-platonici che egh trasse a oscunta m CUI era h £ . . . 1 . ione c e u secoli di disuso. Per questa egh raggmnse una ta e postz 1. tr·

. . - 1 . l . , . eco 1 seguen considerato come miZlatore da movtmento p atomco ael s 1l tr· c 11 1 · he ne e ar , _ non soltanto nella fi1osona e ne a teo og1a, rna anc . ll . 11' . 11 auca e ne e nella letteratura nella poes1a, ne estetiCa, ne a rnatem ' d ' . . 1 bbene egna

scienze. L'abilita del Ficino come pensatore ongma e, se l d. 1 1· 1 .f · ]a racun

della nostra ammirazione, e forse a quanta m errore a que . d lla · ., ·11 · d · 1· tl. "' I·n s1·derazwne e suoi successon pm 1 ustn er seco 1 seguen - c con .1 p·_ . . , h , · reputare 1 1 influenza sui pens1ero postenore, pero, c e e necessano .d

- . . 11 . . 11 l d'occl ente . cino una figura Importantlsstma ne a stona mte ettua e d 1 PI . ll ltura europea

Oltre a rivelare 1a . ricchez~a e atomsrr:o a .a ~u are il con-s em bra anche che i1 Finno abb1a avuto 11 comp1to dt svJ1upp h.l _

. . h - r • 1 f przsca p t oso cetto semina1e dr pnsca t eologza \ oppure m a tre orme, . . . h . , d. di una nozwne J~hia philosophza przscorum, ecc.) c e pm tar 1 venne , rl·re

· ' . fi . 1 · N · puo asse sussistente nel vocabolano fi1oso co e teo ogrco: on_ 51 bb bb. . . . 1 1 che e e una con cettezza che il Ficino a 1a IlllZtato a termmo og1a . .

1 , 1 . l" . , h' h svi uppo a fortuna cosl grand·e net seco 1 seguentr , rna e certo c eg d ._

1.d .l D concetto en nozione facendone un concerto va 1 o e utl e. a quest~ . fil fi · . . d h h. stem! oso ct varono una letteratura vastJsstma e anc e parecc 1 st d

- d 1 F. - 1 1 . sea compren e indipendenti. Nel senso conceplto a 1ono a para a pu _ . Il . . h · bb. ., t · dt dtscutere.

p 1olte delle noztom c e a tamo gta avu o occas1one . . , . . fi . . ta con l greci,

Ficino riteneva che 1a venta fi1oso ca non era commcw . . . - - . 1 . i I o-reCl comm-ma aveva gia avuto una lunga pretstona a tempo m cu o l . . . l L . thea ogta, se-·-iarono a trattare dt filosofia per Ia pnma vo ta. a przsca 1 M d. '- 1 · · · E · e ne e 10 condo lui risalirebbe ad epoche 10ntamss1 me m g1tto l . .t

' · T · · he a cunt f1 e-oriente dove si pensava che Mercuno .nsmegJsto- c

1 , ·· · ' J\i ose - e

nevano fosse vissuto pressappoco con temporaneamente a . , l . , h f pot trasmesse Zoroastro avessero elaborato a cune vcnta c e urono .1 p· .

~ • 1' fil fi 17 ,Per I JCJnO c Jla Grecia e entrarono nelle corrent1 de la · oso a greca · ··

11 '" . d l · , n fi ne o stesso la dottrina della przsca compren e a venta lllOSO JCa . l , tt d

, · , 1. . . mo tre ,u e modo in cui i1 cristianesimo compren e 1a verlta re 1g1osa, il 'p· . ' . M , . E. fu JC~ e due sono connesse 1'una all'altra tramJte . ose m gttt?· fi.l fi

. . "fi f ·d . ] 1 JCO e OSO CO. ]a prisca aveva un s1gm cato on amenta mente teo og . . p . . . . · 1 · pretazwnt. er rna ncr secoh seguenn ques£a assunse van e a tre mter.

,.,. Cfr. nota 15 sopra.

L

1I

PRISCA THEOLOGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENN!S 219

esempio, come vedremo, in Inghilterra nel corso del Seicento ebbe una parte molto notevo1e nelle discussioni scientifich.e.

Mentre Ficino trovo una continuita ben ddiruta nella storia ddh :filosofia, ricollegandosi con Zoroastro e Mercurio mediante Pitagorn, Platone, Plotino, e Proclo, l'intero concetto dell'unita del pensiero, venne esteso da Giovanni Pica della Mirandola in modo da abbracciare una sfera molto pili larga 18

• Ficino diresse la sua attenzione specialmente verso una fusione delle parti della tradizione platonica, rna il Pico fu pili ambizioso. Proprio allo stesso modo in cui questi tento di capire tutti i regni della scienza con Ia sua mente fecondissima e quasi insaziabile, rento anche ne1 suo sistema di sintetizzare tutti i frammenti della scienza valida, indifferente alla loro provenienza 19

. Tale metodo e ben evidente in quasi tutte le opere pichiane, sebbene sembri che negli ultimi anni di vita sotto l'influsso del Savonarola, egli abbia cambiato la sua posizione. Non possiamo; purtroppo, sviluppare adesso questo aspetto interessante. La fase postuma del Pico e la sua influenza predominante erano basate su scritti giovanili come l'Oratio (1486) e ie Conclusiones ( 1486 ). Credo che possiamo cap ire meglio il programma pichiano vedendolo come un ampliamento di quello ficiniano. II Ficino aveva ridato a Platone una posizione autoverole e aveva poi elaborato una teoria della svi1uppo della sapienza filosofica con Platone a1 centro. Pico - e non solo Pico, rna moltissimi continuatori nei secoli seguemi - estese la sintesi fino a comprendere quasi tutte le figure delia stor ia filosofica, religiosa, e scientifica. Nel programma pichiano si da grande importanza al fatto che qualche parte della veri ta si puo trovare, purche si cerchi con cura in quegli scritti che superficialmente sembrano fra i piu divergenti nella storia del pensiero . II Pico - t ipico « uomo universale » del Rinascimento con la sua larghissima sfera di attivita, di interessi e di abilita - fu tra i primi a raccogliere gli abbondanti frutti dell 'arricchimento del mondo intellettuale eifettuato dagii uma· nisti con la scoperta di testi antichi. I1 Pico, come il Ficino, diversarnente da molti altri umanisti del tempo, ebbe un profondo interesse per i problemi fi1osofici ed anche una grande simpatia per i contributi filosofici e teologici della scolastica. Infatti, mi pare che l'aspetto piu caratte·

18 Fra i contributi pili importami da vedere sono: P. KrsRE, The Library of Pit:o della Mirandola (Nuova York, 1936); E . GARlN, Giovanni Pico della Mirando!a: rita e dottrina (Firenze, 1937); La cultun:r filosofica del Ril1ascirnento italiano (Firenze, l.96l); E . MoNNERJARN, Giovanni Pica della Mirando/a fWiesbaden, 1960); Vari Autori, L'opr:ra e i1 pensiero di Giovanni Pica deUa Mirando/a nella st~>rio dell'umanesimo (Fircnze, 196.5); G. DI NAPOLI, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola e la pmblematica del suo lempo (Roma, 1%5).

19 Cfr. spec. il libra della Kibre gia citato e P. 0. Kru:sTELLER, Giovanni Pic~> della Mirando/a and His Sources, in L'opera e il pensiero .. . , I, pp. 35-133.

ll

220

ristico del pensiero pichiano sia il suo tentatiwo di trovare qualche cosa valida in tutti i sisterni filosofici. Questa e molto chiaro nel programma esposto nella famosa OratY:!, dove domanda: « Quid erat, si Latinorum tantum, Alberti scilicet, Thomae, Scoti, Aegidii, Francisci, Henricique philosophia, obmissis Graecorum Arabumque philosophia, tractabatur? Quando omnis sapientia a Barbaris ad Graecos, a Graecis ad nos rna-

• 2{j •

navlt »-. Qui vediamo · un chiaro rifiuto di qualsiasi attitudine esclusivista

nella ricerca della verita e percio il metoda pichiano si distingue nettamente da quello scolastico che ha legami strettissimi con quello della Stagirit~ .. J:llo stesso tempo possiamo vedere un ovvio. a~to_ ~ fede nella vahdJta della genealogia tipo prisca theologza su cm msrste il Ficino, rna qui nel caso de[ Pico la spiegazione della trasmissione della sapienza dai barbari ai greci e poi dai greci fino a noi si trova ridotta agli dementi essenziali. Non si puo mettere in dubbio l'identita dei barbar1 d.i cui parla il Pico dopo aver vista i chiari riferimenti a Zoroastro, Merc~rio, ed Orfeo, di cui abbonda il trattato 21 . Il tentativo diventa ancora pili evidente nelle Conclusiones 22 dove varie tesi derivate da una larghissima serie di fonti - scolastiche · arabiche, ebraiche, greche, cristiane, e quelle d~lla prisca -: vengono p~ste come rappresenta~ive della v:rita.

Nel Ftcmo e nel Ptco notiamo un consolidamento d.i precedentt tentativi del movimento concordistico che erano gia molto forti non solo uel pensiero filosofico ellenistico 'rna anche nell'apologetica paleocristiana. Sebbene tale movimento c~ntinuasse attraverso il medioevo, divenne oscurato da altre tendenze almena in occidente_ Con la sua rinascita e con la sua amplificazion;, dovute specialmente alle fatiche de~ platonici fiorentini, i quali si servirono di moltissirni sctitti quast sconosciuti nel medioevo, il movimento sincretico-concordistico raggiunse un'importanza fondamentale nello svolgimento del pensiero religioso, filosofico, e scientifico dei secoli seguenti. Moltissimi sono colora cbe utilizzarono i materiali ritrovati e sistematizzati dai platonici fiorentini e dai loro seguaci 23 •

:zo G. Prco DELLA MnlANDOLA, De bominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno, cd. E. GARIN (Firenze, 1942), p. 142. '

21 Per Zoroastro cfr. pp. 124, 128, 150, 160; Ermete (Mercurius), pp. 102, 144; Orfeo, pp. 160, 162. C1 sono anche riferimenti a prisca theologia (p. 144) e a pnsca sapientia (p. 160).

22 Opera (Basilea, 1601), PP. 42·76. 23 Ad esempio oltre aile opere menzionate alrrove .in quest'articolo: SciPJO AGNEJ.LUS,

Disceptationes de ideis (Venezia, 1615); PAULUS BENIUS, In Platonis Timaeum swe tn Naturalem omnem atque dzvmam Platonis et Aristotelis pbilosopb!tlm decades Ires (Roma, 1594 e 1605; Padova, 1624); GABRIELLUS BuRATELLUS, Praecipuarum contraverna_rum_ Aristot_elis et Platonis conci!atio (Venezia, 1573); SYMPHORJAN CHAMPIEll, De lnpltct d.!SCtplzna (LwDe, 1508); IDEM, Liber de quadruplici vita (Ltone, 1507); lnF.M., 5ympho·

, - . ~ ...... -.-- ...... ~ .¥ ~ '--~

_._, __ ,..:_, _. _ .. ,

II


Uno di quei pensatori, il cui completo significate e stato tardivamente apprezzato, fu Agostino Steuco (1497 /98-1548) da Gubbio 24

• Uomo di vastissima cultura e d.i ampi interessi - bibliotecru:io del Cardinal Grimani a Venezia, bibliotecario della Biblioteca Vaticana sotto Paolo III intima del Cardinal Cervini Poliziano, vescovo di Kisamos, legato al Con: cilia di Trento -pare che fosse il primo a coniare la frase philosophia perennis che nel '900 e diventata d'uso frequente, spesso per indicate filosofie ben diverse da quella concepita dallo Steuco. Lo Steuco stesso pero, fu i~ primo luogo teologo, come rivela subito uno sguardo anch~ molto raptdo alle sue opere in tre grossi tomi. Quasi tutti i suoi scritti trattano questioni teologiche oppure argomenti che hanna rapporto con la teologia. Egli si dedico con moltissimo impegno allo studio della Scrittura, e alcuni dei suoi scritti pili am pi e pii1~ signllicativi so no dei commentari alia Genesi, ai Salmi, e allibro di Giobbe 25

• La sua enfasi

nia Platonis cum Aristotele (Parigi, 1516); EDWARD HERBERT DI Cr!ERBURY De religione · gentilium (Amsterdam, 1663 e 1700; trad. inglese, Londra, 1705); Jo~s BAPTISTA DUHAMEL, De consenm veteris et novae pbilosopbiae libri duo (Parigi, 1663, Rauen , 1675); SEBASTIANUS Foxrus MoRZILLUS, De 11aturae pbilosophia seu de Platonis et Aristotelis conrensione libri V (Lovanio 1554; Parigi, !560; Leida, 162&); FRANC.IS;CUS GEORGIUS (Zorzi), De Harmonta mundi totius cantiuz tres (VeDezia, 1525; Pangt, 1545); IoANNES MATTHAEUS GESNER, Primae Lineae iso:go:ges in eruditionem universalem Nominatim pbilologiam, bistoriam, et philosophiam (Lipsia, 1756 e 1774-75); PETRUS DANIEL HUET, A_lnetanae quaestiones de concordia rationis et fidei (Parigi , 1690; Caen, 1690; Venezia, 1761); IACOBUS MAZZONJUS, De .t.riplici hominum vita, actzva, nempe contemplativa et religiosa methodi Ires (Cesena 1577)· IDEM. In U~tiversam Pia ton is et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia, sive de' comp~ratione' Platonis et Aristotelis (Venezia, 1597); MvTrus PANSA, De oscula seu COIISensu ethnicae et Chri· stianae_ philosophiae. _Unde Chaldaeorum, Aegyptiorum, Persarom, Arabum, Graecorum et Latznorum myster;a, tanquam ab Hebraeis desumpta, fidei .nostrae consona de Deo dedu_cuntur (Marburgo, 1605); ToBIAS PFANNER, Systema Thr:olo_giae gentilis purioris (Basdea, 1679); GUILLAUME PosTEL, De rationibus Spiritus !:>tmcti lihri II tParigi, 1543); ~DE~~ De orbzs terrae concordi.a libri quattuor (Basilea, 1544 ); PAULUS ScALICHUS, De tu~tttza aeterna seu vera promissionis gradati~, ~elle sue Opera [Basilea, 1559 ), FRANCESCO D~ VrERI (Vermo Secondo), \1 ere conclustom dt Platone confomri alla dottrina christt.ana et quella di Aristotile (Firenze, 1590); IDEM, Liber in quo cnlumniis detractorum pbzlosophia defenditur et eius praesta11tia demonstratur (Rorna, 1586).

;M Cfr. spec. !'opera fondamentale del FREUDENBERGER g;iit citata in nota n. 6, rna ancbe H. EBERT, Augustinus Steuchus und seine Philosopbia perennis-. Ein Kritiscber Beitrag zur Gescbicbte der Pbilosophie, « Philosopbiscbes J ahr:buch », XLII (1929), pp. 342-56, 510-526; XLIII (1930), pp. 92-100; JuuEN-EYMARD o'A,'GF..RS, Epictete et Seneque d''!p~es le _<<De perenni philosopbia >> d'Augustin Steuco (1496-1549), «Revue des scrences relig1euse », XXXV (1961), pp. 1-31; G. DI NAPOLI, l l roncetto di 'pbilosophia pereNms' dt Agostino Steuco nel quadro della tematica rinascimentale, in Atti del Quari~ Convegno di Studi Umbri, Gubbio 22-26 maggio 1%6; Filosofia e cultura in Umb_na tra medioevo e RiNascimento, pp. 459-89; E. GARIN, Star.n delia filosofzn italiana (Torma , 1966), 603-07; G. SAITTA, Il pensiero italiano nell'Umcnesimo e nel Rinascimento, seconda ed. (Firenze, 1961), II, 79·82; 0. WILL'viANN, Gescbicbte des Idealismus (Braunschweig, 1894-97), III, pp. 170-177; e il mio saggio citato nella nota n. 1.

25 Cfr. 0. ZdcKLER, Geschicbte der Beziehungen zwischeN Theologie und Natur

•

~-------------------

II

222

teologica e scritturale e evidente anche in una oper~ come il De philos~phia perenni nonostante il suo titolo. Questa vastlsstmo lavoro pub~licato per la prima volta nell540 e ristampato integralr_nent~ quattro lo ~l ancora prima del I60020,ci interess~ p~r la nostra m?agme a:rua e. De philosophia perenm,CJ da un'indtc~wn~ moho chtara dell n:_fluenz~ della tradizione concorGJstica sui pensteto cmquecentesco. Non e_ certa mente la sola opera ~i questa tipo, _poi~he c! sono anche quelll ~ ir:i phorian Champier, d1 Francesco Gwrgw, di Guillaume Paste, Skalich, di J acopo Mazzoni, e del Verina Secondo. T:o Steuco, ~omunque, rimane caratteristico dt un tipo di pensatote cnsuano-pl~tomco che ~ capace di raggiungere un'alta carica ecclesiastica, pur contmuando a scn-vere un'opera sistematica, importante ed autorevole. ,. _ .

Il trattato dello Steuco, uscendo pili di mezzo secol~ dopo 1 IDlZl?

del sincretismo di tipo ficiniano e pichiano, ~astra alcum elementt onginali che non si trovano negli scrittori antenon, ma allo stesso tempo, ]e somi2]ianze sono piunumerose delle divergenze. ~o Steuc_o _ha solta?t? dato u; 'espressione pili sistematica al disegno . d~t platon!Cl ~orentl~. Ficino aveva stabilito Ia genealogia della trasmJsswn~ _d~lla soenza valida in~erendo gli scrittori platonici e pseudo-?IatoruCl ,m . u?o schema coerente e dimostrando chela tradizione platoruca era all ongme cannessa col cristianesimo tramite Mose . Sia per i1 Ficino che ?er lo_ St~uco

· M • · ' •Y TJ Il p· non pote mal nsol-Platone dlVenne WU<TI)<; o:-r·nY.L'-,<.UV • 1co . . . . vere t~tte le implicazioni di questa schema in u?-a sit:t~~>l. umversale, _tu~tavia, inizio un programma per l'unificazione dt tuttl 1 sJster_nt antenon: Fu compito dello Steuco dare una coerenza e una struttura a1 prograrnmt iniziati dal Ficino edal Pico. . .. _ . T

11 De philosophza perenni; la cut cop1a _dedJC;.tona a Papa ~aolot ~II si conservava ancora nella Biblioteca Vaucana , vorre~be dJmos.rare ]'esistenza di una corrente continua della verita filosofica m tu~t~ la storia e ]a compatibilira di questa verita Jilosofica con 9uella r_elJgJOsa,-_ ~n un modo che ricorda l'argo~ento del Ficino che << philosoph1a et re11g10

wisrenscbaft in besonderer Riicksicbt auf SchOpfungsife:schichte (Gurersloh, 1877-79), I, 634-30 · FREUDENBERGER, op. cit. , spec., pp. 146--:35. > h

pp. 11> Pe; 'le indicazioni bibliogra£che sulla stampa d.elie,. opere del:o _Steu~~ ed anc. e un elenco dei manoscrittJ CSlltenti e Ie opere perdute veo; sempre FREUDENEERGER, op.

cit pp 367-394. • d. M · t Platon's in ., Tl Vedi particolarmente la lettera del FICll'<O, Cor-cor 'a . osH e · P •

0 8-" 67 IJ frammtnto di Nurnenio si t...-uva, fra. a len. tn EusEBIO, raeAp. pe:ra l'P · ou· · S I 22 150 Cf E evan 'II JO. 14 e in CttM.ENTE ALESSANDRTNO, tram., , . , · , r. · t ·

LE~;ANS: Studie over den wijsgeer Numenius van Apamea met Ullgave der rragmen e/1

(Broxelle< 1937), p. 85 (tcsto 1). . ; e1 1ll v~'r . lat. 6377, m~niato su pergamena. Il m:moscritto che ho _esarnmal~ non r.~9:

divergen:z.e significative a all• versione stampata. Cfr. FRE1.mENBERGER, op. ct., PP· •

·- ... . - :

L.

,. -, ., (,--:.

II

PRISCA THEOLOGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENN!S 223

germanae sunt » 29, lo Steuco fa iniziare la sua lettera dedicatoria a Paolo

III con le seguenti parole: « Beatissime Pater, vera mihi semper in· philosophia visa est sententia, sapientiam atque pietatem ex eisdem fontibus r,ascemes unumque ad :fi.nem respicientes, omnes quoque rationes alias , yuibus consistant, habere conformes » 3<1_ La tesi che la filosofia non si nc,vi i.n disaccordo con la religione rna che in realta :lilosofia e religione si complementino l'una con l'altra , e un tema che si trova in quasi tutti gli apologisti, e nello Steuco vediamo uno dei suoi piu tisoluti espositori. l1 medesimo tema appare di nuovo in una formulazione alquanto piu ambiziosa all 'inizio del trattato stesso con queste parole: « Ut unum est omnium rerum principium, sic unam atque eandem de eo scientiam semper apud omnes fuisse, ratio multarum gentium ac litterarum monumenta tes r.antur »31

• La base della detta unita nell'umanita si troverebbe nella pri.cca tbcologia. Per lo Steuco, come per il Ficino e per il Pico, gli scittori pre-crisriani e pre-greci - specialmente Mose, Zoroastro, Mercurio, e Orfeo- avrebbero una posizione importantissima come iniziator.i e uasmettitori della sapienza. La fonte di tutta la sapienza si troverebbe, certamente, in Dio, e attraverso Dio, in Adamo, dal quale la sapient ia passo a Mose e poi a una serie di « barbari » e finalmente ai greci 32

• Quest'interpretazione che convenientemente collega la scienza ebr~ica, cristiana, barbara, e greca tutt'insieme, risolvendo cosl uno dei problemi piu fondamentali di cui si occuparono i pensatori del Rinascimento, sara ancora accettata, come vedremo, nel Seicento con Boyle, Cudworth, Henry More, Teofilo Gale, e molti altri. Siccome proviene da Dio !a scienza non soltanto e valida, rna e anche irrefrangibile. Se le varie fi.losofie e religioni cbe conosciamo si potessero far risalire in modo convinrente a quest'unica fonte si potrebbe risolvere il problema dell 'uni tii. delle scienze e della concordia philosophorum. Lo Steuco tento di eftettuare questo collegando Mose sia al pensiero barbara che a que1lo greco per mezzo della prisca 33 La totalita di questa sapientia unificata - in gcnerale non pili utopista del programma: molto diverso delI'Er.kenntnis di guarant'anni fa, rna molto piu tollerante - fu chiamata dallo ·Steuco philosophia perennis. In questa modo, secondo lo Steuco, mtta l'um3.nita vierie collegata da un'unita delle scienze, fondata sulla compenetrazione di una singola sapientia nel tessuto del pensiero umano.

21 Or;e'a , pp. 8.'\).54. ·,u S TEUCO, Opera, III , c. 2r. ' 1 Ibid., De per phil. I, 1; val. III , c. 1'. In un'armotazione marginale alia stessa

pagina 5i formula la summa thesis cosl: Unum principium rerum, sic una scientia omnimn. P rjm<i scientia JX>s teris cornmunicata.

32 ibid., I, 1; vol. III, 1r. Cfr. Cosmopoeia, vol. I, sv. lJ Cfr. spec. De per phil. IV, 1; val. HI, 59r. Per un elenco parziale dei richiarni

freguemi Jelio Steuco alla prisca vedi la mia Perennial Philosophy .. . , p. 520.

· '

II

224

. . . . era fondata naturalmente, non solo La riusCita d1 tale mt~~r.et@1ln~ dei docurnenti che pretendevano sulla validita della. a~ 1S1 o ~gtca da setta a setta, rna anche sull'abid'illustrare la tras~s~tone delle h~e~ unti di accordo fra le varie scuole lid. dello Steuco ~,d~mostrare ~ ~1 ~elli di disaccordo. Di conseguenza filosofiche eranc: plu 1mportantt_ di q le sette si troverebbero d'accordo mise in rilievo ~ ~at to chili quasi;.tt~olo 34 e l'immortalita dell' anima 35

•

nell'affermare 1 esls_tenz~, un to a essere secondo lui una uni.ficata Percio pot~ costru1refi cto lu dov~v e che e notevole per erudizione interpretaz1one. filos<~r cb :: v~~~~~i se non per acume criti_co e coe' e come espre:swne_ 1 uo uco alrneno per la magglor parte, renza. Benche ~1 slstet?a ?:l~o St:re' 'at sto del secolo nostro, dob_non sia affine a1 car:om c~tlCl !p 'eta ckersa che ebbe non soltanto biam<? cc:nstder~rlo _tl pro _otto : uno scopo diverso per filosofar:. critert dtffereJ?-tl dal n~str/ rna an e chiarificare i concetti filosoficl, La philosophta per~nnts ece, l:ffi ~:te per una filosofia comprensiva, rna se la chiarificazlOne non e ':- di ca 'ire e di spiegare le cose. Cio tuttavia il sistema dello S~euc? ~eft~to ch! moltissime delle idee conteche ha valore per 1~ stonco ~ dello Steuco ebbero una fortuna di lunga nute nella philosoP_~ta perenn_zs ffermarsi su quest'aspetto. portata, ed e perclo neces~an~ so so ra tutti gli altri quando consi-

Secondo me, due fattl s~lccan; detla risca theologia e della philqderiamo la for_tuna de~b tra~-~~n on Fi~no e Pico e che forse arrivasophia perenrtts' che e ero llllZ!~ c . 1 la rnisura in cui queste trarono allo zenit con ~teuco. _Quesu s(?~-ue~ento e del Seicento; e 2, la dizioni perm:arono 11 penslero delcurat~ da studiosi attuali dell'epoca. misura m cu1 esse so~o state tras to ri arata negli ultimi decenm, rna Questa trascuratezza e stata al(uan_ rd~e prima di poter valutare con rimangono da !are _anflncora m~te nc~e tradizioni sul pensiero filosofico, ptecisione la ptena 1 uer:za ~es tifico nei secoli seguenti. Le ricerteologico, l_etterarid ls~~f~~r e :~:Ua Yates hanno esteso la n~stra_ c~che del Knsteller, e ''ahnente per quel che riguarda_l Itaha , noscenza in questa camp<;>, spect d che la Francia 37 dove fiorl nel

- - · i1 rmento e an ' . · · dove ebbe lUlZl_o mov ,' enetrazione di questi moV1mentl Cinquecento. Cl fu anche, pero, una_ p stato ancora studiato in tutti i altrove, benche quest'aspetto non sta

34 De per. phil. III; vol. III , 43•-58;. . . 35 De per. phil_ IX, 24; vol. III, 180 j, l . . p 0. KRrsTELLER, Il penszero 36 Cfr. spec. WALKER,_ Orpheus the T F~g~~~ · Y~T~, Giordano Bru~o and t~e

filosofico di Marszlzo Ftcmo, pp. l~ZOed, h gli scritti citati nella r01a Perennzal Hermetic Tradition (Lomira, 1964); Gll v ere anc e . Philosophy- .. , nota 37. W T' Prisco Theologia » in France, «Journal of the

37 Cfr spec. D. P. ALKER, Dt • ) 204-59 Warburg ~d Courtauld Institutes "• XVII (1954 ' PP- . .

L

-~ ., l

II

PRISCA THEOWGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS 225

suoi particolari. Pare che sia stato oggetto di forte interesse durante il Seicento ed anche nel Settecento, specialmente in Olanda e i<'l Inghilterra 38

•

Sebbene io non abbia studiato con cura -1a situvione in Olanda, mi sembra che il sincretismo sviluppatosi dalla ttadirione della pri.sca vi sia stato fortemente coltivato. Nei primi anni del Scicento, pet esempio, usd un trattato intitolato Babylonica, Indica~ Aegyptia & c. Philosophia primordia di Otto Hernius 39

, che discute la filoso:fia pre-greca, facendo assai attenzione alle tradizioni ermeticbe, orfid1e, e zoroastriane della prisca e lodando ancora le traduzioni e i commentari del Ficino <0.

Un altro autorevole scrittore, che ebbe una simpatia per la prisca, fu il ben nato Ugo Grozio (1583-1645), autore della De veritate religionis chris tianae (1627), che ebbe una fortuna grandissima fino all'Ottocento.

Forse le discussioni pili energetiche come pure alcuni degli sviluppi pili interessanti di queste idee nel Seicento ebbero luogo in Inghilterra. Questo costituisce ancora un ricco campo per altre :ricerche, specialmente riguardo alla relazione della prisca con lo sviluppo delle scienze naturali. Negli ultimi anni questa questione e rata oggetto d'attenzione negli studi del McGuire, del Rattansi, del Sailor, e della Yates 4\

rna ci vogliono altre ricerche per rendere il quad.ro completamente chiaro. Tuttavia, e senz'altro evidente il fatto che la prisca ( ed anche la magia nel senso pili esteso, la cabala, e la teologia) ebbe una posizione pili importante nel pensiero filosofico e scienrifico in Inghilterra di quanto non sia stato finora riconosciuto. Benche i frutti della rinascenza platonica dell'Accademia Fiorentina raggiungess-ero l'Inghilteua molto rapidamente in particolare con John Colet (1466-1519) 42 e Tho-

38 Per le relazioni intellettuali fra Olanda e Inghilterra ne"l Seicemo vedi Ros A.LT.E L. CoLIE, Light and Enlightenment: A Study of the Camluidgc PiaJonists and the Dutch Arminians (Cambridge 1957).

39 Prima edizione, Leida, 1600. 40 Cito dalla mia copia della edizione di Leida, 1619, ad e;empio, pag. 245-.51. 41 D. B. SAILOR, Moses and Atomism << Journal of the History o{ Ideas,., xlCV

(1964}, pp. 3-16; YATES, op. cit. , spec. pp. 403-50, passim; P. M . RATTANS!, Alchemy and Natural Magic in Raleigh's 'History of the World' , "'Ambix », XHI (1966), PP- 122-38; J. E. McGUIRE e P. M. RATTANS!, Newton and the 'Pipe> of Pan', Nores and Records of the Royal Society of London>>, XXI (1966), pp. 108-43. Cfr. anche gli stud.i tuttora fondamentali di WALTER PAGEL, Religious Motiues in the Medical Biology of the XVIJ<h Century, <<Bulletin of [the Institute of] the History of Medicine», III (1935), pp. 97-128; pp. 213-31, 265-312.

42 Cfr. spec. L. MILEs , fohn Colet and the Platonic Traditiol)n (La Salle, 1961); S. JAYNE, f ohn Colet and Monilia Ficino (Londra, 1963). Sui pla1<:-nismo in Inghilrerra durante il Rinascimento cfr. K. SoiRODER, Platonismus in der E~>glischen Renaiss;ance uor und bei Thomas Eliot (Berlino, 1920; <<Palaestra>>, vol. 85}..

•

- i

11

226

", ( 1478 •1 ")~5) 43 le implicazioni piu profonde del platonismo mas nil ore · - -' , , 1 1 h ; . olo p;u tardi Questa e vero a meno per que c e turono comprese s • · . , d 1 1 · ri u~rda la dottrina della prisca theologza. Quest aspetto_ e patom-

g. u • . - t re pero si mostro ben chlaro nella Hutory of the smo r'nascJrnen a1 · , ·1 R 1 h d' d · · \vo--li r 1614) di Sir Walter Ralegh. In quest opera 1 a eg_ 1e e ml-

. . '. ' jl ·he rur pol· la tendenza di gran parte del penslero mglese ZIO ,, aue "a c - . 1 · d 11 ' 1 " d ' •10 trac· ~'ando nella prefazwne una genea ogta e a sa-ae resto el seco , '-'· b ·

· . c1 ; ta da quella che abbiamo discusso: For Hermes, w o hved p1enza eLva. . M 0 h L' - 'rh · soone after Moses, Zoroaster, usaeus, rp eus, mus, once Wl" . ' or , M r· . Ph d Th l A · · Ar1nYagoras Empedocles e tsms, erycy es, a es, •1ax1menes r~ ' ' h · -;-I , h Pythagoras Plato and many others ( w ose opmwns are ex-"' ea:"rles, \., ed by s' teuchius [I} Eugubinus) found in the necessitie qulSlle v gatuer · · . - b p f f · · / ., ] r aso"' One eternal and inhmte Bemg, to e a arent o

0 lnlllDCIO e e · 1'' • . • · f d lJ £ ..

h 'U · . 1 44 Questa genealogia nsale m on o a que a nmana, t e ntv ersa1 » . l' . 1 · d ll d · · -1 moclificazioni che mostrano evo uzwne e a ottnna ma c1 sono acune . d 11 d · ·d d • ·1 , colo intercorrente. Trov1amo alcune e e me esune 1 ee,

uranLe 1 .e · di · · · 1 · d 1 S · · ; ' '"Jeno "Viluppate, in una moltitudine scntton mg es1 e el-p"u

0 ··, _· c~:w.. F'-af!c·15 Bacon (1561-1626) 45

, Robert Fludd (1574-c,,to ua ' . lb-37) ·"' Isrr:;c Barrow (1630-1677) 47

, Thomas Stanley ( 1625-1678) 48,

43 W, ~ Pica e 'rlnghilterra, in L'Opera e il pensiero di_ Giovanni Pico della . ,R. I.l-t' 143-58· M. P. GILMORE, More's Translatwn of Gumfrancesco

Mzrananla . . . , ' PP- . · ' II 30l-04 · S. E. LE.HMBERG, Szr Thomas More's Pica's llrogr<ph}', nella stessa raccolta, . ' R' · . III (1956) pp 61-74 Cfr Li fe of P!co della l~irandola, ~ ~t~~~:i;~e t~e no:e~a'c:~~~:~i Pica delld Mirando/; Hi; anche l ec=one moaerna con m r · d 'vl Ri (Londra 1890) Life by His N_ ep~~w _ GiovHanntzo Fy"':tce~~~ PW~;ld. (J._,;nd:a: 16~h c. 0', della. Preface.

44 WAJXI'.K tv.LEGH, ,,s I . . "f ·R . . Ai"hem)' tmd Natural Magtc. · ., P· 130. ddin Ell'

L r. > AfT.\NSI, ,.. . . ( 1609) in Works ed. Spe g, IS e Heath 4S f~£ "':;-ec De wptentUI t!eterum , ' - b '. . 1

· J r. 'I · · · ,~_- VI . 617-86. Quest'aspetto del penstero acomano vten nuuv" ed. (Londra, JS . .t (:),C -&(PLEMMI The Cla.«ical Detttes tn Bacon (Baltimora , d!SCllSS" parucolru.w.':ntef aa " . Baeone· 'dalla magia alia Jcienza (Ban, 1957) e da 1933); .. PAOLO l\OSS;, ranc, sco .. B (L' . l 1964) ~ . . . . Tb Philnwphy of Franczs aeon Iverpoo' .

B. bxl,.~NGJO~, 1• ~ . • . d l Fludd che sono molto- voluminosi, cfr. J. R. PARTINGTON, "' Gltr<: "gil scrJIH "- ' ) 324-27· YATES, Grordano Bruno ... ,

H isiory of Chemzstrv, II (Londr~, 19p61 ' IPJ?· (Lo ~ira 1965) pp. 105-27 e 204 . , · ·. ' G DElllCS The Englzsh arace stans n • , '

i'""s!ID, L · • g1· al · · · d llo stesso Debus sul F1udd) (do·.re 'ci ftrovano ~:Jic'Tte~lo~fca~ wJ.~~k~cr~?'rsa:c Barr~w. ed. A. Napier (Cambridge,

_ 47

r. c-. _g{, !JC Se · Vli- The Being of God Proved from Un_mrsal Consent) 1&)9) V, PP;,,~gf652 ~~ rs,~n Barr~w· cfr. Biographia Britannica (Londta, 1747-<:;6), I, qx~. pp. L~ ' . . 05 pp. 498· '>07; DNBI-J.III , ppf 7!l;faick .[sic- Chaldaick} Philosophy (Londra, 1701), prima

48 ,Cfr. ~a sua '-~orJ o. na traduzi~ne degli Oraeula Chalda!ca (J?P· 48-:ll). Cfr. ed. r.e l66L e comp.en_ en;~ ~v («Another disadvantage this SubJect mcurs far more spec. c. (senzo nume;azlon,, . difficult +o be retrieved out of the Ruins conside:ab~e: There " ''L:; anythinf t~~rEastern Nations: and particularly that of the of AnttqUJuc-s than the anu?g. 0

. transmitted to us by the Greeks, of whom Ch?Jclaeens. \'>7h~t remams of l t ts c):uefi~ixin it with their Philosophy, as Pythagoras some convertel.d It to thederr own ':'lse,ot'~~r but tteir writings are lost. ») e p. 1 ( « Philo-and Plato; ot 1ers treat express y. , .

-r . - ! 'i. :

I~

II


Henry More (1614-1687) 49, Robert Boyle (1627-1691} 50

, Elias Ashmole (1617-1692) 5

\ Edward Stillingfleet (1635-1699) 52, Thomas Burnet

(1635?-1715) 5', e William Whiston (1667-1752 )~. Ciascuno di questi

sophy is generally acknowledged even by the most learned o£ me Grecians themsdves, to have had its Original in the East>>). Sullo Stanley dr. Ia sua History of Philosophy, terza ed. (Londra, 1701), cc. a,-d,r (An account of the Life and Writings of Thomas Stanley, Esq.); Biog. Brit. VI, pp. 3820-22; DNB LIV (1898}, pp. 78-81 ; MARGARET FLOWER, Thomas Stanley (1625-1678): A Bibliography of his Writings in Prose and Verse (1647-1743), Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, I, (1949-53), pp. 139-72; e l'introduzione a The Poems and Translations of Thomas Stanley, ed. G. M. Crump (Oxford 1962}, pp. v-lxiv.

49 Cfr. spec. Coniectura Cahbalistica. . . (Londra, 1659), citata nell'edizione di Londra, 1713, dove si trova tra A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings. In questo il More sosteneva che Mose sarebbe Ia fonte della filosofia antica (e. g. <<Wherefore it is very plain that Pythagoras had his philosophy from Moses», p. 111). Anche interessante e: «As for citing the Heathen Writers so freque11 tly; you are to consider, that they are the Wisest and roost Vertuous of lhem, and eithe11 such as the Fathers say, had their Philosophy from Moses and the Prophets, as Pythagm:as and Plato, or else the Disciples or Friends of these Philosophers», p. 37. Cfr. anche S .. RUTIN, Henry Mare: Essai sur les doctrines theosophiques chez les platoniciens de Cambridge (Hildesheim, 1966}, pp. 12, 69. II problema dei rapporti fra Ia Cabala e 1a dottrina della prisca theologia e uno dei pili importanti che rimangano da trattare a fonda, particolarmente riguardo a rnolto degli scrittori menzionati in questo saggio, ma non e possibile farlo in questa sede. Vedi sotto, nota 81.

50 Certamente il Boyle non fu imbevuto della dottrina dei!a prisca in misura uguale ad alcuni suoi contemporanei, rna dr. The Sceptical Chymist [prima ed., Londra 1661 ], (citata dalla «Everyman edition>> di Londra, 1911) 71, sulla fonte :antica della dottrina chimica. Cfr. SAILOR, art. cit., 13.

SJ Come il Boyle, lo Ashrnole applicava Ia dottrina alia chimirn. Cfr. suo Theatru1rt Chemicum Britannicum: Containing Severall Poeticall Pieces of Our Famous English Pbilosophers Who Have Written the Hermetic Mysteries in Their Owne Ancient Language ... (Londra 1652; ristampata ed. Allen G. Debus, Nuova York e Londra, 1967), c. B,r, pp. 440, 463; Elias Ashmole (1617-1692). His Autobiographical and Historical Notes, His Correspondence, and Other Contemporary Sources Relating to His Life and Work, ed. C. H. Josten (Oxford, 1966) I, p. S5; II, pp. 567-68 ecc. Sui rapporti della prisca con il pensiero chimico dr. spec. Josephus Quercetanus (Duchesne), Liber de priscorum philosophorum verae medicinae materia (S. Gervais~ 1603) e !'interessante testo pubblicato in A. G. DEBUS, iln Elizabethan History of Medical Chemistry, «Annals of Science», A'VIII (1962), pp . 1-29.

51 Cfr. spec. le sue Origines sacrae, or a Rational Account of t he Grounds of Natural and Revealed Religion (Londra, 1662, 1663, 1666, 1675, 1680, 17()9; Cambridge, 1702; Oxford, 1797, 1817, 1836). Sullo Stillingfleet cfr. Biog Brit. VI, pp. 3836-42; J. TULLOOJ., Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in tbe Seventeenth Century, seconda ed. (Edimburgo e Londra, 1874), I, pp. 411-63; DNB LIV (1898), pp. 375-78.

53 Cfr. i suoi Archaelogiae philosophicae sive doctrina an.tiqUIJ de rerum originibus libri duo.. editzo secunda (Londra, 1733 ), lib. I, pp. 1-270 . Sul .Burnet cfr. D NB VII (1886), pp. 408-10; Z6cKLER, op. cit., II, pp. 144-54; !VIAJORIE HoPE NICOLSON, Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory (Ithaca, 1959 ). pp. 184-270; SAILOR, art. cit., p. 14. Scritto contra il libro del Burnet e [J. Gra\>erol], Moses vindicatus; sive asserta historille .creationis mundi aliarumque, quales a Mose narrantu.r veritas. Adversus Cl. V. T Burnetii S. T. D. archaeologias philosopbicas (Amsterdam, 1694 ), fra molti altri.

54 Cfr. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Mr. TJ?illiam Whiston (Londra, 1749; seconda ed. 1753), spec. i passi citati sotto in nota n. 87. Sul Whiston cfr. Biog. Brit. VI, pp. 4202-16; DNB LXI (1900), pp. 10-1 4; llid:NE METZGER, Attraction universelle

..

ll

228

. . . servirono della tradizione sincretica che i"i_saliva e moltl altn ancora ~1 I ece di discutere dettagliatamente tum queal_platon~srr::o fiorentmoto~v di tre altre .figure, Ie quali illnstrano l'instl votrel dire qualche ensiero inglese del '600. Questi sono Teofilo fluenza della pmca t ph Cudworth (1617-168 8), e Isaac Ne:vton Gale (1628-1678),_ ~ . . almente noto oggi come teologo, ;l ~e( 1642-1727).ll rnmo er~~~~~ come scienziato, sebbene al:·neno gl.i condo come o ogo,_ e r i molto vasti che si estendevano oltre: le ultimi due avessero mreress . .

· · · , 0 le loro reputazlOnl postume. . materlteGsul c,n:lsl oasanrn· omato dei tre· anzi si puo dire che non sJa ben

I a e e 1 meno r ' · d. li ecialisti e la critica moderna lo ha qu:m Imen-

noto n:;men~, a·1 Gs) sacerdote non conformista laureate ad Oxfo_rd, tJCato . enc e _I a e, molto critico verso la prisca, fu certame;>te liTI

avesse un atteggiamen~o N si deve confonderlo con il suo contem-merso nel~ sue ~~:{~6350~1702) 56, un fervente seguace_ deUa pr~sca poran~o T om~s ' d'{. princeps ( 1678) del De mysteriis di GJamblico, e coldul _che C:£ro ~ e t ~~ili della tradizione che era noto agli scrittori anuno el testl on an:en li. ·ana L'o era piu importante di Teofilo teriori nella traduz1one CJDl • 1 p · li · ' 1·1Je Court of tbe , l ll he ci interes<a per a nostra ana s1 e · .

Gael q~e ah c , d" . in- quattro parti· (1) Of Philologie (1669); Genz;-sp(t e h. 1(~~71)· (3) Of The ·Vanitie of the Pagan Philo(2) J.l osop lC d (1677 )· e ( 4) Of Reformed Philosophic (16 77}. sophers Demonstrate ' . . . l d · 11 r • • a scritta m lmgua mg ese, a en~ce a 1" maruer Q uest' opera quantunque d l n ~ . • •

· ' · · d 1 Cinquecento . La secon a e a rerza pa. te s1 T1-eru_dtto-u mlalmst~~a e indicano sebbene soitanto negativamente, quamo fenscon.o a a p1zsca e ' d:a g el tempo Tj G ale pensava l . h lo ia fosse ancora lllUSa a u . . - . ~ . . . : a prz~ca t eo dg . del sincretismo i tentatlVl del padn a1essandrm,

che l'mtera tra J.Zlone '

. . h utiques commentateurs anglais de Ncu;ton (1~~-:·~gi;. 1?38), et relzgzon naturelle c ez q The Decline of Hell: Seventemth Century· L·•5wssrons of pp. 95-103; D. P. WALKER; ' . 96-103. . . -Eternal Torment (Londra,_ ·'Yt·~2onaire (Basilea '732) IV. p. 205; B:og. Bnt. Ill,

55 Ma cfr. MoRERr, urao At:enae Oxonie11ses,' ;er-.l.a ed.· (Lnndra, lol 5-20l, ~li, pp. 2070-77; A. A. Woon; bie universelle XVI (1816), pp. 28586; H~~Ff~h, }\;'!u· pp. 1149-5 1; MICHf'~a, B•~·~p 1857), pp. 2l7-18; DNB XX (1889), pp. '17-,8 (C.<.>n velle Bzograph1e gerrerale XIX Jbe Birth of Modem Education : tbc ContrrbuJ;or; uf the bibliografia); J. W . . A. Sw~18oo (Lonclra, ·1954), pp. 41-46. . . ', , , . . Drssentmg Acadermes, 166. S-BO· SANDYS, History of Cla.rsiCt:J! Scbo?~u~hq• '· Camb •. 1dgc,

56 DNB XX (1889), PP· 37N ;OLS Literary Anecdotes of the E:g.~teer:tb Century,_ 1921), II, pp. 354-55; Jom; l~ ' , . (Londra, 1812-15) IV, PP·,'1h Court oj the Gentiles: or a Discourse Touwmg o"

'57 II moJo completc>L;e. rJu~e both Pb iloiogie and Phiio.>ophic· from tf:e 5'·,"'';;:'re~ the Ongmal of Human /'

1 a 'Demonstratio" of (1) Tbe PerfectiO n ?i God'. ,.,. r>ru

a?ld Jeunsh Church "' or.'!', 0Tnterpretation of Nature's Ljf!.bl _ar:d M:sch:c{ :~J Vmn

and Church Light. (2) :b-,1 f H man Learning m:d l:specza!Jy SoUtd 1· b.o:,ophtt Philosopbie. (3) The R:gntc·se 0 · u • ' (Oxford, 1669-77).

II


e dello Steuco, fosse concepita in modo sbagliato. La .filosofia stessa, benche utile all'origine, era caduta in rovina: «Adam no sooner fell, but philosophie fell with him, and became a common Strumpet, for carnal reason to commit £ollie with » 58

• Quella corrente pura di .filasofia che era stata data agli Ebrei nella Rivelazione divenne ben presto corrotta, secondo lui, a causa delle varie filosofie pagane. Infatti, il Gale asseri che la fonte stessa di tutti gli errori posteriori proveniva dalla prisca: « The first great errors infesting the Christian Churches were those of the Gnosticks; who pretended unto a very sublime yvwrnc,, or Mystick Theologie; which was no other than a corrupt complexum of Orphaick, Pythagorick, and Judiack Infusions » 59

•

Sebbene il trattato del Gale sia lunghissimo e dettagliato si puo vedere il suo contenuto polemico anche leggendo qua e la a caso. Quasi ogni pagina presenta una difesa della purita della dottrina cristiana contra gli errori del pensiero non-cristiano. Secondo Gale, e accettabile soltanto il cristianesimo biblico. Della scolastica, per esempio, dice: « Another vital part of Antichristianisme consists in Scholastick Theologie ... » (fJ Infatti, possiamo considerate la sua opera come appartenente completamente aHa tradizione dell'esclusivita di cui abbiamo parlata in precedenza e qumdi contraria a tutti e due i platonici fiorentini e allo Steuco, sebbene sembri che quest'ultimo sia stato la fonte principale di informazione per quel che riguarda la pbilosophia perennis 61

•

Benche il Gale non abbia avuto nessuna simpatia per il pensiero non cristiano, pare in un certo senso che l'intera interpretazione prisca entri nel suo pensiero senza che egli se ne sia reso canto. Basandosi sulla leggenda che affermerebbe che la sapientia mosaica fu trasmessa a vari gruppi pagani - e quest'interpretazione il Gale l'ebbe in comune con i difensori della prisca - tento di dimostrare che qualsiasi valore e reputazione avessero le sapientiae etniche, Ii dovevano alia sapientia mosaica. Per quanto rifiutasse le conclusioni dei sincretisti - cioe che parti della vera sapienza si trovano in una larghissima varieta di tradizioni non-cristiane - il Gale fu d'accordo con }oro, ad esempio lo Steuco, nell'a.ffermare che, dopo che Dio rese Adamo partecipe della pura sapientia, essa era· stata in qualche modo dimiuuita attraverso i secoli 62

• Benche si possano riconoscere le di.fferenze fondamentali che

58 II, c. a1'.

S9 Ibid., c. a4'.

00 Ibid .. c. a.v. 61 La De philosophia pere11ni viene citata sul frontespizio dd vol. ll; Lo Steuco e ·

menzionato spesso nella Preface al vol. I (c. *2') e infatti quasi dovunque nell 'opera. Cfr. la mia Perennial Philosophy . .. , p. 530, nota 135.

62 «Having in the fo rmer Part con templated Philoso['hie in its origine and pro gresse, we are now to take view of it in its degenerate, corrupt and deform'd Idea

..

. I

II

230

separano il Gale dai difensori. della prisca theologia, pare che egli abbia accettato il metodo, anche se non accetto le conclusioni di pensatori come il Ficino e il Pico. I1 rapporto tra il Gale e gli scrittori anteriori diviene chiaro nella quru:ta sezione del trattato, in cui la « Reformed Philosophie » si rivek1- come una filosofia platonica: non di tipo ficiniano oppure steuchiano, rna ruttavia platonica in un certo significate della pa-

rola 63•

Un altro platonico il cui orientamento fu molto diverso da quello del Gak, fu Ralph Cudworth 64

, uno dei pili prominenti dei cosiddetti Cambridge Platonists e un forte aderente al tipo piu sincretico di platonismo . L'opera piu famosa del Cudworth e The True Intellectual System of the Universe, wherein All of the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is Con futed and .Tts .Tmpossibility Demonstrated ( 1678)

65

, che rimane fra i contributi piu moimmentali dell'erudizione seicentesca. Oltre all'erurlizione che vi e sfoggiata, essa contiene una filosofia tanto

or visage: For thnugh j( were in its origine a weak imperfect reflexion of that gloriose Divine Revelatio.~. which shon<" frorn the Sun of Rigbeousnesse on the Jewish Church; vet falling or' _Proud, carnal, ind1spnsed hearts, it did but. harden them the more>>. Court of the Grr.ti!es , vol. III, p . 2. Cfr. STEUCO De per phd. I , 1-2; vol. III, cc. 1-2; SCHMITT, Percr. r.ial Philosophv .... , pp. 517-18.

<-3 II frontts~i.zio del vof IV, prima parte, ha per sottotitolo: Wherein Plato's Mr,ral, and Metapbysi.; or prime Philosophie is reduced to an useful · Forme and Method. Nella Pre face il Gale fa. un sommario del metodo per mezzo del quale sperava di evitare g1i E-ccessi degli >ltri imerpreti crisriani di Platooe: <<Albeit that Plato's Philosophie has been thus Ett•erallv entercained by the best of Chnsttan Philosophers, yet 1t cannot be denied , but that it -hos bee:-1 the Prolific cause of the worst Heresies and corruptions in the Ch;.;rcb. For wbcnce spr~og A rianisme, Pekzgianisme, M-ystic Tbeologie, and may we not sav rhe whole Comole-:wm of Antichristianisme, but from Platonic Philosophie proksse<i in tbt School of Alexandria? This is evidently demonstrated in the precedent Part of the 1'ar.i:ie of Piiilosopbie. All this being granted, yet it follows not , but that Pl2tonic Philosophie r:n y be greatly useful if wei managed, and rendered subservient 10 TI1eologie, as in Au;;ustir. >>. Ibid., vol. IV, cc. A,r-v. Secondo iJ Gale, il pla tonismo £ornisce uu \'l:l~ido ic ndr..mento per la :filosofia e Ja teologia, ma e necessaria evitare l'interpte razimJe " il metooci della « scuola d'Alessandria » . E interessante notare che il Gale credeva ch, il Savonarola e il Pi.co ne fossero esempi ammirevoli (ibid., vol. IV,

C. A,v).

"' . . ·:·

64 Sul Cud••onh dr. spec. J. TULLOCH , op. cit., II, pp. 193-302; E. CASSIRER, Di~ platomsche P..encis.rance- in England uml die Schule von Cambridge, (Lipsia, 1932); J. H . Muirhead, The Plator~ic Tradition in Anglo Saxon Philosophy (Londra, 1931); G. A sPET.IN, 'Mph C,;dworth's I nterpretation of Greek Philosophy: A Study in the History of h6iisb Pbiio.wphical Ideas (Gotebor;;, 1943) [.Goteborgs Hogskoias Arsskrift X.LlX, n. 1) :]. A. P11 :; sMO~E, Ralph Cudworth, An Interpre tation (Cambridge, 1951); Lvm.~ Gvsi. J':O,onism and Ccrteswnism in the Philosophy of Ralph Cudworth (Berna, . J962). P er !IOf hibliografia p iu aropia vedi Passmore, pp. 114-18.

65 Prim2 e<l. Londra, 1671\. Sulla storin delle edizioni e deUe traduzioni cfr. PASS· M ORE, op. ci:., ?. J ··4. Jl.ii serve dell'edizione a cura di John Harrisor. (Londra, 1845) in 3 vol. (d i cui, ciru il capitola e la saione, seguiti dal volume e dalla pagina), che con· r;ene le ampit <d ~n,dirissime &nnora£ioni e !e dissertazioni di Johann Lorenz Mosheim, it: quali (urono Hampar" peT h prima volta con la traduzione latina del True Intellectual

System a Jena nt\ l 733.

i ~ ' l ! L_

II


acuta quanto ,originale, sebbene la sua forma esterna sia prolissa e divagante come 1 opera del Gale.

All'epoca del Cudworth, due secoli dopo Ficino e Pico e piu di un secolo. do~o Steu:o, ebbero _luogo alcune variazioni significative rispeh? agh us1 _e aile mt~rpretazwni della prisca tbeologia e della philosop_ ~a per_e_n~:s . l~lllan~I~utto ebbero i loro risultati gli sviluppi filo-logrct e cntiCl degh anm 1mmediatamente precedenu· ch · · _ . . . , e com1ncrarono a mettere m d~bbw l'autenticita di qualche scritto fondamentale nel canone de~la prasca. II ~udworth non poteva piu accettare il valore app_arente d~ alcune part1 del corpus Hermeticum, che lin dal 1614 Ie ncerc~e ~~ Is~ac Ca:aubon (1559-1614) avevano dimosttato essere contraffazwr:r der_pnmr s~c?li dell'eta cristiana 66

• Questa scoperta del Casaubon, Ill ultima analrsr non basto a dissuaderlo dall'accei:tare la struttur~ fo_nda~~ntale della prisca theologia. Infatti , il Cudworth la sviluppo e 1 arnccht m modo alquanto interessante. Per esempio troviamo che sosteneva ancora che tutti gli etnici, malgrado le apparenze contrarie erano _d'accord~ col cristianesimo, nell'affermare che c'e un unico Dio 6< Infattl , sulla sct~ d_ello Steuco e_gl! ~rovava nei pagani ~a premonizione della dottnna cnstJana della Tnmta 68

• Fece di tutto per dimostrare che Z01;oastro 69

, Orfeo 70, e _gli egiziani 71

- figure essenZiali per l'interpretaztone pnsca della stona - credevano nell'esistenza di un unico Ente Supr~mo, e pe~ far q~esto nor: risparmio_ al lettore alcun dettaglio. La b~a mterpretazwne d1 Mercur_IO Tnsmeg1sto, la cui autorita come ab-

Jamo d_etto, era stata messa rn dubbio piu di mezzo secolo p rima, fu t~tttata m un mod() molto rngegnoso. Benche il Cudworth fosse costretto a ammet~er~ con rl ~asaubon ed altri, che alcuni trattati ermetici erano contra~az10m e percto inattendibili, mettendo in rilievo che avevano tratto m errore lo ~teuco 72

, egli pote pero ridargli una certa autorita. Lo fece , cercando d1mostrare che « ... it does not follow, that, because

: Cfr. Y ATES , op. cit., pp. 398-403. •• Trt_"e Intellectual Sy.s.t.em, cap. 4,· I p 285 II '""' ~ Ib d p f ., p . , ' p. "ttO.

z ., re ace; I, xlm e passim : Ibid., cap. 4, s. XVI ; I, pp. 46J-92.

71 Ib~d., cap. 4, s. XVII; I, pp. 493-517.

72 Ibzd ., cap: 4, s. XVIII ; I, pp. 51 8-604. « And tillS we shall perform [ i ' h · · rnonoteisti) . [ ' - c oe mostrare c e 1 pagam erano generalmen te

Eugub· , Mot a s s~me l annotaz10ne del Mosheim qui dice: He means Augustus [!) betwe:~h utms Pnsa and others. who wrote expressly to prove . an agreemen t done bl . e anoent agans and Christranny. The same, however, had already been done y rhe earliest fathers, Clemens, Justin, Lactantius and many others) have of H by laym~ the _ chref stress UJ?OD the Sibylline oracles, 'and those reputed wri ting lear· ,:roes Tnsmegist, the authon ty whereof hath been of late so much decried by hav~ b men, nor yet upon such oracles of the Pagan deities, as may be suspected to as are ee~ counterfeited by Chnstiar;s; b~t u pon such monuments of Pagan ant iqui ty,

al,ogetber Unsuspected and mdubrtate >>. I bid., cap. 4, s .. XVI: I , p. 463. Il

•

II

232

. · · b k ow extant were counter-some of these Hermetic or Tnsmegistlc oo s n d b h n Pero'

th f 11 f them nee s e sue » . feit or supposit_io':s,althat ~re ore a 1 ~atto che gli scritti legittimi di il problema prmctp e conststeva ne h Il Cudworth

. ·, - anevano poe e tracce. Mercurio non est~tevar:o pmd: ne ~liD . Clemente Alessandrino, il si baso sulla testlmomanza l scntton come d ll'" •

uale, secondo lui, aveva fondato il suo appre~amento e tmp~:~ degli scritti ermetici_ s':' 7~rattati ancora eslstentl al tempo suo, pe

duti ai secoli post~r10_n - ., . d ll risca da parte del Forse un'applicazlOne plu IIDportante e a P . ., t

d "d · d" d re l' atomtsmo pm acce -Cudworth si trova nel suo esl eno 1 ren e. . . . . - d . . . . d · · i scntton cnst1aru s1 ere eva

tabile al crist1anes1mo. Dal tempt et pr1ID. d' · d'irreligione e Che l 'atornismo greco contenesse elementl ate.Jsmo, ll . l''

· · · · 1 orso de a stona ave-di materialismo· percio i pensaton cnsuam ne c 1 S . d

' · ,c Eppure ne e1cento, quan o vano quasi sistematlcamente nnutato. . h . sta l'atomismo fu rivificato nella struttura della<~ n';lova soenza » c est, va S"Tiluppando, le dottrine degli atomisti anttchdi: ebbero ~la ~dpea~: · - t · cristiani che cercarono trovare 1 0: . .

·zwne per l_ pen sa &b .1 . £. ica dalle indesiderate imphcazlOm teo·

r:rr:~eldell~s~~:~ 75 . b~~ed~~~e~zi che fu usato, dal ~udwort_h fu quello digtentare di dare un'autorita e un'ortodossia all at~mtsmo_ fisiCo, scr:endosi della tradizione della prisca theolog~a e phtlbbphta P~t:"r' e ragionando chela dottrina fisica dell'atomtsmo lavre e prec~ u ~ ~ che ne fecero quegli antichi con cui e genera mente assoctato ' aoe

. S . uno di coloro che furono indctti in Cudworth menziona specificamen_t<: lo teuco come errore dagli scritti pseudo--errneti,Cl.. . ta poco dopo (cap. 4, s. XVIII: I, p. 542).

L'irnportanza del Casaubonhe nconOdClU Errnete cfr Yates op. cit., pp. 427-31. Sulla discussione del Cudwort nguar o a . '

73 Ibid., cap. 4, s. XVIII: I, p. 542d that at least forty-two books o~ .the m~ent 74 <<From ~hich place we understan tbe E ptians, were still extant m the l!JJ_l<:S

Hermes Tnsmeg1st, ~r suchb reputed ~y d d fears after the Christian epocha ..Ibid., of Clemens Alexandnnus, a out two un re cap. 4, s. XVIII: I , P·. 549. f I ·. K LASSWITZ, Gescbichte der AtomiJtik vom

75 A questo propos1to cfr., ra a tn .. T s MAYO Epicurus in England (1650· Mittelalter bis Newton (Amburgo, 1892),Th HOA:cient At~mists and English Lilrrature 1725) (Dallas, 1934); C. T. HARRISOJ S d. in Oassical Philology», XLV {19>4), in the Seventeenth Century, « HTh E tu blesbment of the Mechanical PhiloJopby, Pp 1-79· MARIE BoAS [Hall], Re p sta ts ON O" cit spec pp. >455-85; TL'lllO

. · ' ) 412 541· J ARTINGT , I'" ., . c:_ ·~c. « Osins >>, (1952 , pp. . - •d z" S ·. 1 Giornale critico della filoso= IUUlliU!I•,

GREGORY, Studi s~ll'atomzsmo e ezcen o, «. XLVI (1967), pp. 528-41; _R. ~ .. X.UGON,. XLIII (1964), pp . .?8-65; XLV (1966), ~- 44-63 •(0xford 1966). Indicaziom b1bhognfiche Atomism in England from Hanot to l~w.;;:;:s e del Kargon. si trovano speClalmente nelle operd,delcf T ue Intellectual System, cap. I; !.99 e

76 Sull ' atom1smo del Cudwor A r · r it 19. 31· H GuERLAC, Ntw!on et C. T. HARRISON, art. cit., pp. 44-51; ~l'ELIN, op~o~E:irence 'n-9i) pp. 20-22; SAILOR , Epicure (Parigi, 1963; Palal~ de la GDecouverteC dworth e' l'atomismo [Studi lllll'•to-

132 33 e passzm · T ~REGORY, u art . ctt., pp. · . . • .. XLVI (1967), pp. 528-41]. mismo . .. , III, « Gwrn. cnt. »,

II


Leucippo, Democrito, Epicure, e Lucrezio. II Cudworth, impiegando una serie di argomenti filologici e filosofici piuttos.to dettagliati, volle dimostrare che l'iniziatore dell'atomisrno fu in realta Mose 77

• Inoltre, continuo dicendo: « that the physiology of the ancients, before not only Aristotle and Plato, but also Democritus and Leucippus, was atornical or mechanical. And that as there is no inconsistency between the atomical physiology and theology, but indeed a natural cogn2tion; SD that the ancient Atomists before Democritus were neither Atheists nor Corporea-

. lists, but held the incorporeity and immortality of souls, together with a Deity distinct from the corporeal world » 78

• II Cudwo1·th credette che Platone ed Aristotele, ingannati dalle tendenze ateistiche dell'atomismo democriteo, avessero rigettato troppo in fretta « the atomical and mechanical way of physiologizing »79

• Di conseguenza, essi e.r.ano andati fuori strada, trascurando l'ipotesi atomica, la quale in virtu della sua origine mosaica si puo facilmente adattare a una filosofia teistica. Credendo di pater dimostrare che « the atomic atheism being nothing else but a rape

L

77 Sull'argomentazione filologica d el Cudwortl1 cfr. True Imd.ler:tw;.£ 5)>Stem. cap, 1, s. IX-X; I, pp. 20-21; gli ~tudi del Sailor, del McGuire e del Rattarui., e dello Aspelin citati nella nota precedente. Fra il Cinquecento e il Settecento ci fu un':I!IIl.pia discussione;: di Mose e i suoi rapporti con Ia philosophia natura/is. Cfr. anche Srr.VESTRO da VALSANZIBIO, Una nuova opera di San Lorenzo da Brindisi; il comment~ sdk;« Sacra filosofza della natura>> di Mose (Roma, 1963) [che si trova anche nella CoU.a:wnea Francescarza XXXIII (1963 ), pp. 159-209, 353-91] e Ia sezione Robert Fludd and the J'Josaic Philosophy in Debus , op. cit., pp. 105-27, [Tuttora fondamentale per l'argomenl!.! e l'opera dcllo Zi:ickler ( cfr. nota 25)]. Un esempio di un libro molto divulgato dd. Settt:cento e [Noel Antoine Pluche], Histoire du ciel considere scion les idees des poe1e>: • .des philosophes, et de Moise. Ou l'on fait voir (1) L'origine du ciel poetique. (2) L.r meprise des philosophes sur la fabrique du ciel et de la terre. (3) La conformite il,e l ·'experience avec la seul physique de Moise (Parigi, 17.39, 1740, 1748, 1757; L'Aia, 11•,0,; trad. tedesca., Dresda-Lipsia, 1740; trad . inglese, Londra , 1741 ). La questione dd significato di Mose per lo srudio della pbilorophia naturalis veniva largamente discus.<D in Inghilterra nel Settecento, quando ci fu una grande disputa fra i cosi detti < Hut&..insonians ,. e i loro avversari. Sebbene !a disputa divenisse molto complicata piu tami, comincio piuttosto semplicemente. John lfutchinson (1674-1737} e i suoi segua<::i dicevano contro i newtoniani Che tutte le verita scientiliche si troverebbero nella Scrinur2, $e correttamente intesa. Della letteratura veramenre voluminosa sull'argomento dr. s,;:yoc. JoHN HuTCHINSON, Moses's Principia {Londra, 1724-27) e Moses si~<e principia (Lon&a, 1!30) [i:is tampari lU The Philosophical and T heological Works (Londra, 1748-49) i.n 12 ''oil.]; A. S. CATCOTT, Tractatus in quo tentatur conamen recuperandi notitiam prmcipiorum veteris et verae philosophiae .. . (Londra, 1738; trad. inglese , Londra, 1822), SAMUEL Pum, Philosophia Sacra: or the Principles of Natural Philosophy Extracted .from. Divine Revelation (Londra, 1753); WILLIAM ]ONES, An Essay on the First Prindples of Natural Philosophy (Oxford, 1762); SAMUEL PYE, The Mosaic Theory of the Svlar or Planetary S)•stem (Londra , 1766). Per alcune indicazioni generaL cfr. LESl.!E S:rEPHEN, English Thought in the Eightee,•th Century, seconda ed. (Londra, 1881 }, I, 389-92.

Rimane ancora moho da fare riguardo all'i nterprerazione ddla svikppo della Philosophia Mosaica .

78 True Intellectr.d System, cap. I, s. XLIII: I, pp. 89-90. 79 Ibid., cap. I, s. XLIV-XLV: I, pp. 9'3·99.

..

. I

J

.I :

li

234

mmitted upon the atomic physiology »ro, il Cudworth si cri!ktte in c~ado di giustificare la reintroduzione della filosofia naturale cldl'ato· ~ismo nelle discussioni cristiane serie. . . .

Senza dubbio il Cudworth aderl fedelmente alla mterpretazwne prt-sca della storia, sebbene ormai la dottrina avesse a~sunto, un~ slu~tura che non aveva avuto con Ficino o con Steuco e sl sforzo di mufi.car: tutto il sistema per adeguarsi aile richieste d~l suo t~mp~. Rendendost con to. cbe la metafisica platonica doveva constderare 1 _van as~ttl della realta fi.sica e vedendo un sempre maggiore nun:ero d1 pr~1Ve m favore dell'ipotesi atomica, valle fondere 1~ ~ue e giusnfi::are la srntesdacendo ricorso alla spiegazione della tr~smlSSJone della se1enza p~r mezzo ~ella prisca tbeologia. Inoltre p~r vedendo che la pr~cedent~ mterpr:raz~on: della metodologia della przsca er~. stat~ messa ~n. dubbto, ~~~ ,e~to, d1 conservarne l'utilita, dando una sptegaztone cre~btle delle d~lta. Se~za dubbio il Cudworth fu un legtttlmo erede setcentesco dell .~rrademta Platonica e dello Steuco. . . .

Quando consideriamo il Newton, ci rendtamo c_:onto che s1 tratta ~ uno dei giganti intellettuali di quello che e stato chlama~o (( Ii,sewl~ del geni ». Mentre il Gale era soprattutto un teo~ogo_ e t1 Cuowortn u~ @osofo, il Newton e conosciuto come grande sctenz:ato_, se?be.le non s1 debba dimenticare che, come la maggior parte degli sclenziatJ deUa s~a

oca egli si interesso di molte altre cose e non soltanto delle matene ep , . . 1 d r \T" . scientifiche e matematiche su cu1. st basa a sua gran ~ rama. 1s~e !n un' epoca in cui 1' erudizione e la. filo1ogia_ - ~~nza no~ mare ~a teol~~Ia ~ Ja scienza cabalistica, e la retonca - nstabtlite dagh _umamstl llall~nl erano ancora studiate con serieta. Non si puo d1re che Il Ne\11Dll. fu Jmbevuto di dottrina prisi:a come lo erano Fludd, Cudworth, Stlllin~le:t, o Henry More ( da quest' ultimo sembra che abbLa tratto qualche Jdea-

chiave81). . . . . . 62 • "' . Gli interessi teologtn e stoncl del Newron sono statl no,, aa molt~

tempo, benche siano stati studiari con un certo 1mpegno solianio negu

ao Ibid, Preface ; I, P· xl. • d 'I · " r 81 p ]'"nfl sso sul Newton della concezmne moreana e, _o SJl!ll> err. spe--

er 1 u z · r · '' Hi] ' ' · <>6?) \i/ GENT Die Philosophie des R.aumes und der ezt :nstampa, ntmtJm, L . - , I .149.65·' E (ASSIRER, Das Erkenntnisproblem, terza ed. _tBerlmo, 1922-19UJ, pj1. ~42 ' . A 'K ·YRE From the Closed World to the Infimte Unwerse (Ba!:nnora, 1'!.57 )

sgg.,_ . ·M 0JAM,MER Concepts of Space nueva ed . (Nuova York, 1960), ~r. 108-ll.

passzm, . , '. A h M" s ·pt , , . '. r sz J. C. GREGORY, Notice Concern~ng an uto_grap unu en !'; ,.,, '/~"': NPwton «Transactions of the Royal ~Jay of Edmburgh »_, XII, (lEi'., pp. 6-.-' 6, D- BRE~~~EK , Memoirs of the Life, Writi11gs, and DiJcovertes of _S1r

1;aar i'hwto""

(Ed. : b 1855) II pp 313-59 spec. p. 3B dove tl Brewster diet: •If S;r Isa:.c

un urgo, ' ' . ' . . d tu a] "'- h h Newton had not been distinguished as a mathemat:c!an an a na r ~wu.<op er, " would have enjoyed a high reputation as a tbeolog>an *·

II

PRJSCA THEOLOGIA E PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS 235

ult irni anni ~3 • Meno noti sono i legami intimi che esistevano nel pensiero del Newton tra i suoi interessi scientifici e quelli teologici. Ancora piu sorprendente, almeno per coloro che sono abituati alia critica moderna che presenta il Newton come se fosse un positivista del secolo nostro e i~ fa r,to che nel pensiero del grande Sir Isaac ancora rimanga qualche tr~ccla oella Pnsca theologia. Come hanna mostrato i1 McGuire e il Ratt~nsi 84

, lo _sfondo_ della dotttina. prise a, non e soltanto utile per caplre alcum pass1 del corpus newtonianum, rna pare anche che 11 Newton abbia creduto di essere in qualche modo il riscopritore di alcu~e verira co~osciute in tempi antichi . Inoltre, la sua spiegazione della stona dell'atom1smo ci mostra ch'egli segul l'interpretazione cudworthJ~na per quel che riguarda la supposta fase pre-Leucippiana 85

• Non si D~lO affermare con certezza se il Newton abbia tratto la sua spiegazione ~i ;.;:ttamente dal Cudworth o no, rna certamente sappiamo che postillo rl 1 rue I~tellectual Syst~m e trascrisse parola per parola qualche brano cudworthran<? ~ull~ sto~ta dell 'atomismo 86

. E inoltre palese che questo sfondo non s1 nvelo mar con grande chiarita negli scritti newtoniani che ~rcmo pub?licati . II Newton era molto cauto e quasi sempre prudente nspetto a cto che permetteva venisse daro aile stampe sotto il suo nome. La sfu£?~tura ~ella ~ottrina prisca negli scritti pubblicati somiglia alla parte vlSlbJle dt un ICeberg; al di sotto ci sono vari manoscritti inediti e la testimonianza di parecchi amici e contemporanei l>l_

a; H. Me LACHLAN. Tbe Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke and Newto 11 (Manchester, l 941 ), 115-72; IDEM., S17· Isaac Newto11: TbeologiCIIl Manuscripts (Liverpool. 1950); F. E._ MANUEL, I.raac N ewton, Historian (Cambridge, 1963)· L. TRENGROVE ~n:>:01z's Tbeolog zcal Vzews, «Annals of Science» XXII (1966), pp. 277~94 ; D. KUBRIN: · ew,on a_nd the Cyclical Cosmos: Provzdence and the Mecbanical Philosophy, «Journal of r~ History of Ideas>>, XXVIII (1967), pp. 425-46.

Art. czt. • lt5 Universit)• Library, Cambridge, ms . Add. 3965.6, c. 270r, come citato da McGUIRE

e RArTANSI, art . crt., p.· 115. . '"'. William Andrews Clark Memorial Library (Los Angeles ), manoscritto. Sono debi· tore <J ~rof. J. E. McGUIRE, che ha rnesso a mia disposizione !a sua fotocopia di questa ~;~eoscn;to, con;enente alcuni , brani copiati dal ~ewton st<;sso dalla pr~ma edizione del q _In:ellectuar. System con 1 num~n d~lle pagwe dove s1 trovano gh estratti copiati . Ad. anche ! b ran1 del Newton pubnhcat1 dal ms. della Cambrid<>e University Library de-d ." 3968, in A .. Ko':R£ and_ I. B. C~"fl!'-"1,. Newton and the Le/lmi:z-Clarke Correspon:

nc_ • •• , « :\.rchives mternat10nales d lustoue des sciences>> XV (1962} pp 63-126 a PP. 73-74. ' ' · · ' i'aur ~ Cfr., ad esernpio: WHI~TON, op. cit. (ed. Lonclra, 1749-50), I , pp. 36-40, dove leoo~',';. tratta .'1 pens>ero relig10so del Ne~ton e i suoi rapporti con Ia scoperta della l~<·c. ui gravna. Spec1alrnente mteressante e 1l seguente: <<Which noble Discovery {doe

4 « f"w of _?niversal gravitation >>) proved the happy Occasion of the Invention of the \\~noerful Newtonian Philosophy: Which indeed I look u:pon in · an higher Light than Reser~, ;and ~s an eminent Prelude and Preparation to those happy Times of the p tr:ut10n. or all Thmgs, whzch God has Jpoken of by the Mouth of all his holy

. e""P1oet~ smce the World began, Acts. ill, 21. To which Purpose see his excellent '--Oro lan ' · R 1· · f h" h h .es re1anng to e 1g10n o w JC ereafter. Nor can I forebear to wish, that my

. !

lT

236

Anche se il metodo di voler capire la storia e la struttura dell'universo ricorrendo a una sapientia conosciuta una volta in epoche remote fu un elcmento secondario nella sviluppo del pensiero newtoniano, ciononostante e importante sottolineare che quest'aspetto caratteristico del Rinascimento italiano era ancora vivo alia fine del Seicento. E infatti, la tradizione prisca continuo in Inghilterra anche nel secolo seguente con \\'lilliam Whiston 88

, discepolo del Newton e, era ancora palese per esempio nel Siris (1744) 89 di George Berkeley. Non possiamo trattare qui guale fosse la sua importanza alia fine del Settecento e non e neppure completamente chiara la sorte finale della dottrina. Sono questioni che si devono trattare altrove. Cio che e ovvio e che quest'aspetto del platonismo tiorentino ebbe una fortuna pili importante e pili estesa nello svolgimento del pensiero moderno di quanto non sia stato generalmente capita .

mo;t ii'.1porran t Discoveries concerning true Religion, and Primitive Christianity, may succeed in the second Place to his surprizing Discoveries; and may together have such a Divine Blessing upon them, that the Kingdoms of this World, as I firmly expect they will , m~y soon become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ and he may reigtT .lor ever and ever! Amen. Amen.» (pag. 38 ). Cfr. anche DAVID GREGORY, Astronomiae, physicae, et geometricae eleme11ta, seconda ed. (Ginevra, 1726) cc. a"·b' (Praefatio auctori£ i, spec. c. a,r ( « Ne cui vero Physica hie tradita, quasi novum ali quid et insolens in J~stronomia videamr, eandem vetustissimis Philosophis notam, ab iisque sedulo excultam· e' se ostendam ». II Gregory dunque continua, tentando di dimostrare che gli antichi conoscevano le verita astronomiche) e c. br, dove conclude Ia Praefatio, soltan to dopo aver d irnostratO che molte dottrine e scoperre moderne erano gia note agli antichi , di· cendo: « Qua ~nam hisce veterum inventis incrementa adjecerit recentiorum soler tia, se· guent es paginae fuse ostendunt >>. Un argomento molto simile si trova in CoLIN M.ACLAURIN, A n Account of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophical Discoveries, seconda ed. (l L.lr,c\ra, 1750), 22, 26-27, 34. Altre indicazioni valide per lo stesso argomento si trovano ir. Luuts DuTENS, Recherches sur l'origine des decouvertes allribuees aux modernes, ou l'on demontre que nos plus celebres philosopher 011t puise la plupart de leur connois.<anas dans les ouvrages des anciem; et que plusieurs verites importantes sur [a religion nnt he connues des sages du Paganisme (Parigi, 1766}.]. C. GREGORY, art. cit. , 67-68 cita <m P"sso dal DJtens (pag. 145) cbe ba strettissimi rapporti con una formulazione del Newton in cui sono discussi i precursori antichi della filosofia newtoniana.

£: anche interessante notare che !a storia pubblica e autorizzata della ,Royal Society di Thomas Sprat contiene forti echi della dottrina della prisca theologia. · c fr. THOMAS .'>i'RA.T, The History of the Royal Societ)' of Londo11 for the Improving of Natural Knowiec"ge (Lond ra, 1667), The First Part, pp. 1-51, passim, spec. pp. 5-6. I moderni inteFpreti della Royal Society e del libra dello Sprat non fanno nulla mettere in ri lievo questi pa;>i . Per esempio. cfr. l'edizione recente a cura d i J. I. Cope e di H. W . J ones (St. Louis, 1958), spec. Ia nota 6, 5 (p. 4 dell e note) del Jones che sembra non afferrare ) ~essenziale.

BS Cfr. note 54 e 87. 89 ln T he Works , ed. Luce e Jessop (Londra , 1948 sg.), v. pp. 1-164; ad esempio

sez. 177-87 (pp. 91·95); sez. 265 sgg. (pp. 124 sgg.).

i I I l i i

I

I I

III

L'INTRODUCTION DE LA PHILOSOPHIE PLATONICIENNE DANS L'ENSEIGNEMENT DES UNIVERSITES

A LA RENAISSANCE *

A l'epoque de Ia Renaissance les connaissances philoso h' . un _essor prodigieux so us l'impulsion des decouvertes d e PJ· Jqu~~J pnre~ t anCienne. Au cours du Quattrocento les h . . . a p I osophie un fonds immense de rnanusc .t . umdamstes lta hens decouvriren t

n s anciens e na ture phi!oso h · . provenaient de l'antiquite classique La 1 d . p Ique, qm

ph~ques nouvellement decouvertes f~rent Pr:;;~~tee: ~:s I';Ou~res p hiJosoPOignee d'huma · t · · n .ent nar u ne ·ta t . I ~Is es qm voyageaient constamment entre l'Italie e- t Co

u znop e au debut du V" · • 1 N · ns-fort bien connues, d'aill:Urs,s~e~n:· l'Eou~o;:\~1~~7:v~~: ceuvres d'Aris_t o_te, par Ia decouverte d'autres ceuvres telles que Ia M h, ft1rent cornp letees mais encore de nom breux manus~rits . ec a mea . et Ja Poezica, aristote!licienne fur en t · r a· , ' qui appartenaient a la tradi.tion

, e ecouverts Parmi ces m · presque toutes les ce . · anuscnts se trouvaie nt

uvres exJstantes de Theophraste aussi b -cornrnentaires importants d e S implicius et de Jean Phiiopon lpen q~e les au cours du XVI' · • 1 · eu a peu . . . . s iec e, ces ceuvres fuJ·ent integrees d 1 ' •. , anstotehcJenne et dans les textes d I' . . az:s a s;; nthcse

Plus d . . e enseignement umversJtaire.

phiques anrc~:l:tJ:;;;~ c~~:=n~~~e~~ ~ei~uverte d 'autres system es philosoSYnthese peripate ticienne oui ava it dom~~ee une con~urrence serieuse 2 la sophes de Dio , , L .. • JUSque-la. Les V1es des philoQu anrocen to gene . a erc: ; ~u_vre ret:ouvee dans les premieres annees du I' ' et qu i avar, ere traduite en la tin vers 14~0 Amb .

raversari de · t t , . j par rog1o a ses re ' , vm r es popu la Jre , ayant r ec;:u une diffusion tr es vaste .rice I.,e scept~~~~se ~~~~~tes les doctrin es _des ecoles philosophiq ues ancie~nes. llledieva]e f t d , ' secte p hJ!osophique p resque mconnue dans l'Europc grace a l'~x u : ed ecouvert dans les premieres annees du Quattrocem o

pose e ses doct n nes dans Ies ceuvres de Sext E . . ~ us mp1n cus.

L . •

IV

REAPPRAISALS IN RENAISSANCE SCIENCE

H emwticisrn and the Scientific R evolution. Papers read at a Clark Library Seminar, March 9, 1974- by RoBERT S. WEsTMAN and J E. McGUIRE (William Anc;!rews Clark 1v1emorial Lihrary, University of

California, Lo.s Angeles, 1977). Pp. 150. $5.00.

Already in tlle 1930s Paul Oskar Kristeller pointed out the importance of the writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus for the understanding of fif teenth century Italian culture-' In stuclyinp; Marsilio Ficino he dis-covered th:~t the Hermetic writings p layed an important role in tl1e development of Ficino's 0Jeoplatoni~m. The late ancient compilation of gnostic, mystical themes loosely connected and un.ificd into the so-called Corjms Hermcticurn was transbted into Latin by Ficino and circulated widely during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Ficino was, of course, not the fu'St in the \Vest to make use of these materials, tl10ugh he did bring to light more than had previously been known. In fact seveTal import;mt H trmetic texts had been known during the Middle Ages, a.s a fairly broad manuscript diffusion indicates.' Not only in twelfth century Platonism, but abo in a fourteenth century think er such as Thomas Brad\\'arciine were certain Hermetic themes adopted and integrated into contemporarv thought. The ca$e of Bradwardine is particularly notewurthy, for it shows clearly how Hermetic and Ncopiatonic themes were used even bv a late medieval scholastic \vhose \vritings were abhorred by severa l pr~minent fifteenth century Italian /mmaJ1ists.'

Kristeller 's initiative was expanded and deepen ed by the work of otht~r scholars including Eugenio Garin,' i\ .. J. Festugiert' ,5 D. P. Walker," K. H. Dannenfeldt, 7 }Jaolo Rossi," Cesare V a.>oli," and Paola: Zambelli.10 The research and insights of Garin and his pu pils b:we been particularly important in putting for·ward a general hypothesis about the productive and po..<;itive rok of magic-including Hem<eticism-~in the development of modem scientific and technological culture. By the early 1960s the place of the Hermetic textsr-and various other pseudonymous writings attributed to Orpheus and Zoroaster-in Renaissance culture was known to a few specialists, though these materials were not generally at the centre of t.he scholarly debates of the period. The important writings in Italian on the subjecr were not widely known to the English-speaking world and the English scholarly publications were hidden away in rar:her specialized learned journals. To the best of my knowledge, the then developing profession of history of science took little n crte of these matters.

L

' : ":

· ~ -

REAPPRAISALS IN RENAISSA-NCE SCIENCE 201

In 1964- Frances Yates's Giordano Bruno and th e H ermetic tradition first appeared.11 The theme of her book is that Giordano Bruno can best be understood and interpreted as a Renaissance magus and as part af what sbe has called the "Hem1etic tr·adition". Miss Yates's book is an atlempt at rcintapretation in the grand style. Rightly rejecting the pn"'>l c•us halian historiograpllical tradition, which saw in Bruno a Hen;Dssance precursor of nineteenth century Italian idealism, rationalism, and an ti-clericalism-though there are elements of all of these in himshe did a great deal to· put Bruno in a more convincing historical context. Coming at Bruno from a literary and art-historical point of view, Yates's interpretation emphasizes such things as symbolic meanings and the use of embir:mata, which she finds in Bnmo's writings and does much to ilLuminate. 1l1is is an approach much diiferent from the philosophical and scienl ific on e adopted hy Paul-Henri Michel 's La cosmologie de Giordano Hruno (P;.u·is , 1 962)', the other important work on Bruno for those years, which, in my opinion, has not got the attention it deserves. Tlle rclati <;n of Bruno to the hi<rtory of science plays a relatively small role in Yatc_<;'s book and the attentive reader will find that she focuses ra ther up-on other issues, e.g., symbolic, occult, political and religious ones, <Did touches upon Bruno's role ill science only in passing. Yet it h:J-" been the historians of science who have given an un usual attention to Ler book and to the perhaps more relevant and even bolder article "The Herm.etic traciition in Renaissance science", which makes stronger d2.ims ;:,bout tlle relevance of HeTmericism to the history of science. 12

Since l 9fi•J. tllf: tenn 'Hnmeticism' has been widely used, often by those wit h sc:;u-ce understanding of the historical realities involved in the fom>ation o{ ihe 'Hermetic tradition'. Thus the Hesse-Rattansi polemic seerns to be but liLtle based on the concrete facts of primary sources and, in my view, makes little attempt to deepen the discussion by bringing into phy new ;:c;-:Jd relev;wt source materials.13 Be that as it may, Yates's Luok~-and by implication the earlier historical work which provided the soure<::s for i rs p1·eparation~-has been widely read, discussed, and accepted, yet it has Lem built upon but little.

Now, at the height of its influence, it has been seriously challenged by twQ tho-ught-provoking papers by Robert S. Westman and J E. ]\{cGuire. These were first presented as lectures in 1974 and are now expanded and handsomely printed by the William Andrews Clark lvlernorial Library of Los Angeles. They are respectively "Magical reform and astronomical reform: The Yates Thesis reconsidered" , and "Neoplatoni.<;m and active principles: N ev->ton and the C orfms H ermeticum". l shal l consider each of these essays individually and then shall make some rnnre general comments on the two together and the problems they ra.is.e.

IV

i' ·. ~ ·

IV

202

vVestffia.n's main endeavour is to cxamme wh?.t he terms the "Yates thesis" . As he states it :

Central to the "Yates thesis" an: two claims: that Copernicus's astronomically refom.1ed cosmos was perceived by Bruno and other magi as a magical symbol, the proper understam!ing of which could lead to a reform of the political and religions domains of sooety; and, secondly, that ·in adopting and "Hermeticizing" the Copernican theory, Bruno and others ilrepared the way for the seventeenthcentury mathematization and mechanization of the new cosmos (p. 8).

must sav at the outset that I am somewhat uneasy about the tenn "Yates thesii'. Fi r.,-t of all, Westman's formulation gives undue em ph<~sis to the place of astronomy-or, more specifically, Copern.i canism-:-in Bruno's overall intellectual make-up. The centre of Ya.tes's interpretatiOn of Bruno is not science, and I think that \\'t>;Stman has disrm·ted the situation significantly to extract the scientific component from the subtle and romplex historical context in which it is emb.:dded in Yates's work.

·Secondly, even ii the scientific aspect ,,·ere as imponant as \·\'estma.11 contends, I am not at all sure that it was consciously fonnulated by the author of Giordano Bruno and thr. Hermetic 17-.'l.dilion specific:tl!y >1S a "thesis". Rather, if there is a '·thesis" to Yates's book, it is a more general one involving the role of Hermeticism in the political, religious, anti ph.ilosophical thought (including the art of memory) o-f Bruno and not the quire n.a.rro.wlv ·conrerved concerns o[ a contemporary lustonan of

science. But let u~ look at Westman's critique more ca.rdulty. "In r.his paper",

he say.;, "J shall simply trv to establish what, if """Y' ro le Hem·tttic texts played in causing thinkers first to adopt and tht:n to justify th_e Copernican theory" (p . 11). HJS r(');ults arc rather negatrn:. He tlllds frw, if :mv. spt.-cific instances in which 'He.-n1eticism' p iayerl ;t signiJicant and positi,;e mle in this regard. Part of tbc problem with 1he whole :'thesis", if there is one, is that ·Hemleticism' j_, a very slippet·y concept illdeed. Since Yates's book has appeared the term has taken on an expla.narorv function far l:x:yond what it can deli\·er. 11any recent discussions of the nolion bv historians of srimcc have been inordinately vague," ,o, if for no othe~ reason, the clarificat ions offned Ly \\',qman anrl McGuire are welcome.

One of the points which WestmaJJ touche5 upon is the quest ion of symbols. Quite rightly he queries some of Yates's interpretations. Though art and literary historians arc ve1-y fond of di:<n:ssin.g symbr,ls, 1; tS nnt clear that this always leads to something significant. After ont has read Sextus Empiricus one becomes more than a lit:.le dubious of what passes for 'svmbolic images' . At best the interpretation of emblemata is a risky

L

REAPPRAISALS IN RENAISSANCE SCIENCE 203

bu.<iness and it is good to see that many of the naore capable younger !Jiswri:ms ,,f intellectual matters are rejecting some of the more farferch rcd Lheories of previous generations. Tlus matler points up in the cleare-t possible tem1s the r<~dically different methodoJogies of art histori;ms and historians of science. 'v\ 'hilc symbols may well play a role in scientifi r discover')' fmm time- to time, they have little to do with the finishrd formulat ions of science, whether 'science' be taken as based on :m Ari.'<1olelian , a. medieval (i.e., rational theology), or a modem modeL This, r l >elie\·e, is unc of the defining characteristics of history o.f science as " uniyue and separate discipline \\'hen the nirty-gtitty of science is di"'- u:"cd, ,,ymhol. does not play a role. This is not to say that a snake ,,.,ii.JJv,·: ing its tail might not serve a useful 3nalogic.al function or t11at 2.b< ra cti•ms 11sed in scientific discourse might not be treated as symbols, hur im fnrst: :1 :·e not rclevanrt except to th e broader cultural history of 'CleEre. The pecu1i :1 rl y scientific aspects of the hi.~tory do not play host to svmbd:; c:-:r~pt in tl~e (for the art histori an ) trivia! sense of malhem:di.-·:1] ur chemical nomenclature. It ma.tters li ttle whether nitrogen is S)'Tnl:x)lind hy N or by Az, but presuma.bly it matters a great deal for til(" ;u l histm-i~.n whethl"r a palmette, a fig le:tf or a tertium quid is represz:n:cd i11 a p<~jnting somewhere in an Ita lian ,,-j]Ja.ge.

\"-'l. ilc the ambiguous and often obscure nature of symbo-ls appeals to th.-: a :·t h istorian--one often has th e impn·s~;ion that the more obscure t.Le syn~l1ol ;s the mo-no they like it-this aspect is le...o;s valuable in science. \\'e~t" :an (pp. :H--4 J) i~ particularly convincing in mising problems about th- ·svr: :l:"Jiic' intcrprct:1tion of the topsail experiment. He is quite p!:1.usib!c: :n :;uggc-:oting ihat in hands Jes., capable than a Yates the whole icPnol:'r;cphicd mdllod becomes a.lmost a ,elf-trave::,i.y, The real difficnhv rl- alin; with s;~nbols is tha t their use ge-es specifically against the ide;;] oi precision whicl1 has always been one of t11e chief crite1·ia of any v<Jirl sc: ,:nce. \Vh.ile metaph or and ambiguity play a significant, perhaps c\·cr: :1. r:a J·,-1inal, role in painting or poctrv, or even metaphysics, in science e·. '')' df,J n is rn'td e to obtain precise and un equivocal linguistic formulatin~.

T his lcods to another telling point made by Westman. He is quite flj.'h1 ill my vif.w to cr-iticize Yates's ignoring of previous work in history of ~ci• -nct: (pp. l () .. ] 1, 1 2) and then trying to relate Brqno to the scienti!ic t:-:,rii~ion. lt is q uite tru e that science in the Renaissance was a brc,aci<-r ,ill::J more sigrtificant movement th an we Jearn from the banal lradi,:oJJ "f general books written on the Italian Renaissance_~• If Bruno is rf • ! •c n·iated ro the histo1-v of science, the selection of sources to il l<nn::n.te him must be more catholi c UlaJl merely the aJlimistic and ITl'·~ti c : J tr:;clition of one variety of Neoplatonism. 16 But, as I said before, tilt: JJJ;.,.jor thn1st of Yares's Bruno interpretation i~ not the scientific side,

IV

IV

204

. · · t -y ·n" to make it seem so. and tl1ere is sume dJstortron m I I , I bl t' f Westman's

p l . the best and most permanently va ua e sec 10!1 o . . er 1aps . . J· d " ted to " Hennetic reactJon to the Copemtcan

occa.sronal ptecc IS t ,.at e 0 . . F . ·~ F · d Candale

, ,." (p·p. 4 i --- GS) ,,·here attention lS given to ran<;oL orx e Fl dd' WeOl_. . · P·· .·. · Tomma.so Campanella, ;md Robert u · Tohn nee, J-r;mcesco a l! JZ I , . . . '" 'Th ults of his " · · · ' > five as 'hennetJost~ . e res He jJrOVL."!On;d]y accepts t,Jese · ·fi d charac-. h . fi 1en do not present a uru 1e , investigatio~'' .are)hat t -"~et:t~o~ of the Copernican thevry. They all te.n,<;ucally Hcrm_ •. dc.IC,. mtc:. rp('o. rwmicus's work and responded to it in some

me ·o· ts' aatwn LO • ,.. · be ]- --' ga.ve = L ' ·' · · .

1 . the magical symbolic wav we might e:u

hut nuL necessan Y Hi · ·' ' •. M' y wav, ' . . d f 11 credit m\!St he gtven tO ISS ates ·xoect. bnmo rs umque an u 1 lO _e · . . l . . ·f n<>_ rhaps some asp<"ct.s of a more genera . ertwnl7mu- t lJS. C\'01 1 .. -~ .. . . . b .

!OJ r · ~, · <=> • • . . tJ. o[ Coperrucan rsm cannot e sus--] .. · , bo t 3 HennetK mterpreta on ,

t 1esJs a. u . • . l hJ·s I-nterpretation of the.~e five figures VI est-·• ' Tn puttmo· Jon,·atc . · 1 d'

tal''~~- ~ h ."' 1-o-ht a bit of little-knO\\'ll infomtat1on, me u tng man 1s anle t o nng to .1"'

a manuscrifA no!r. hy John Dee. ' . I' . his clari-. think h· ll the main importance- of Westman s ptece ltS m . . I t ," . . Yates hook which for all of thr mod•ficatwns

lying se:e~at ac:o;cts. ryJ -'h~ 1 lectures 'is still an imponant and valuable u.flned m !he Cluk T .tbJ ·1 -y · p d. Much · . k . ··gnificant st~,. m .>nmo sill tes. interpretatn'e stucly mar mg a. lst, . n h~ h<~s added substantially to l W stn·:1n --ays makes gocx sense <ill d I t1at es ". ~ · : 1 treated in Giordano Bru.nu an 1 le rhc ar ticula.11un. of the n:ateua , ·I ~vl": paid too much attention to H ermet.ic !r,·~dll. l o n, even rf he may 1 · . f his ulti-faceted

' r' .•. • . 1d too lrttle to othel aspects 0 m . hru no a::_ .a "'.1;, ·;tt aJ call perhaps be criticized for neglecting_ earher J:lel~"c_•naliL'· J , .. es . f . '·\'estnl'\11' ·· knowledge of Sixteenth · . h 1 · ·t · o sctence v · • ~ • . schol:uslup u:1 t e 115 ory . ' 1 ho. . . ch Te-les10'

. . . l' , 1 historv 15 not a ways a ve rtproa · c~:rt\lry 1L·u·,an mtc.J e.c.ua · ll , h " (. J ')5\ A · '· ,. , · tl. speaKing "Carnpane as tcac er .l · - .. ·

c<mnot he r.a.;IC'Cl, stnc :' _ tJ • ' (' p;ute-\h aot to Tclesio only afteT f · 1 i'"\ ·le in.d• · ·on reports lat .am ' ' '> d

~i.Jr.y re la -' .. , ~ · ·: 1 ,; '-'8 ,. Patrizi's complexity is &~mew hat un er-·h latt•·r p -.; r·· rcc lTI f" U< • • I 'l h. sub-l . e : -~ ·- ··.·. · 1 · N .. de unil!erszs p Hosop .w ,,.as , .: , ted tr t< true that 11s o&a l h e,-,,una . ..1 . . ' the whole stOl)' was much more com.p ex t an iened to u:nsr,rs,up, b,n , _ t '" Not only did Patrizi not lose - . 1 , .. f \Vf'Stman s a.ccoun. " . . ·,;.•e ca.'l e- .t1 l•' rom · 11 1 t th p. al uruvers1ty hl·~ ·miv;•:;.itv position (p. 50), but he ""::S cal ~c o eh ap d to r·elate

- ~ ' · · ·· · · · hil hv:" t 1S sonw,· at sa Rome to nmfess Platonrc P osop ' · p · · · t1'll Yates--

m · - ' , - cl . " of informatiOn on atm.1 rs s that \\'e>uTI;~: 1 s c !1.L. son.ce' ·~ li ttle attention lo UlC basic sources rlw book he ,s cnt<crzmg- -anr• he pa) .. G H h book been

· d F ' tm' 0 Firpo .regorv etc. a.1 er ,v1:ich she t1as u.~ : toren ' ' ... ·· ' . . ed'

n .m·e useful t}Jan he unc.gtn . f N I 1966 he and . , __ f ~ . pon the case o · ewton. n

1\·fcGum: s lt-cnu t: ocu.es u d · h t Isaac New-p . M Ranam:i jointly published a papedr emodnstratmbg t ~nftuenced by

· - · 1 · he , of but ha to a egree em 1 ' ton had nnt on.y _en ""are! .' . wh'ch the Hermetic texts play an rhe tradition of f;nsca t heo ogw m I

\ I

1._

REAPPRAISALS IN RE:--IAlSSANCE SCIENCE 205

important role. Since then Rattansi has continued to emphasize-though without bringing to light any compelling new infom1ation-the 'Hermetic' strands in Newton's thought!' ~{cGuire, on the otl1er hand, has sought to p-rovide a deeper understanding of the philosophical and theological background to wh at might he called Newton's philosophy of science.22

On the hasis of his presenlt understanding of Newton, }..1cGuire contends that "traditions o[ magic and alchemy did not play a significant role in shaping Newton's conception of nature" (p. 132). W hile he no"· believes that for a short time in the 1690s Newton accepted <iertain aspects of a "Hermetic ideology o1 legitimization that at once O\\'es little to the magical world-picture of the Hermetic writings =d is separate from the intellectual content of Cambridge Neoplatonism" (pp. 132- 3), the influence wa..-; short-lived. It was during the 1690o:, when Newton wa~ preparing revisions for tlw Principia, that he flirted with certain magical doctrines (including Hermetic rm~) for a short time, hut gradually turned his interests to other approaches.

!vfcGuire's conclusion then is that when all is said and done the dominating traditions of natural philosophv in which Ne\\·ton worked were Neoplatonism and Stoicism. It is good that he has brought the lattelnotion into the discussion, for historians tend to lose sight of the inlportant position which Stoic philosophy of nature and (to some degree) logic had in early modem thought. While the importance of Stoic moral philosophy is generallv recognized, e.g .. in Pomponazzi, Montaigne, Du Vair, Cha1Ton, Lipsius, or Spinoza, the impact of the Stoic doctrine of logic and natural philosophy has bttn little notr . .d. In a sense this is understandable, since our knowledge of these a...-pects of Stoicism is based upon very [ ragmentary evidence indeed and no integral original treatise; on 1:\vo of the three branches of Stuic philosophy have survived from antiquity. 23 McGuire seems quite right to emphasize the Stoic roots of N ewtonian doctrin e such as the rlistinction be-tween active and passin: prin ci pies. 24

Even more basic to Newton's philosophical orientation, however, is J\'eoplatonism, a philosophv which he imbibed during his formative years at Cambridge. Indeed, Nev..'ton's acti,·c: use of the wT:itings of the Cambridge Platonists now seems lxvond question, ew.n if direct links are no-t always so well documentable as thev m ight be. The works of Ko>·n\ :McGuire, Rattansi , and Walker, an1ong o·thers, show this. This is not to say that all specific details of Newwn\ inrlebtedness to Nroplatoni"fl1 can be pinned clown with precision ami, indeed, the verv notion of 'Neoplatonism' is very fl uid and susceptible to many different interpretations. I am. not sure, for r:xample, whr:tlwr Hem1etirism ran be eliminated from the Neoplatonism of thr: sixteenth and seventec!llth centuries as fully as McGuire would like. With Ficino--and even earlier clming- the

..

IV

lV

206

]\:fiddle Ages--certain elements of the Corpus H ermeticum became integrated into the Neoplatonic synthesis, and the two strands cannot now easily be separated. It is true, and McGuire certilnly recognizes it, that much discussion of theological issues during the Middle Ages and Rena.is~anc.e contributed mate1·ially to Newton's intellectual make-up. Thus to consider Newton's naturnl philosophy a combination of Neoplatonic and Stoic elements seems to be on the right track, but it must be realized that nmch more went into the particular type of Neoplatonism which Newton imb~bed than the better known ancient types of that philosophy.

McGuire certainly deserves high marks for attempting to clarify the distinction between Hermeticism and Neoplatonism. One of the problems which has become exposed in recent discussions of He1meticism is the failure of many who use the term to realize that it was Herrnetici~ which became assimilated into Neoplatonism and seldom, if ever, wa.~

He1meticism itself thought of, even by its Renai"Sance proponents, as an independent system of ideas. It was Neoplatonism which servecl as a strong trunk onto which ideas derived from Hermetic, Orphic, Zoroastrian. Neopythagon::an, Cabalistic and other sources could be grafted during the Renaissance, continuing a tendenc.v a lreadv begun in antiquity. Neoplatonism was the receptive hody of knowledge susceptible to being bent in a number o.f ways to adapt itself to a rather rem arkable range of syncretistic formulatiol16. It was, however, the Neoplatonic system of metaphysics and epistemology which provided a life-giving sap to hold it all together. Since 1964 'Hermetic1sm' has been used in a bewildering variety of wa.ys which often give no hint of a recognition of the problems inherent in considering Hermeticism as a self-contai ned and coheren.t bod y of ideas capable of standing alone25

The major thrust of McGuire's arguments is that 'Hem1eticism' per se is not clearly definable :

[WJhat is the explanatory force of a historical argument that appeals to an ;tlleged "Hermetic" tradition ? . . . [A ]re there any doctrine..<in the Hermetic Corpus, distinctively different from the Neoplatonir doctrine of immaterial agents, that explain Newton's use of active agents operating on brute matter·? I think that it can be agreed that when Henneticism is used to mean a particular attitude of mind towards nature or a particular intellectual sensibility, it is just too vague a term with which to come to grips (p. 106).

He is quite right. Indeed this fact was already recogillzed by Frances Yates in a pa.<>Sage cited by Westman (p. 70), though it must be admitted that she does not always seem to keep this important distinction in mind. :tvfcGuire, however, goes further and I believe he pinpoints the crux of the problem :

REAPPRAISALS r;-.; RENAISSANCE. SCJ3::N.CE 207

Apart from their overemphasis on the speculative potentials of Her-· metJasm, the chief mistake madc> hv th= who str~.ss )ts importance as a liberalizing force is that thcv treat it as a deR·nable and S\'SleDla

ticaJly isolatable hodv of doctrine. To be sure, tbe Corpt;J Hermeltcum advances views regarcling creation, the na.rur<e and c..sceni: of the soul, a natural magic of the world, a gnosis., :and so fitr:h. But Jt JS an exceedingly eclectic collection of scJYat<~k writings, ;'n

amalgam of pagan philosophies and the magic of die mysterv cults. Moreover, it is important to grasp the fact that the hasic strucwr~ of the Corpus (and its underlying metaphysics) is Nc:opla.tonic. 1l1c ~agJ c of _the Corpus was later con;:ciO'l islv incorporated imo- their mterpretat1ons of Neoplatonic philosophy by Ficino. Pin;, and ;\gc-:;tino Stcuco, an1ong ot!Jer Renaissan ce \VTit~rs (pp. li'ft-7}.

This _is to say that Hem1eticism never becomes a real driving force of any SJgl1lficant cultll!·al movement during the Renaissance. Recourse was

oft:n had to Hem1 etic texts, even by some of the period's staunchc:cl Anstot:lians." In these instances it functions primarily as rhdoricaJ l:'mbelliishment to help substantia.te argnments put forw;lrd for uther reasons, t.e., Jt do~ not fonn an inf<"gl·il! par!" of the sci1:nce any more than do S)1nbolic im;,ge.~ . Where it rloes t·a ke on a more n:.mral position --:--and it d~s with some frequency- it nearly always seenh to be subSirbary to Neoplatortlf>Tn or alchemv or both . ilS the titks of numertlll' sixteenth and xventeenth century ~oks indic<lle. 27 .

There can now lx: little doubt tJ,at Hermeticism farm:; ;m impurtant strand of the revived Neoplatonjsm ,;,hich came to olav ol role S<'cond only to Aristotelianism in Ren<>.is.<:.anct> philosophy. F;an:_t:s l:'ates's work on Bruno has done much to help us recognize this fact. ~ow om: must not now go to <Jn extreme a.nd claim il. centrality in Renai:ssaJK<" philosoph \ for men obviously at the pt:riphe1v, such a~ Francesco Giorl!:i or A.::;cr.sl ino Steuco, a~ could easi ly !:x: clone ;vhile riding il i,·avc of el~; thusias;n. li perhaps the evaluation of Hermeticism hils got just a little ou l. of balance, Jt IS largdy through the uncri.tical accepta11 ce of some of )·'ales's concluSIOns hy interpreters unwilling or unable to go back to ~~ f:-csh reaC:inr~ of ongmal sources. It is equ;,lly imfA'rtant to realize thilt the rP.vived mterest in Platonic philosophy brought with it a rmewed concern "ith another bnmch of th e Platonic tradition, Acadrmic >eepticism, a. !"acr that has been slow to be recogniz~.'8 This, nevertheles>, i~ important:· it shows that Phtonism in ihe RenRissance was not alwav:< the v~guc, mystical, and undisciplined v;u-i<:ty. Tt accept<.:d not only the fa.n i-"L<): world of the Corpus H erm!'tiwm_, but also the Pythagorean Syrnbo!a.'" the OrphlC Hymns, and the Zoroastrian extravagances. Alongside tLJO' wa~ the m nthcmatical Platonism so foreign to Bruno's mocl<' of thought,

IV

208

already dL.«tingui.<JJcd by C=-6n:.r many years ago and recently seen in

a new light by several others."' The conclUb'i.on one is left with is th.at the onus lies on those who

hope to shmv tha.t Hermeticism W?.S indeed an irtdependent and unified philosophy during the Ren:Uss; ... nce. TI1at it formed an unportant mgredien.t in Renai.§ance Neopht:'ni.·:m a.nd alchemy carmot be doubted, ;or has it been since rhe eadie;- work of K risteller, Gann, Walker, and several others. Irr my ;;new it still rem<'jns to show that Henneticism ever functioned as an important, independent world-vie"'' in the Renaissance.

Westman and McGuire sl11M intere;ting and perhaps significant differences in ilieir approach('.<> to these problems. Westman seems ~o be concerned with the meaPjng of Hermeticism for the hlstory of se1ence, whlle ]\l[cGuire is out to reh.te it to a wrnewhat hroa.der frame of reference vvith regard to earlv mooem intellectual history. There is _an undue concern v.ith the 'hiswriar1 of scir~nce' in Vvestman's presentat1on of rus case (e.g ., p. 72). When he discuss<:s foix de Candale or Patrizi we get the impression that he h<>s extracted the few bits which may mte:rest the h.L>-t:orian of science, but h<;.: left to one side two multi-faceted and intrinsically very interesting tigunc:". Indeed, tlw s~1e can lx said f~r Bruno. In spite of s-0me rc.<-n,·ations, the great achievement of Yates_' book is that it sees Bruno in a .,,.,ry b'oad cnltural spectrum-one whJCh breaks down ilie modem insti1ntional boundaries, which make it ahnost imposo.i.ble to understand a Bruno. \Vh.i\c history of science is undoubtedly an important branch of hi~ory, i.t should not be allowed to go the way of art history to bet;ome a t>:J. IT•'.lW, UlttTnai, and excess1velv mdependent

discipline. McGuire's approach shows :~ he;;.ltby breadth ·in this ~espect. What

is perhaps most ~-npressivc about h is trearrnmt of the ~ubject 1s the way in which he re2li;r.es that ear\v 1nodem soence has very close, even intimate and bo.sic ties " 'irh phjlns-ophy. far too often historians of science forge:t that ,,cience ;;,.;; "e. understa11d the term cannot be separated in any very sharp '"·"Y from philosophy during the early modem pena<L \VhiJe science is clearly inde?eJH.lenc for rnost purpotiCS at least, dunng the nine:tttnth and twentieth centnrics, such was not the ca<se earher. lndecd a striking ;iO'pect of histories of early mod~rn phil=phy and scieTLCe is how many of the :;.;>~-:<e names-Bruno, Galilee, Descart~, Gassendi, Pascal, Leihniz, Ne"·ton-rend to crop up in both . I\1:cGmre sees quite clearly that to divorce scienCf': from philosophy in the t~e of Bnmo or Newton is tantamount to playing Hamlet. 'nt.hout the Pnnce of D~mark. Thus when he criticize.> other historians of science (e .g., see Ius note 99) for failure to give ;~ckq:;~le attention Lo the philosophical implic~~ tians ohtaining in early modem scientific fommla.tio~s, ~1e is_ on_ ~hd ground. The ri.~e of history of ~-cience as an academK d1sc1phne ]Omed

l I i ~

REAPPRAISALS IN RENAISSANCE SCIENCE 209

to the simultaneous decline of history of philosophy as a concern of profCSSJonal phllowphers has already had devastating effects, which, I fed safe in predicting, will become even more evident in the next decades.

The theoretical discussions of history of science in recent years have turned on the internal-external distinction. Far too li ttle notice has been given to trying to identifv and understand different types of internal intellectual factors--scientific, philosophical, and theological considerations -which went into scientific treatises of the sixteenth and seventeenth ceruturies. This is one of the un{ortun.ate consequences of treating history of science as an independent discipline. The result is intensified by the almost complete lack of the study of the history of philosophy in the san1e English-speaking world where history of science has developed so rapidly within just a few decades. While there are many philosophers of science at work, they have provided little help to the historian, focusing rather upon artificial problems, as alien to history a~ to science it...;elf. They have shown astonishingly JjttJe interest in ilie historical realities involved in srudying early modem science. McGuire's appTOach is salutary, and one hopes that some of his leads are taken up by yGunger workers in th.e field . Jt

The strength of Westman!'s method Jjes in his attempt to evaluate just what is the 'cash value' of H<'rmcticism when applied to a genuine science which is progressivf'., prcxiuctivc, and in some way susceptible to empirical verification or corroboration . He is quite right in trying to brush a.way the clouds of obscurantism and to ask point blank : "\'\'hat important contribution.s did Hermeticism make to the Scientific Revolution?" (p. 72). While I am not entirely happy about framing the question in terms of the scientific revolu tion straitjacket, he is on the right track. I would be among the last to denv that history of science must in.clude bad and superseded ~cience a> well as good and successful science, but we must also realize that there comes a point at which science-and I take this to be one of the chz,racteristic ways in which it differs from art, literature, political thought, or philosophy-must be progre..<sive. If Hem1cticism is to be shown to have had a positive influence on science per se, in the same way as did the recovery of Archimedes, the invention of the telescope, or the fonnulation of the infinitesimal r.alculus, questions of thf'. sort Westman has asked must be facect. Othenvise we are left with Edward Rosen's resouruiiug pronouncement: "Out of Renaissance magic [i.e., including Henneticism l and astrology came, not modern science, but modern magic anJ astrology. " 32 This is not to say that the interpretation of history of scimce wh ich considers only positive achievements contributing to long-tC1Tl1 developments ro be wonhy of study i~ acceptable. It is necessary, however, ahvays to keep in mind the fact that science is in: some way progressive and is, for that reason, distinctive

•

IV

lV

210

from history of art or literature. The unfortunate part of the story with which we have here been con-

cerned is that adherent' to the Yates view have done little to expand upon and to deepen her work. Rather than looking at further texts, pulling some dust-laden volumes in Latin off the shelf, they have preferred w pay lip service to her findings. What is needed at this stage is more reading of Dee, Patrizi, Foix de Candaie, Mazzoni, Serranus, and many others to build upon her importan.t work. Westman's essay is suggestive, P - - l)

but he must go more deeply i11l0 a complex thinker such as atnZlRecent work deepening Yates's insights has come for the most part not

frorn historians of science, hut from others?'

The Warburg Institute, University of London

REFERENCES p_ 0. Kristeller, "Marsilio Ficino e Lodovico Lazzarelli: contributo alla

diffusione delle idee ermetiche nel RinascimenLO"', Amwli della R. Scuo/.a Nonna le Supe,·iore di Pisa. Lettere, storia ~ filosofia, ser._ ~: viii (1_93~)-2~7 -62; idem, "Ancora per Gwvanni Mercuno da Correggio , La b_rblt~f;lia , xliii (1941) , 23-28. Both are reprinted in Kristeller's SL!!d<es ~n Renaissance thou.ght and lett.ers (Rome, 1956), 221-57. Among Knsteller's other pieces ::~lso relevant is "Lodovico Lazzarelli e Giovanni da Correggio, due .ermetici del Quaurocento e il manoscritto U.D:1.4 ~ella Biblioteca Comunale degli Ardenti di Viterbo", Biblioteca deglr An1e1ll< d.ell~ cittn. di Viterbo: stlldi e ricerche nel 150• della fondazione (Viterbo,

I.

2.

:\ .

4.

1961), 13-37. See the article cited below in ref. 7. Cf. W. Scott ):.: A. S. ferguson.

H ennetica (Oxford, 1924-36), iv, pp. xlvi-xlix. and Corpns Hennetiwm · ed. A. D. Nock &: A. .J. Festugiere (1'aris, 1945-54), ii, 273-5.

See C. Dionisotti , "Ermolao 'Rarb"ro e la [onuna di Suiseth" , in Medioe11o e Rinascim.ento: stndi in onore di Bruno Nardi (Florence, 1955), 219-'\3, ond E. Garin, L'Etn 71-ltO<'" {N:.ples, l9!i9), 139-77 (La cultura fiorentm" nella seconda meta del Trecento e i 'Barbari britanni' "). and 449-75

("Gli umanisti e b. scienza"). E. Garin, "Una fonte ermetica pr;eo nota" , T...11. Rinascita, iii (1940), 202-32:

idem, "Magi a e astrologia nella cultura del R in;~scimento", _ Belfag~,-, ." ( 1950), 657-67; and idem. "Note sull'ermetismo del Rtnasomento , In E. Castelli (ed.), Testi wnn11istici 5Tl l'ermr.t ismo (Rome, 195S), 7-\9. omong others. The second ol these bas been particularly important tn the current re-evaluation of the role of magic in Renaissance cultnre. It is reprinted in the collection of Garin·s papers entitled !Hedioevo

Rinascimwto (Bari. 1954 , and later editions). A . .J. Festugiere, La rbu!latiou d'Hermi:s Trismegisie (Paris, 1945-54)-D. P. Walker, Spi,·itual and demonic 11 ,agic f1'0m Ficino to \.a.mpauellil

(London, 1958), and The ancient theologv (London. 1972). incorporatiT>)!;

material first published in the early 1950s.

I

IV

R£APPR.A.!SALS IN RENAISSANCE SCJIF..NCE 211

7. K. H. Dannenfeldt, ''Hermetic- ph i lo~ophica· · . in Catalo"'« tra 1 1· et c t · . · b- n..~ a Jonum . ommen n.no,·wn, 1 ( 1960). !37-?6 ~with <Jdditional material by M. T.

d Alver_ny and T. Silverstclllj, which cttes earlier 1iteral.ure. 8. Cf- :speoally_ P . Rossi, F1ancnro Bacone: dallo magia alia scienza (Bari ,

l9:J7, Enghsh trans., 1968; rev. ed>;~on Turin 1974) See now 1 h' "'H - · · . . ' _. · a so ts ermeuosm_. ratwnaltty an.:'t :he Scientific Rt"volution" in~~ L R- h" ·

B 11" & W R ~h _ . . ~ . • •· . Ig tnt , one 1 _ · ' . -~ f:d (ecs), l<eruon, exfJntment, and mysticism in the Sczentzfzc Revolu!lon (Ne;>_ York, 1975), 24?-73, which is Televant to a nun1be1 of quest10ns ra:&ec1 J li UH~ present re\'itw.

9. For Vasoli, see Cas1elli (ed.),_ op: cit (rd. 4), /9- !04 and many other papers mcl~.>dmg those collect~d m ·p,·qfe:.trt e mgione (Naples, 1974).

10. For Zambellz,_ s~e. :as!eilz .. (ed.), ?1J. cit. (ref. 4), JOS-62. Among her later mpor:~nt aztiCies :,re 11_ problema della rnagia natu rale nel Rinasciment.~ , R1Vzsta_ cnt1.Ul dt. '' iorin della fi/o;ofin, xxvii i (!973), 271-96 and Plato~c , Fzctno e 1?. maria", in Stu.din hwn anitatis: Ern.esto Grassi

: wm _70. Geb~atst.ag, eJ. E. )·fora & E. Kes,Jer (Munich , 1973), 121-42. ll. l ranee> Yates , (.wrdano Bruno and. _t.hc Hermetic tradition (Chicago-Lon-

d~m. 1964) and s~veral _lale_r repn:1ts and •.ranslations. The book was gzv~n a sympJthtliC revzcw bv A. G. Debus i n Isis, lv (1964), 389-91. rev:"wed Gt o1·dnno Br-u"o and the Hermet.ic tradition in Tn.terna.tional phz losophzcnl qum·te~h, iv (1964) , 626-8, and C . Singlet.o n (ed.), A 1·t, sc~en~e, and hzst or-y '" th e Renms.<a.nce (Bc it imore, 1967), which contains

l~ .

Yates s essa y, _m 1 he B:·,;tlSt<._JOUnwl for ihe history of science, v (1970), 9~-99. ;iiJso_Idcvant ts \ares.< article on Bruno in Dictionary of scientific bwgmpny, u (1970), 53'1-44.

13. 1'. M. Rattans!, ''Sum~ evaltnrions of r easo11 in sixteenth- and seventeenthcentl~l)' -~atural philosophy", in :M Teich & R. Young {eds), Changing pelSt,ectzLe> w the hl.'l07')' nJ .;nenr-e. E.1sc:ys "' honou.,· of fos eph Needham (London. !91<;), !48-fil,_ and M'. B. Hesse , "He(Jlleti~ism and hist_onog-raphy: .-\n apology hll· the internal hi story of scie:1ce", in R. H. Stuewe~ (ed), I-h,Lont nl aud. f-·hi! •J.;_''1' hica: pn-specti<Jes of science (Minn~<IfXlliS, 19'.?.: ]\1Jnntsora :'""'Ies m the Philoso phy of Science, vol. v) , 1.:>4-60, and . Keason a11d evr.kauon tn th e h1 slory of science··, in (;han.. _ wg f'ers pertrt.:es . , !27 -47 g find t~is LO be the case v.,:i !:l 1\.L B. He:-.se · ~ publica.ti"Ons ci ted j 11 the preceding note ." ~' well as w_it:: ;he rierin:iYC study, p_ J- French, ]ohn ~.ee. The lllOTI;d ,of ail Eu~_r.u;th~r: magus (London. l972), esp. 62-88

14.

( J_ohn Dee a11o _ rnc I-lenT.euc pht~osophy. ' ) , and J. G. Burke, "Hermet!CJ_sm as a Ren;msance world vi~w", in R. S. Kinsman {ed.), The dm·ker TllSW" of the Renn1ssnnce (P.e,-kdey-Los An~;t"les, 1974), 9.5-1 17. There ;n·e many orher examples wh:ch could be citt:d.

15. The tradition or wri ting gener"i bonks on the Renaissance stemming from Burckhardt ha' mually [oll 'l h'ed a by new well-worn path. Platonism, po1son, art l11storv_ and pol'DJ' ore given n111ch emphasis, while top ics such as science, AtJ>tot el~3Ill>:n. 1111d ;nonasiiczsrn are woefully neglected. It ts almost as _though t.,le 1nfws nf Rena.ssa nce' forbade the discussion of historv of 'cwncc otlter 'han a f<"w cliche.s ahont Vesalius ;md Coper -

nicus. 16. See below, ref. 28. l7. 'Vestman is as unhappy '" l ;pn abnnt the tenn 'Hermeticism' ond selects

the figures he does followi ~: g Yates . I very much feel thai we are in

• ~-

IV

212

danger of seeing the term "Henneticism" adopted in the same way as "Paduan Averroism " has been only to lead to an immense historiographical confusion. On this question see particularly P. 0. Kristeller, "Paduan Averroism and Alexandrism in the light of recent studies", in his Renaissn11ce thovght, ii (New York, 1965), 111·8; N. W. Gilbert. RenaisJO>ICC wucepts of method (New York, 1960), 52·3 , and the papers by F. Lucchetta and C. B. Schmitt forthcoming in the volume of Att.i from the meeting on '"L'Averroismo in Jtalia'" held ilt Rome by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lit1cei in April. 19/i.

18. See, for example, the article by Luigi Firpo in Diziona1·io biografico degli ltaliani, xvii (1974), 372-401, p. 374, based on the best sources.

19. See esp. L. Erpo. "'Filosofia italiana e Controriforma: I. La condanna di F. Patriri" , Rivista di filosofia , xi (l 940), 139-75, and T. Gregory, "'L'Apologia. e le Declnratio11es di F. Patrizi". in Medioevo e Rinascimento (ref. 3), 385-424. An important item of new information is found in P. 0 . Kristeller, "'Francesco Patrizi da Cherso, Ernend.atio in Iibras suos novae philosophiae'', Rinascim.ento, xxi (1970), 215-18, which publishes the text of the retraction prepared IJy Patrizi for the publication of the Nova de u.11ivenis philosojJh ia at Ferrara in 159!. Among other things it contains texts touching on the motion of the earth.

20. See my "'L'Introduction de Ia philosophic platonicienne dans l'enseignement des universites a Ia Renaissance", in Platon et iJ.,·istote a. Ia Renaissance (Paris, 1976: XVIe Colloque international de Tours), 93-104, esp. pp. 100·1, where further bibliography is given. Cf. Firpo, op. cit. (ref. 19), 53ff.

21. Besides the papers cited elsewhere see also his "Newton's alchemical studies". in Science, medicine, and society in the Renaissar1ce . Essays to ho11or Walter Pagel (New York, 1972), ii, 167-82.

22. See for example "'Transmutation and immutability: Newton's doctrine of physical qualities", A mbix, xiv (1967), 69-95; "Force, active principles, and Newton's invisible real m", Ambix, xv (1968), 154-20R; "Atoms and the 'Analogy of Nature' : Newton's Third Rule of Philosophizing", Stndies in the histor)• and fJhilosoph)' of science, i (1970). 3-58; and [with P. M. Heimann] "Newtonian forces and Lockean powers: Con· cepts of matter in eighteenth century thought" , Historica l studies in the f!h)•s ical sciences, ii (1971), 233 ·3<J6.

23. Although the Stoics held th~t "no part of philosophy is separate from another part". they divided the subject into the categories of logic, physics, and ethics (Diogenes Laertius, vii, 39-40). It is only recentlv that much serious attention has bee n given to the study of the first two branches by modern scholars. As yet the impact of this material on Renais>ance and early modem thought has been little studied. The most detailed investigations of the Stoicism of the period, those of J. Eymard d'Angers (now collected in Recherches sur le Jtoicismc aux XV/e et XVll• siecles (Hildesheim-New York, 1976)) deal almost exclusively with moral philosophy.

24. See McGuire, "Force, active principles . . " (ref. 22) , esp. 204f. 25. See ref. 14. 26. For two examples which I have discussed recently see my "john Case

on Art and Nature" , A1mols of science, xxxiii (1976). 543-59, and "Girolamo Barra's l\1ultae s11.nt no.~trnnun ignora.tiomm1 causae (1\fs.

REAl'PRAISALS l:\ REJ'.:AISSAKCE SClEKCE 213 \'at. Ross 1009)" Ph.l . h h . _ · • ·1 mop )' rmd Hw11rmism. R ; . . . .

01/0'. of Paul Oska1· KristP/ler· (Leiden 19 · _ t!?'IU<:<.H.11Ce esm)'s w same ts also found for example . ' 76L), 462-l6, fl- 471. n. 46. The

• - ' • 10 joannes 0 · Lib · compendium (M arburo- 1540 f

1 5 7ntcer, ranun Ar£stotelis

Br. UB:D.!582]) . o· · ' 05 r- r [copy used: Freibcrg·-i.-

27. See, for example, th e list of ten Litles under H -M. Ltpemus, JJibliotheca 1"e •li. d.. ermes (<mc:l Yauauons) m 905-6 H . " ·' me .zca ... (Frankfurt a. J\1 1679 , :-' . . ere, as J11 man~ other Inaners . Brucker ' ~ ~ . ), \...Ols 111 callmg the movement "Philowphi I' " h . . Y.a~ o.r_• the nghr track What he says is not without inter:sr) < .. :~meo-Platonn:o-CabbalistiG:>."_ secrae genus prodiit, quod Pythagoreo-J;latonil vero novu~11 phllosophiae q uJdem et syncretistico OL . v . . co-CabbaJ,.stl cum paradoxo philosophi cum in !tali~ ~ C ero. not

1mne recre appell:m1us. Hi enim

. . ' raeCts p acna scholae AJe:..:a 'd - . usmo cutd;tm uuiversali ad;tptoto clidicissem er .ha . , r nna~. syncrcgorae Platonisque <ententiis hab . d · ec p>o Sll1Cens l:'yth~ Abr3hami 1\-losis i-rennn· : ., Ul Ssent. ecepti vener.mdorum virorurn

'. . "· "'" o.tstns. Orphe, et sim T . . , quae spune philosophiae praetendebantm" C ... - l Htm I!Ormmh>.IS, et adulterata ab impostoribus et . 1.b .· · . abbalt~tiGl nonrllllb Im:en:t . ' ex ' liS "'Pposms el c . l rungentes novum illud sectae genus condiderunt . ·n- orrupus >:u.t~ta, n11m aliquod attemper;~runt .. ... ();~cob • _1 Jque systema opiniof!hil().lophiae ... (Leipzig l/1') -67) - . . 3 Blucker. Hrstnna crl"ti<a

2K. r .. 1

• - • 1v, pt '· . 54-SJ. t IS c early brought out h 1 , • . h . -r·· ... d . . ' <\\ever. Ju t e 1Inponarn recent . d . r N

lgeiste t, I h e da liue 1"111(1 fall of th, V . : Hll } , :.. '· . Plato (Helsinki 19"4. C . . '· ' eojJlnlom<.· m tnprdatiou uf See also C. wairo ;,' : :l~:ll~ ~:~lll~l11dt;tlsl()ll~S hunp130'll'l1Tll liuerarum, vol. Iii)·. Ph .1 . · ' · · • . ocrates rorr'ediuo f t · • .

'osoj;hzcnl Society, cxiv (/ (] 7()). 119 _ ~9 . ·C , ·. <>·: "- fie m ucna,w c:_u. A .<tud.y of the influeuce of ;,;, . -/,.;; ~'· Sch':"'"·, Cicero Supti(rhe Harrue 1972)· ·md l J· ·d· .. 1 · ' dtJI/IW '" t11" Rei!<IISS<mce·

. . b • ' < • ,lJ Ille , .orenm Valla .• ·<1 I . r ongms of Humanist dia1ecric" f nwua/ o. •. "" t '" nne lectnal xv (1977), 143-64. ' · f the h!SlmJ of philow;;hy,

~9. J'\eSw material for the interprer:nion of the subiect is to L f d . . wogger "Antonio tl ]' -1. 1.. F . . · · e oun m J. H . ed ition ~nd <t Jd ' f egh' . g'.~ ~xplrwa tw S\'Jubolnn<m l\,thagore: An

l ) o t e ltLt<~onshtp to i\·hrst!· F.- .. , Universitv of London, 1976). ' · 10 •c'"" (I h.D. !h'csis ..

30. s · ee F. Purnell. "')acopo Ma.. · d C 1.1 .. . end p r· II .. : .. . ,zz(Jn• an ,a I eo , Physz;, xi v ' 1972' 27~-"1

3!.

32.

33.

~ . ,;t IIZ Z1 JJ ph·-o'"lJI;ffiO. d] d c · . ~ / t · ~ J •

Gali leo", in 1; . z3 rnbell;' '(e~; /(. e ·htar ';1

10 CJ 11ecemo c I;~ filosolia di (Bori, 1973), '19-79. .,. ICeJ c e ·'" a wltum ddl'Jtalia mndrnw

A rece1_1t paper indicating so [ 1 R rn" 0. L1e possibil ities is S. Hutton, "Some

enaJssance critiques of Anstntle s theory of time" A · I · f . xxxtv (1977), 345-63. · • mw > o scum:e,

E. Rosen , "Was Copernicus a Hennericist?", in s 163-71 , p. 171. teuwer, op. ell. (ref. i3).

R~~:~so~o~tta;;eo:~ t;;:c~;;e~11~~~~~d:dth~ edltion _Francese~ Patrizi da

1975), to be used with the critical ~ores. in. I ~z~• ~a~?Aagh (Flo~nce: una recente edizione di i d. · _ _ . . ., .~. 0 zom, · proposno di 56; J. C. Hen " ne ltJ patrmam 'Rmasczmento, xvi (1976) , 133-

'b . ry, Francesco Patnz1 and hrs concept of spac . H' tn unon to the development of the concept of void and \i, JS fic:o_n· universe" (M.Phil. thesis, universi ty of Leeds 1977) · -nd E E Me ~~l:ute

• • a: · . . l .. :teLU. mg~

•

IV

214

"The metaph ysics of light in the natur~l philosophy o[ Francesco Patrizi da Cherso (1529-1 597)"' (M.Phil. thesis , University of London,

1977). 34. Besides the work. of Vaso li , Zambelli, and Purnell cited above in refs 9,

10 and 30, see also Purnell 's .. Francesco Patrizi and the critics of Hermes Trismegistos" , ]ovmal of MediFval and Renaissance studies, vi (1976), J 55-78, an important modification to Yates's work. based on new research. An important new dimen~ion to the subject is added by the recent study by B. I' Copenhaver, Symj1ho·rieu Cha"'pie1· aud the receiJiio-n of the ncwltist t·radition in R enaissam:e Fm 11ce (The Hague. )978).

Note added in fn·oof. A number of the points made in this review have been pnt fon••ard in two notes by Eugenio Garin, Rivista c-ritica di ston:a della fi lnwfia, xxxi (1976) , 462-6; xxxii (197/), 342-7. His acute remarks should be taken seriously into account bv all interested in this sub ject.

GALILEO AND RENAISSANCE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

•

-! r

XI

476

De peritia vel imperitia, quae est nona ca1Lsa, audiri debet A ~g) t 1 · hac htera dum dixit particula scptuage:;J.ma pnma n sto .e es m · 1 f' · veteres Philosophos a vero aberrasse et in viam non r~cta:~ c e Jexlsse

. .t . . t libro primo de pa.rtJbus amma.Jwm capJ te propter 1m pen 1am, e od . to loco elicitur doctum perito minorem esse pro eo , q<~ .

pruuo ex qt - - . - · IJel"ltJ - . d t lti autem sunt doctJ, qm nun sunt , , omms pentus est oc us .rnu · . . .. " ; _

nam doctus est, qui scit per causa.m, ut scnpturn ~st_lib~o J:'r.mo d?os . t. .t non raro ut qui per causam novJt mdJciO prae Jtus tenorum, con .mgl ' · - · . ornnis

.t t de rebus suis atque alienis praepostere Hldlcet, verum . non Sl e - 1- · d t ' ~ e··t tlle qm .. a· . t cJitus est doctUS. nam JUC lClO prae 1 ,l, ·;:; . qm IU ICJO es prae . . a· test . . tus et in cute novit de ea integre JU Jcare po . postquam rem m , ' . - .

1 "t . dex ~erum suarum et alJenarum mt.r~~e:r., Est ergo pen us JU - • _ . . '" } · r L

. . . .t. sunt id est qui carent mdJclO, a scopo vPTO aJec,anc. f. 2±v Qm lmpen 1 d" t audi ii }I e et contr-H iudicium diligenti exercitatione et m urna '· :' 1 . , · n::ta lectione bon~rurn authorum comparatur, unde falsa. est J!Joru:n

. a· f l . dum de medicis imperitis verba facmnt, dJCUJ1u. loquen 1 ormu a, qm, d" · r e'lit Hl·c . est medicus usu peritus, qui in factita.nd~ lSC1puna _exc u_ '

. . J·d·,·t Nam qu1 n1 1 1 IcJ,, m · ··' ·- · · · . .h.l d·a· .t edicu~ nrm IJOkst e~se mh1l tamen u1 Jcl · • . · d"t f mt . . . , t 'lla quae 1Lb Aristot-ele memona.e tra. J a uen . pentus, st vera sun I , . . · . .

libro primo de partibus ammalium caplte pnmo. . "t ' . t telc" 10] Decima causa est amor et odium. De amore_ scnpsl . l.'l.rJ~ o "

. [ . Ethicorum capite sexto, dum de felicitate ver,Ja feCJt et

~~~:~t~:l~:o es~ qua.estionem illam difficiles habere explicatus. C?.us~ d " .. SJ.nt ii qui Ideas incluxerun.t. 'ramen c~egunm es est quo amici ' ' il 1 . r e-

veritatis retinendae causa sua, etiam decreta tollere ph OSOJJ os p.a~e . . . t. t en praeclarum est pluns aesttma. sertim et st utnque can sun , am . . . . .t

. " t . t primo Coeli particula ccntesJma pnma scnpsi ventatem e c.' e -- .. ·. -'Taenter

. . l b't . et / non adversarii. esse de bent. u, .qm ul lr' , f. 25 Anst.ote es ar 1 n - · . C -· • · .. ]a uod verum est iudicando volunt invenjre; et terti~ ~ell pan,~cu .

!xagesima prima scripsit .Aristoteles, amor magistn ~" geom~vnae . d . nt P'atonem in rerum natura constantiurn gravJssima.m .Igno-ln uxeru 1 .

rationem. in Philosophiam induxit [?], Quod si amor tantam ignora.tionem . . dubio procul non minorem odium invehere_ pote:·n..

· di li rrum seetac, quae Huius rei hodie testes sunt contranae scJp I"'

se inv icem ultro citroque destruunt.

Hieronymus Borrius.

The Warburg Institute, University of London

53 Cod. : textatoue.

I

XII

A FRESH LOOK AT MECHANICS IN 16TH-CENTURY ITALY

Stillman Drake and I . E. Drabkin, Mechanics in sixteenth-century Italy. University ofWisconsin Press: Madison, rg6g. xii+428 pp. $12.50.

Since the work of Duhem at the beginning of the present century, much energy has been expended upon the study of medieval and eady modern physical science before Galileo. Duhem's work on medieval mechanics has been materially extended during the past three or four decades through the careful editing of important texts and analyses of their contents, especially for materials of the thirteenth and early founeenth centuries. In studying writings of that period, many interpreters have found remarkable similarities between the scientific work of certain late medieval thinkers and that of Galileo and other seventeenth-centm-y scientists. It can no longer be held that the Middle Ages was a period of scientific stagnation separating the ancient achievement fi·om that of the period of the so-called scientific revolution. We can now see the situation in a much clearer perspective and we are coming to an increasingly clear understanding of the triumphs and failures of medieval scientific thought.

Although many of the details of the development of medieval science remain obscure or unstudied, its basic framework now seems clear enough, thanks largely to the excellent annotated editions of key texts by Marshall Clagett and his students and the penetrating analyses of vat-ious important problems by Anneliese Maier. \:Ve are thus in a good position to compare the work of Galileo-avai!able to us in an excellent and nearly complete edition by Favaro -with such fourteenth-century thinkers as Oresme. \ '\That remains to be done, however, is to come to a ful ler understanding of the physical thought of the period separating Oresme and Galileo, i.e., between 1380 and 16oo. Like the eighteenth century, this period has found few historians of science willing and able to study it. It is perhaps ofless intrinsic interest than the periods before or after, but it will remain difficult to evaluate in any comprehensive fashion until more studies of a detailed nature become available. From the evidence we now have, it seems as though the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries represent a decline from the preceding period, at least so far as mechanics is co.ncerned, but since so few of the im.portant writings of the period have appear·ed in print it is difficult to generalize.! On the other hand, we know that the period r38o-r6oo is the time of the development and flourishing of humanism. It has sometimes been thought that the humanisti c movement was detrimental to the advance of scientific thought, but the truth of this seems somewhat questionable

•

'"'=- 1 • ?t T ' . - ?7

XII

and the whole problem must be investigated- further.2 It is true that many humanists were extremely critical of the scholastic philosophical and theological traditions within which medieval scientific thought had, if not flourished , at least held its own and made some progress. It is probably true also that many potential natural philosophers of the time were won over to the philological, literary and critical interests of the humanists as that movement became an increasingly attractive professional option. On the other hand, one should not belittle the humanist contribution in the form of the recovery of importan t ancient scientific texts, the production of useful and readable editions and rranslations of the texts, the introduction of new critical techniques for evaluating evidence and the emphasis on sound linguistic skills to understand properly the ancient texts in question. Perhaps most important of all was the great interest of a number of humanists in mathematics and ancient mathematical texts a t a time when little attention was paid to such matters by the majority of those in university positions.

Jn the book under review, an attempt is made to fill at least a part of the gap. This volume is a welcome addition to the rather small number of studies dealing with the physical thought of the period. It serves a useful purpose in a variety of ways. Besides making English translations of several sections of important works available, it also provides a helpful bibliography for further study, as well as a general introduction and interpretation of the subject by Drake. The volume has a number of things to recommend it; and by virtue of the principle that it is better to have some published information available-no matter how flawed-than no information on any given subject, it is a welcome con tribution and should find a wide readership.

ln attempting to evaluate the Drake-Drabkin volume, one is unfortunately compelled to view it in relation to other books of the University of Wisconsin's 'Publications in Medieval Science'. When this is done, it seems to fall far short of recent publications in the same series, such as those by Clagett and Grant. It is almost as though two different standards had been applied in selecting volumes for the series-one for thirteenth- and fourteenth-century material and a quite different one for the sixteenth century. 1\1ost important of all for the serious student of the subject is the absence in the Drake-Drabkin volume of the original texts, which in the volumes dealing with the earlier centuries have been edited from manuscript with painstaking care. In cases like that of Galileo, where a good text is readily available in a modern critical edition, this is excusable, but for the other authors here represented in translation-Tartaglia, Benedetti and Guido Ubaldo del Monte-there generally are n0 modern edirions_3 Moreover, the sixteenth-century printings are by no means generally ava ilable, nor are they always easy to read when they are available.

Perhaps part of the difficulty with the volume is explained in Drake's Pr~face, althou gh it raises other problems not resolved in the book itself. One of the collaborators, Drabkin, whose work on the history of science has considerable distinction,4 died before the volume was finished, and it had to be taken to completion by Drake and Mrs Drabkin. Moreover, the general introduction to the translations, to be undertaken by an unnamed 'Italian specialist', never

XII

materialized, and Drake h imself wrote the sixty-page introducwry essav, with some sections contributed by Drabkin before his death. The u·;msbtious of writings in Latin (Benedetti and Galileo) were accomplished by Drabkin and those of _writings in _It~lian (Tartaglia and Guido Ubaldo del Momc:>) by Drake. Fmally, the b1bhography was compiled by Mrs Drabkin.

The most important part of the volume is Dr.ake's lengtby introduction. Despite various shortcomings and omissions, whicl1 v,;e shall bave occasion fo mention, it does provide a very useful general inter pretation of the d<:w:lopment of m_echanics in s~xteenth -century Italy. It is r emarkably broad in scope and provJdcs a synoptic overall view difficult to obtain elsewhere. As Drake sees it, a crucial feature for the development of mechan~cs during the period was the continuity of_ four separate mechanical traditions wh ich go back to antiqtlity (the Anstotehan, Arch1medean, Heronian and Technological), and Lwo fu.nher ones which grew up in the Middle Ages ('t.l-te science of wei.Q-hts' and. 'the philosophy of motion'). He rightly emphasizes the importance ufthe Archimedean above all the others for mechanical developments. After cstablishi:112· the basic elements of the story, he then tries to show how the six separate th;~ads became interwoven in the science of mechanics as it emerged in si-x_teenthcentury Italy. During that time, Drake sees two different Italian schools of mechanics emerging:

The first group flourished in northern It"ly and included Tartaglia, Card;cw>, "m:l Jknedet : ;, all of whom were conspicuously interested in practical as.po:ts ,of mechanics. TlH?. secund .2Tt;up

developed in central Italy and included Commandino, Guicio {Jbaldo, and Baldi . Th"t grouj) concentrated 1ts Interest on works of classical antiquity and o:n the rigoi-ous appJic~uion of mathematics to m echanics (p. 13) .

He then discusses the work of various members of these two grouDs before ge~ting to the key figure in the whole story, Galileo Gali!ei. The imp~rtance c>f ;h1s for the _g_reat Tuscan scie~tist is succi nctly stated by Drake when h'o s2ys: _Both [tradJtwns] converged m direct lines on Ga1ileo' (p. 13). This, in brieJ: ts an outlme of Drake's introduction as I understand \t, and I hope I do not do him an injustice in so interpreting it. As was said before, there is much of value here and there are few specialists, either in the historv of sc;ence or in Italia~ Re~aissa_nce thought: who can read the introd uction ' v"'thout ]earning from n. Th1s rev1ewer found 1t clearly written, readable and generally accnraie. Moreover, the introduction, by focusing upon the dew:!oprnenL of mechanics over a relatively narrow time span, opens up many new vistas for furt11Cr research. It is full of interesting insights, many of which have yet w be-: fhlly docum_ented, and as such must be viewed more as '\vork in progress' tha n a s a de~nit1ve pronou~cen:en t. There are, however, a nmnbcr of import;w t questions wh1ch can be ra1sed m connection with it and, in introducing the;n, I hop:: more to amphfy the whole content than to rej ect it in any signific __ ;mt way. After all, Drake has had the courage to present a gener-al interprnation of 3

complex phenomenon and, despite criticisms e{:.Jetail, it should re rnain useful for a good many years_

~r:e thi_ng that occurs to the reader immediately-particularly to one famrhar with recent work on medieval science-is the little attention paid by

...

? "

XII

Drake to the tradition of commentary and interpretation of Aristotle's works, especially the Physica and De co:Zo, d~ring ~he sixte~nth. ce:ltu.ry in . Italy. In fact it seems as though the genume Anstorelian trarlltlOD 1s s1gmficamly played down th roughout the introduction.6 This, howeveT, is mual with interpreters of early modern philosophy andsci~nce. S?_Jittle Scudy has been dev~ted . to the continuitv of the various med1eval tradJtJOns of natural ph1losopny m the

fifteenth 'sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that we oiien tend to forget that . , . . d they remained a dominant feat11re of intellectual life throughou~ tne pen o · The: precise nature of the development of ~riswtelian natural ~rnlosophy remains hazy, however, for we have few detailed and accurate stumes of the movement/ even figures such as Buonamico ar,d Borri, who may,_well _be crucial for a proper understancling of Ga!ileo,s rena in ]a;·gely unstumed. Nor do we have much on the natural philosophy of "' fig1.:re as importa_nt ~s Zabarella, although his logic has increasingly become the c•:ntre of attentiOn lfl

recent vears.9

Fror~ what one can gather, Aristotelian ism still had ~ome vitality insixteenth-cen turv Italy and is a force to be reckoned with in any comprehensl\·e survey of the ~1echanics of the period. It seems as though rhe medieval tradition of the calculatores began to fade out in Italy some time during the first· few years of the sixteenth century,1o but this does not mean the end of Aristotelianism. About that t ime, the stucl.y of Aristotle in Greek became m ore impnrtant in the univer~itv curriculum. Agostino Nifo, for example, relied more and more on the GreeK te'xl of Aristotle in his teaching, while more co;1serva tivdy oriented conternporaries at Padua, such as Achillini and Pompc;:nzzi, continued to rely on the old translations.ll By the time of Zabarella, it seems to have become a firmly established tradition a t Padua to refer to the Greek t<:::t of Aristotle.12 The actual effect of this is not entirely clear, but it ind.i•:a.tes at least that they could have a better understanding of the te.xt of Aristotl<o, a.s it bas come down to us, than those who read him through the veil of a 1ransbtion.l3

Another important factor in the development of .Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century is the rein troduction of fresh ancient cmnme.ntaries on hls works. In a famous study some years ago, the late Bruno Nardit4 showed the importance of Simplicius's commentary on the De anima. for the evolution of sixteenth-century psychological thought. lt remains to study in detail the impact of ihe reintroduction of Philoponus's commentary on 1he first fouc books of the Physica on sixteenth-cenmry though ~ on that subject. G ianfrancesco Pico della Mirando Ia ( 1 469- 1533) disctL<;;;ed s1gmficant sec1ion~: of 1 he work as ear_ly as

152o .1s The work was published ~n 153? an? f:v\'0 Ln;n versions were pnnted repeatedly from 1539 to 158I , t6 md1catmg 1ts wide pojo:Jbnty. Knowledge of Philoponus's commentary in the sixteenth century is nf great importance, a fa ct which Drake's introduction gives no indication of ba\·ing a p preciated.J7 _I n th is commentary are incorporated variolls ancien: cri t iques of Aristotehan doctrine, which were not otherwise directly available. T\,'0 of these are particularly important. The firs t is Philoponus's long Digressim1 on tlze Void, perh~ps the most substantial text extant fi·om antiquity dealing with this problem W~lch becan1e cruci al in medieval and early modern phy!>ics. It coniains vanous

~-- -· ·

incrsJVe cntrCJsms of Aristotle's denial of the possibility of a void, and other related questions. Secondly, Philoponus's commentary contains a good deal of discussion and criticism of Aristotle's laws of motion, particularly with regard to the motion of projectiles and of falling bodies. Though the arguments fz-om Philoponus were known to thinkers of the west during the Middle Ages through Arabic intermediaries,l8 it was only in the sixteenth century that the fuller account preserved in Philoponus's Greek commentary became directly known. Both of these points were still central to Benedetii and are treated in detail by Galileo in the De motu. The precise role that Philoponus played in the gradual overthrow of Aristotelian doctrine has not yet been worked out in detail, but it certainly seems to be greater than is evident from Drake's intt·oduction. We must remember that Galileo knew of Philoponus '"'hen he wrote the De motul9

and that recent evidence seems to indicate that Galileo owned and annotated a work by the same author20

The important point to bear in mi nd here is that Philoponus was a 'Ncoplatonic' commentator on Aristotle and introduced alternative physical views to those of the Stagirite. The fact that both had the authority of antiquity and were based on a view of reality somewhat different fi-om that of Aristotle gave them an importance in the sixteenth century fat· gr~ater than is normally realized. Yet these things must be studied in greater detail. All we know at present is that Philoponus's critiques of Aristotle continually recur in the more forward-looking writers on physics in the sixteenth century and seem to be a constant thorn in the sides of those who try to defend a more traditional variety of Aristotelian ism. A complete study of the fortuna of Philoponus's commentary after its recovery in the Renaissance is the sort of monographic study sorely needed if we are to advance our understanding of the development of preGalilean natural philosophy.

Although one of the four ancient schools of mechanical thought traced by D rake is that initiated by Hero of Alexandria, it seems to me that he docs not pay adequate attention to the extent of the diffusion of Hero's writings during the sixteen th century. Hero was important during the century, not only as a writer on mechanics whose extant works contain detailed descriptions of a number of ingenious gadgets takt:n up by engineers and technologists. Much more important was the preface to his Pneumatica. Here is contained a relatively detailed statement of the ancient vacuist position ofStrato ofLampsacus,21 who it will be remembered was one of the very first followers of Aristotle. This is important, for it gave another ancient authority for the position that a void can actually exist in nature and that certain devices can be designed to create a void artificially. Perhaps this preface is not 'mechanics' in the strict sense, b u t certainly the theoretical questions treated in the work were of enormous consequence to sixteenth-century di scussions of problems of dynamics, as we sec from treatises of Benedetti or Galileo. In his introduction (pp. I O-Il) Drake points ou t that some of the central ideas of the P11eumntica are set forth in Giorgio Va.lla's De expetendis etfugiendis rebus (1501) and that both vernacular and Latin tnnsla lions of Hero's work appeared in print during the last quarter of the century . What is not pointed out dearly enough, however, is that this work was

XII

x66

also widely diffused in manuscript translations before the first printed editions. Although the diffusion of the Pneumatica and its influence in the Renaissance have not yet been fully evaluated,22 it seems evident that the importance of the manuscript translations cannot be overlooked.n

The case of Hero illustrates merely one of the pitfalls of studying the sixteenth century without adequate attention to manuscripts. While not as important in the transmission of knowledge as in earlier centuries, manuscripts cannot as yet be neglected in sixteenth-century studies. iNhile Drake seems to realize, in some measure at least, the significance of this fact, he seems very careless about communicating it to his readers. Although he admits 'much remains to be done, chiefly by the inspection of sixteenth-century manuscripts, to fill out our knowledge of the actual diffusion of interest in motion and mechanics' (p. 10), he does little to help us along the way in this arduous task The bibliography gives us no shelf marks of manuscripts from which to begin 'fil ling out our knowledge'. More inexcusable is that, after whetting our appetite by announcing that 'Guido Ubaldo left three manuscripts' (p. 47), he does not give us very precise information of their whereabouts. He tells us tha.t two of them are 'said to be' in the Biblioteca Oliveriana at Pesaro.24 But said by whom? when;> where? All of this makes a difference if we want to study the manuscripts. iVe are not all casual r eaders and perhaps one day a serious student will read the book and want to do further re~earch. Any experienced tracer of manuscripts could have told Professor Drake how important it is to give precise locations. It might be argued that this book is meant for beginners who have no intention of going off to Pesaro in search of manuscripts. But, if this is the case, why mention them at all? Although the readership of the book ·will probably be drawn largely from those who have little acquaintance with the techniques of sixteenth-century studies, the very fact that it has been published in so distinguished a scholarly series will undoubtedly lead more advanced students to dip into it.

Drake seems to adhere to the view that most of what was vital in sixteen thand seventeenth-century science developed outside of the universities, particularly in the vernacular languages. He points out (pp. g-10) thar non~ of t_he writers represented in his volume, with the exception ofGalileo, was a umvers1ty teacher. He goes on to say: 'Clearly, the publication of a Greek tex t had. a much narrower field of influence outside the universities than did the printing of a Latin translation, and that in turn had less widespread influence than a vernacular translation' (p. ro). Although it is now fashionable to emphasize the importance of vernacular writings and to play down the role of Latin as bei~g 'dead', 'inflexible' or 'old-fashioned', I am not sure that such judgments ar.e m accordance with the facts. One can agree with Drake's view about the mmor importance of Greek, but whether it is true that vernacular translations had more 'widespread influence' than Latin works is open to serious doubt. \;'as Stevin's propensity to wTite in the Dutch vernacular of great influence? We~e not his writings more widely circulated and more influential in their L~tm versions? Why were Galileo's vernacular writings translated so quickly mto Latin, if the vernacular form was so much more accessible?25 It may have a

.-., ~"" ,.., "','

XII

certain democratic and social value to make important scientific writings ava!lable m the language of the common people, but one wonders how often this has contri buted to the significant advance of science. Even if important scientific papers were printed in the daily newspapers, I doubt if this would sens1bly contribute to the advancement of science-to its diffusion perhaps·

. d ' ' : o rt~ a vance, no. Those who are capable of making contributions are few, and they usually cume into contact with the significant material that interests them. It is also an inescapable fact that during the sixteenth century-and even much later-Latin wa~, the common language through which scientists communicated with one another. Serious scientific and intellectual work of international importance was writren in Latin, for this was the language understood by the ~crent1fic •2u rnmumry. Vernacular treatises might have been appropriate for the loca.l shipbuilder or surgeon but, with few exceptions, anything important was still written in Latin. The importance which Latin had as a language of wide orculat!oJJ !S seen convincingly in the seventeenth-century correspondence whrch C<">nnecred rhe European-wide Republique des lettres. While one would non~ally wnie letters in the vernacular to one's fellow countrymen, when ~vntmg :o fn ends and associates abroad the language was almost invariably JJatm .

Let us look at the question in a different way. Were the new, forwardlooking, vriginai thilJkers inclined to write in the vernacular, while the vast majori t.y of conservatives wrote in Latin:> Let us take five key figures in sixteenthand seveni~ent h-century science-Copernicus, VesaJ ius, Galileo, Harvey and Newto~. 26 All tl'ese men knew Latin well, wrote it without difficulty, presumably spoke lt and cenamly corresponded in it. vVhat is more, several of them at lea<t h~d quite a gooJ. knowledge of Greek. All were university men, and at I east \i es.-,Jws, Gahleo anJ Newton passed most of their mature life in the ~ervice of universiTies. \'\lith the sole exception of Galilee, they all wrote their major wuJ ks in Latin . Th is cenainly does not make it obvious that Latin was rhe iang:u;,ge m erely of stodgy conservatives. Such a view seems to be largely the creanon of h ter t1mes and does not stand up to critical analysis. Latin was stiH a 'living language'-indeed we might say 'the living language'-ofEuropean sc1ence 2:1ri scholarship in the seventeenth century27 By that time it may have ceased to b<. the living language of the man in the street, but it still functioned as such Jo,· t.he intellectuaJ.2H Far from having less widespread influence than tho:e i~ <he ver;1acular, the opposi te was the case for Latin works. The reading of Lc.un "'"S <ar more wJdespread m the sixteenth century than Stevin's Dut~h , Brnno's Italian, l\1ontaigne's French, Paracelsus's German or Digges's Eng11sh.

A.s PH~ntioned aboYe, Drake d1stinguisbes two deady recognizable schools of mechanics in the Italy of the sixteenth century. According to him, the first group, which includes figures such as Tartaglia, Cardano ~nd Benedetti, was n;ore interested in the practical aspects of mechanics and was localized in nonhe.rn h<:ly. The second group, comprising men such as Commandino, Guido Ubaldo del Monte and Baldi, was more interested in theoretical aspects of rn:.:chani cs and was concentrated in central Italy. Moreover, we are told that

~ ' I ~~ ~ 0

',!

XII

r68

'the tradition of Hero, that ingenious constructor of machinery, found its main welcome in central Italy rather than among the more practically oriented writers in the north' (p. r4). While such categorization is useful and helps to simplify a rather confusing series of facts, one might wonder just how accurate it is. It would take a full monograph and much detailed study to show the inadequacy of such a schema. Perhaps Drake hoped to inspire this feeling in his readers. If he does provoke just one reader into an exhaustive study of one such point, his book must be counted a success. Without going into this in detail, I should like to raise certain questions with regard to his schema.

First, is the geographical l~calization correct? Would it not have been more accurate to mention that the centre of the central Italian school was in fact Urbino? There we find a group of thinkers supported by the Urbino court sharing a certain core of common interests.29 Such are Commandino, Guido Ubaldo and Baldi. Urbino did, of course, have connections with other places in central Italy, particularly Rome, but whether there is a common nucleus of interests or a common approach connecting all of these is by no means certain, at least on the basis of the evidence thus far brought forward. Besides the Urbina school, there would seem to be a Tuscan tradition going back at least to 'll Taccola',30 and continuing through Leon Battista Alberti, 31 Leonardo da Vinci and Alessandro Piccolomini. What of southern Italian writers on mechanics such as Francesco J\1aurolico, Giambattista della Porta and Niccolo Antonio Stelliola?

Secondly, can the orientation and interests of these two groups be distinguished as sharply as Drake tries to distinguish them? One finds it a bit surprising to see Benedetti included . with those 'conspicuously interested in the practical aspects of mechanics' (p. 13) . Perhaps I have read Benedetti wTongly, but it seems to me that it was the theoretical, mathematical aspect v;hich primarily caught his attention, and I can find little evidence in his works to indicate an interest in practical problems.32 In reading the dedicatory epistles to the work, here translated by Drake (pp . 147, 154-5), the concerns seem to be demonstration, proof and theory, not practical application.B Nor do the works themselves show otherwise. They are stri kingl y mathematical in tone and lack the concern with the experiential aspect which marks Galileo's De motu, for example. 'We know of Tartaglia's more practical interests, i.e., treatises on ballistics, and Cardano's writings cover such an enormous range of interests that we find works on nearly every conceivable subject. Benedetti 's output is small and almost all of it deals with mathematics in one way or another. On the other hand, one wonders whether Guido Ubaldo, with his wri tings on perspective (including scenography) and calendar reform, is oriented significantly more theoretically.

Thirdly, is there a ny good reason to believe that Hero \vas more seriously cultivated in central I ta!y than in the north? I do not believe rhat there is any compelling evidence to show that this is the case. In order to substantiate some of my points, I shall have to r efer to the m anuscript tradition which Drake neglects. Federigo Commandino , Bernardino Baldi and Alessandro Giorgi, who were involved with late sixteenth-century editions and translations of Hero, were all from Urbina. Beyond this, there is little to indicate a localization in central

r-·-· ... ,,.,,,..,....;. _ ______ . ____ . -~ . 5

xu

Italy. One of the earlier translations of the p -169

al . . nnmuuua (c 15oo) . sever m anuscnpl.s is due to Giovan . F B · , now extant 1n l , . . . ' nr . ranc.esco urana (jl r ) f V

w wse wnole Ide. was spent in northern It I , . An ·h . 500 o erona, 1 · a v.-~ ot er northe I 1· ·

w_ JOSe 1mponance is acknowledged by Dr~ke ,. . rr:- t~ Ian Wnter Pracenza. His De o.prtendis et }i<giendis rebus (Ven\~P- ro-r, I) lS ~IOrgw Valla _of excerpts from 1-J ero before his work . _;, I50I) con tamed substantial

. s were prmtcu and . d . source for the . diffusion of some He . .d setve as an Important

roman I cas Othe . . h tr;otn;;Jators uf Hero include Bernardo D .. . -f r Sixtec.nt -century S · . · ~ ava.ll7..atl o Florence3s d · ~ tanus,,6 a rDrtuguese active in Rome M . G" . an Achilles A , . . ore.over Jambattlsta AI . f' - rgenta, near J.errara who translated th p ' . . . eottr rom F ' e neumatzca mto It r ( ·

errara, 158q), was neither from central Italy Ilor the t. I. ha. Jan pnntcd T h h- · . . ore 1ca In 1s a h - o s ow t '"·t mendwnalz were a lso inte est d h . pproac .37 F" • , f' · r e we ave G1amb tt. d or La s 'Jle":J.matrcorum libri Ires (Naples 16 ) h _ h a Jsta ella Pneumatica. ' 01 'w nc · makes abundantuseofthe

To turn now to the main ooint of the bo k d . r: 1 , . " o un er revrew wh· h · . use,t; transJ<HJons of some of the mo . ' rc IS to prov1de

r • . re Important texts on me h · · · seems to IuJfil Jts purpose. The sect·o b" L I h c ames: m. this it

· · 1 1 ns w ICa ave check d · ongma s sn: m to be rendered accurate! enou h and ~ a~amst the useful nott":s and cross-references. As sue~ the '~re are oft:n Illummated by the Sl udy of the orig inals. Selections fro:U tl } fi U a ':ery useful complement to Niccolo Tartaglia's Nova scientia ( 1 ) an;e o ?':"m~ works _are translated: Giambattis ta Benedetti's D 1537 Q~es1ll et znventzonz diverse (1546) .

. emons ratzo proportzom<m t l . , Arzslotelem et omnes philoso~>hos (1554) a ld D. mo ~um ocalzum contra

h · , · Y 1 zversClrnm r"eculat o h · et p } 'JU:arum aber ( 1585); Guido Ubaldo del M ;_'.1:' z num mat ematzcarum an; Galiieo Galilei's De motu dialogus (c. r5go) .onte s Mechamcorum lzber (1577);

:J' one case, we have a recent edition of one of th . . volume, and J( mJght be useful to com h e ~orks translated m thrs D 1 1 . , . pare t e t'-.'>'o verswns Wh ·1 D k

ra ).{!ll s work '"as in preparation th ., · 1 e ra e and ofBenedetti 's two r.a•·lv works as ,11 ere appeared an excellent critical edition

· ' , we as an rmportant b. b"bl" h" on 13e.nedctti , by Carlo Maccagni 38 Th b .sl 10 1 wgrap real article d . . · ese o vrou y appea edt 1 m>:ct value m the preparation of th . b k b h r . oo ate to be of bibliography (p. 4 r6) .

15 00 ut ave been mcluded in the TlJ e fi ' ' . h . . . ·'-.. rs, rn.Jn g t at IS evJdent in consultin Macca ., . . . .

Jt dme. rsfrom tl-.e sixteenthccentury p . t. g Ex· g~l s edJtiOn IS how httle · , · · nn mgs. ·cept for [, ·

n ons 11ere and there it is not much d"ffi t r: th a ew mmor correc-' 1 eren 1ron1 · · 1 d" ·

howe\·er m ake Benedetti's important work readil a e ~ngr~a e JtiOn. It does and easy to read form Wh t . M ?' ccessJ.ble m a well-annotated , . . · a 1s more, accagm has fi 11 I ar<;ner drev-' from the work in his famo I . . . care u y noted how Jean l . , us P agian:zatiOns of r "62 39 I dd " · Je prmts tne texts completely and not with . . :J : n a ItiOn, On the whole, Drabkin's translation readsomrssron.s as do Dr~bkm andDrake.40 checked with. the original seem accurate. ~~l;ha~ the se~:wns _which I have Drake-Drat)hn translation have someth" . accagm s edition and the . · mg to recommend the r: annourtwns a 1·e. r.oncerned and · th" . . m as tar as

h , m Is respect they mcel 1 anor .. er. Tbe seriolls student of the wo k "11 d' I .y comp ement one n · r WJ o we l to hav b h Jn p resentmg readable translations of the t t . J . e ot at hand.

Drake·-Drabkin V<)lurne. One could. ha hex sd, ~~ wou d be drfficult to fault the ve ope ~or complete texts rather than

----~·~----------

XII

qo

selections, but it may be desirable to put as much important material in as few

pages as possible. . Something should also be said about the thirty-page bibliography, wh1ch

forms a useful adjunct to the volume. Although it does contain much valuabl_e material, including a number of references to little known and rare sources, 1t Is not without flaws. Rather than go into tedious detail concerning such matters, I shall merely point out one or two examples. Evidence is singularly lacking that Bernardino Telesio and Francesco Patrizi da Cherso in any sense of the words 'continued the Peripatetic tradition' (pp. 398-400), as is contended in the bibliography. In fact, as any Italian schoolboy can tell us, they were among the most vehement opponents of the Peripatetic tradition in sixteenth-century Italy. As an example of the mistakes of detail one finds Nicoletto Vernia (Lat. Nicolettus Vernias) twice referred to as Nicolo Verna. \'Vhile not having read ali the literature mentioning Vernia, I have seen quite a lot and have never seen this variant of his name. This is the way ghosts are created. Among important sixteenth-century writers on the Peripatetic philosophy of motion who are omitted from the above-mentioned list are Ludovico Boccadrferro, Crisostomo Javelli and Federigo Pendasio.

In addition to such points of detail as we have mentioned, the DrakeDrabkin volume raises other questions of more general interest. Can 'mechanics in sixteenth-century Italy' be treated in isolation from other phenomena? It probably is valid, in large measure, to treat Italy in isolation from the rest of Europe, for during the fifteenth and sixteenth. centuries there seems ~o have been much more influence by Italy on other European countries than vzce versa .. On the other hand, external influences on Italy cannot be entirely neglected and we all know how techniques of oil painting or news of the telescope travelled to Italy from the nor th. What was the situation with regard to mechanics? This point requires further study. .

When one attempts to treat mechanics in isolation from other arts, sCien~es and intellectual tendencies, the problem becomes more complex.4

1 The SIX

teenth and seventeenth centuries were different from the twentieth century in significant ways with regard to the evolution of scientific thought. One way in which they were different was that what we would now call 'science' was much more closely related to other intellectual and cultural activities than ~s now _the case.4z Galileo's interests in literature, Kepler's in magic, Newton's m b1bhcal chronology were as much a part of their lives as the science for which they are remembered. It seems to me that historians of science must constantly bear this in mind. If we are ever to get beyond the 'precursor' approach,and understand what the development of science means, we must begin investigating these things with greater attention to detail and in their own terms, not in ours, With regard to mechanics in sixteenth-century Italy, I do not see how w.e can avoid treating it in relation to the philosophies of motion, which are consciOusly piayed down in Drake's introduction. Although the sciences are now largely autonomous disciplines, such was not the case in the sixteenth centu:Y· \~e constantly find humanists, theologians or university philosophers bemg m -

. · th · · 1 rnent teres ted in certain aspects of mechamcs, and to consider only e1r mvo ve

XH

l/1

with mechanical questions p~ejudices the whole issue being studied. While the und~rstandmg of rhe techmcal and scientific details of the materials being considered should not be undervalued by historians of science, they m ust als~J h~ve a deep understandmg of the general culture and intellectual climate of the h~torKai per.JOd bemg studied. To imagine that sixteenth-century writers o n sctentific subjects had the same o · t · d · · · . . . nen atwn an preconceptiOns as twentie.til-century SCientists IS to lose the battle for historic-al understanding before it has even begun.

"W?ile the 'his.tory of ideas' or 'vertical' approach-where the historian s~ud1~s the evolutiOn and development of some cluster of ideas through a g iven tlme span-has certam advantages, we must also sometimes use a 'horizon!al' approach. By this, I mean we must, for example, see the scientific ideas within a ~arrow time span as part of an intellectual, cultural and social complex. And, this complex must be understood as a whole, a Gestalt. in its own terms Gal"I ' 1 · · • · . 1 eo s ear y wn t_mgs on mechanics are related, on on e level, to the writings on the s~me subject by Mersenne, Newton, d'Alember t and Einstein. In a quite differen_t way, they .ar; r-el~ted to Zaba1ella's writings on logic, M a zzoni's ecl~ctiCism, Buona~rco_ s philosophy. ~f _motion, Bruno's cosmological Neoplatorusm, Robertello s ph1~osophy of cntiCISm and poetics, contemporary theorie£ ?fla~g~age and P?st~Tndentine. theology. B~th ~pproaches to Galileo can give 1llummatiOn and It IS not an either/or ch01ce m which we must opt i' ,.

1. , , or an

mterna 1st or an externalist' view Of course m ost histor1"an ·11 h · . · , s WJ emp asrze one or the other approach and e1ther can shed some light on the s·t t. ·r · d . I ua 10 n,. 1 carne o~t competently. The optimum, however, must remain a fusion of the t~o. y er IS m~st be stated most emphatically-and this is what all too often histonans of sCienc_e, as. well as. i~tellectual h.istorians in general, seem to forgetthat, be~ore real histoncal wntmg can begm, a biobibliographical and textual foundanon must be established. Consequently; with regard to sixteenthcentury scrence, we need these foundational studies before we shall be able to go beyond the vague and often mistaken generalities which fill our textbooks

Rather t~an a significant and lasting contribution to the history of sixteenth~ century sc1ence, the Drake-Drabkin volume must be viewed as somethi.J:111-

whi:h n·~ight provide a stimulus for young readers to enter the field and t~ bel?m bnngmg order from chaos. For this reason, its value should not be underestm:ated. The introduction gives a much-needed orien tation, which fi1 rther stu~1es can bUJ!d on, and the translations themselves should make accessible to a v.~de aud1ence so:ne of the more important sixteenth-century vvritings on the subject of mechamcs. The shortcomings and omissions, which I have had o~c~i~n to mention, can only be made good thr·ough long, intensive and dlsCiphned. study of the primary materials, and let us h ope thai: this volume may spur some younger scholars to undertake the task. -

University 1if Leeds

..

NOTES

, F emarkably comprehensive survey of the situation-a nd within a brief cornpass- se<; C orVa r 1- 'La cultura dei secoli XIV-XVI', in Atti del prima convegno internazzonole dt esart! aso 1. . . )

· · · dell.efiontz. per La storia della scicn;:a italiana: i secoh XIV-XVI (Florence, 1967 , 3-77. n cogm zwne · d ~"h · ·s full of detailed information on the sort of research which must be carne out •• IS pa per J • • h f h · before we can hope for a synthesis of the sCienllfic thoug t o t e penod. .

2 S t Thorndike and Crombie have tended towards the VIew that humamsm marked an ar on, l A C b. M d' I d · 1 uption in the development of science. See, for examp e, . . Crom 1e, . e uvn . an

~,:err Mod rn Science r evised 2nd edition (New York, 1959) , voL II, ro3-5. In fact , m the mu:ds -fm D' e entat'ors we now see humanism replacing scholasticism as the evil force wh1ch o some conJm , , fi .•

held back the development of science. See, for exampl~, Jude P. Dougherty, Lessons rom tne History of Science and Technology', in Studus zn Phtlosophy and the Hzstory of _Phzlosoph~, ed. J l ·" R ( 1g6g) 3A- 50 at p. 48 where it is held that humanism was 'an mterruptwn of

. "'--· yan , 4 ' '1" • ' ' • · ·d · th d l p . h. d 1 ment of science'. For the vie\.'\' that humarusrn was an Important a1 1n e eve o -, c eve op . , 1i · · 1 - ' R · · l d" fil ,;;~ nJent of science, see especially Eugenio Gann, G . U1nai~lSti. e a sc1~nza, wz.s a z osopu, 52 ( t:g6r ) , 259- 78; and Scien;:a e vita civile nel Rinascunerdo ztalzano (Ban, 1965) .

' For Bened etti, however, see note 38 below. _ . . . , For an evaluation of Drabkin's work and a b1bhography of some of h is more Importan t

p ubli ca tions, by E. Rosen, see Isis, 56 (rg6s), 434-7- . . . . 5 The work from which sections are translated in the _volu1ne :ve are h~r: cons1~enng lS h1s

Mechaniwrum tiber (Pesaro, 1577). This was translated mto Itaban by Fthppo Pigafetta and ublished under the title Le mechaniche (Vemce, I5~1 ), For so~e unexplamed reason the_ Engh~h

p 1 · · en here by Drake is based on the Itahan translation. There may well be aJUStJficat ra ns a t tOn giv th l · All th r . . · r th" h t as far as r have been able to discover, e trans ator does not give any.. 0 c lJ( tD LOf JS, U , ~ h d"ffi c:

things being equal, a translation from the original would be preferable, though t e I erence_ which would emerge undoubtedly would be m~nor. _ . _

o r:.r - ht be the place to mention a termmolog:~cal problem which could cause confusiOn. _,ere mig ) · ·r h d. . d · · ( om the

D ra ke a dopts the term 'Aristotelian ~radition' (p. 5 to Signt Y ~ e t~a I!Jon :~tvmg r . ; _ Pseudo-Aristotelian Quaestiones mechamcae, while he uses the term _medieval traditiOn [ofphilo: o ohy of motion]' (p. g) to signify the medieval_ con:rnentary traditwn on the (genmne) Physua.. Til 1 he speaks of the 'Aristotelian tradition· he d oes not mean what we normally mean

Jus wJen h h . . h T I. dB nedetti b h . 1 though it is not clear (e.g. p. 1 4) whet er e IS saymg t a t artag ta an e v t 1s erm, ' · . 1: · I t V\;ere cri tical of Aristotle's genuine writings or of the spunous Quaestwnes mec l~nzca~~ . mus o 1 d · t that it is difficult to interpret the meaning of passages such as the followmg: Aristotle .. so a mi . . , ( ) . d th ~ l" I t ' Ansto-himself did not write spectfically on mechamcs ... _ p. 9 ,' a n en a ew mes a er · · - . -

l. thodoxy exists in the Q.Jiestions qf Mechanu:s - ... Although the problems of spr:r:a and te Ian or 1. h

1 . h. · 1 d non · t l"JSeudonomous works is difficult to treat when dea 1ng wn an evo vtng tstonca tra I : .1

~o~ld have perhaps been explained here a b it more clearly. . . . d in 7 A ·.t.ca l bibliographical survey of recent h terature on the subject will be con tame

r chn I · g 'Recent Studies on Renaissance Aristotelianism, 1g58-Ig69'. Here will be found my 10rt comm · f d . l A . 1 h"losophv

r t th ~ew recent studies on the continuity o me Ieva nstotelian natura p I . re1eren ces o t . . - h h ts of which we have. Most students of Renaissance Anstotel•a.msm ave focused on ot er aspec the Stagirite's philosophy, e.g., logic, psychology or poet1cs. e· . , See A. Koyre. Etudes galiliennes (Paris, 1939), 18-54; E. A. Moody, 'Galileo and Avempa c).

T h D ·cs of the Leaning Tower Experiments', Joumnl of the History of Ideas, 12 ( 195 1 , e ynami tl b d 1. d b Th B Settle , 6· _ 7 _422 passim. Borri's importance has recen y een un er me y om as . . '

;G3

191

3 ',\J ofE·"periment as a Tool ofinvestigation', in Galileo: Man of Science, ed. E. Mc~ullm a I eo s se A ( ) 1. h . f tudymg the . (" ' " k tg67) 3I r- - 37 esp. 325-6. Drake p . 54 rea 1zes t e Importance o s .

"ew ' or , , :> , r 1 . f h · act of thiS p · t" t dition at Pisa during the I58os •or a proper eva uatron o t e Imp ·' · erdiptate IC ~~e young Galileo Some light should be shed on the question whe n the present

tra 110 n on · . d h U · ·t ofP1sa " Titer publishes his findings on philosophica l teachmg a.n researc es at the mverS1 Y -

for the period 1575- 16oo. - . 'son of T th b"bliography collected in m v 'Expenence and Expenment: A Compan

Z ·

9

b 0

]] .: Vi~w with Galileo's in De motu;, Studies in the R enaissance, 16 (1g6g) , 8o- r38, at Pd·92• _a are a .. - d 1 d r . Jl C nto (U me no te 31 , now should be added A. Crescini , Le ongun c meto o ana .tl tco: znqru.cc '

1 73 I965), r68-88 and W. F. Edw2rds, :Jacopo Z abarella : A Renaissance Ar' t tel· , v· Rh t · d P d h · R. · IS o •an s Iew of e one an oetry an t CIT elation to Ph ilosophy ' in A~tes du Quat ., c· ' 1 . d Ph "l h · " ·d· • 1 (M ·· · · ' rzeme ongres nternatzonal e t osep 1.e me U V{J e . ontre;,] .. .Pans, Igi>g) , Rj-3-54-

10_ This h as yet to be prope,-ly d ocu m:nt.ed, but one gets the general impression that the wntmgs of the Pans and Oxford mast"':s c~J the fourteenth century were more frequently printed before I520 than after. ln fact, rhe penon ' -j./0- 1520 seems to be one in which th · · h . . · ere was great ~nterest u: t e fourteenrh~cen~1ry wnters o:• natural p hilosophy, esp~cially in northern Italy and at P~ns . Here IS a hst o, th e ea rly COitions of several r epresentative fourtccnth-cen tur ~~= y

Alben _of Saxony, Ques:umcs su_(Jt:r physicam (Venice !504, 1516; Paris 15I6, >51 8j ; Thomas Brad'."awme, Arzihmetu a .\pecul{)<iva (Pa ris, I +:;s, 1502, r . '5 '5; Valencia, rsoi) ; Jean Buridan Questwnes super octo jJhJ•sicorom libros (Pa ris 1503, I509) ; \ '\I alter Burleigh, writings on Aristotle'; Physzca (Padua, -'476; Ven1ce, 1_4-82,_ ' 149I , I5or , I5o8, IS!Is, I6og; Pavia , 1488); William Heytesbury,_ vanous w~rks (Pav~:,, _J4.8!, 1.~83 ; Venice, 149 1, '494, 1500; Bologna, ,

495),

Ri chard Swmeshead, CalcuLator (P:ioua, l.i-77 ( ?) ; Pavi:>., r4g8; Venice, 1520) .

Such a sample would <eem to be representative and clearly shows a declining interest in th ese works a fter the first years of 1h~ sixteenrh c~nrury, both in northern f taly and at Paris. Further work musr b~ d one on th is_ su hje~t , howe ver, b efore \Ve have a satisfactory expla na tion o! why thmgs_ changea as they d d . O ne thmg wh1ch seems to have happened is that the fourteenthcentury trad1 twn. bccam~ l11Creasi r.Jg}y _absorbed into the new writings of the early sixteenth cen tury. Se,c tlJ e mteresw:g· rnaten .:'l Cited b y William A . VVaUace, 'The Calculatores in Early SJxteenth-Century PhySJcs·, Br1twh ] o>mzalfor the History qf Science, 4 (rg6g), 221-32, at p. 22I, n ote+·

11

See E. P. Mahoney, 'The E a rl y Psych olog)• of Agostin o Nifo' (Disserta tion, Columbia Un, versny, l gfi6 ) . 12

See, e:g., his commentary on the PostClio;- Arza[1•tics in Opera Logica (Cologne 1603) cols. 622 , 625 , b4.o, 648 , 66:;, etc., cspec iaHy the last where he discusses a grammati~al diff~rence between Creek and Latin and hew this makes the meaning of the Latin transla tion differ from that of t.h e originaL

_

13

On this, see the p e rceptive r em a rks of N. W. Gilbert, ' Renaissance Aristotelianism and Its Fate: Some O bserva tions a nd Problems', in Naturalism and Human Understanding, ed. j. P. Anton (AlGany, New York, 1967) , 42-52, at pp. 51-2. Further work is needed on this pomt.

I• 'll commento di Simplicia al De .4.nima ne!Je controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI', A rchiuio di rz!os~(;a ( r ~i5I) , r39-2oti ; reprinted in Nardi's Saggi suU' Aristote/ismo padomno dal seco/o XIF al XVl (Fioren ce, 195R) , 365-442.

"·" C. B. Schn:itt, Cianfmr1asw Piw della J f i7andoLa ( r169-r533) and his Critique of Aristotle (I h e Hague, 1967), esp . 138·-:;G.

16

YJ:e Creek text was edited by V . T rincaw!lu s and p ublished at Venice in I535· A Latin translatwn bv G. D orotheu' was prin ted in r539, I546, 1550 and 1554- A translation by J. B. Rasa rius was printed in I558, l. 5::JS, 1569 and I58 1. All printings were at Venice. I plan to deal ~1th the translations and ed ;tions of this work mo re full y in a subsequent paper. For general m!ormatwn on Phiioponus's infl uence on la.ter thought, sec Walte r Bohm, Johannes Pl1iiopunos . .. Ausgewiihlte Schrifien (M unich, JS>67 ), 337-87 (with further bibliography). Bobm's volume conta ins substantial excerpts fi·om Ph iloponuss wri tings in annotated German translations and should act as a stimulus for others t c., work on Philoponus, his thought and h is influence.

17 Philoponus is rn e ntioned onc.e in passing on. p. 55.

18

On Phil oponus in the Mid dle 1\ges, see e'P· M . Steinschneider, Die ai"abischen Ubersetzungen aus dem Griechischen (repr int, Gntz , IgC.o ), [!41]-[I-43] and passim; S. Pines, 'Etudes sm Awhad al-Z,.man A bu ' I Barakat al-Baghd a<l: ' R evue des itudes j uic-es, n.s., 3 (1938), 3·-64; 4 ( 1938 ), 1-33; idem, 'Un precursenr Bagch d ien de la tbcori e de !'impetus', his, 44 (.I953), 217- 51; i\1 . C lagett, 77,e Science of ,l,fechanus ,·n ,:he Middle Ages ·~ Madison , 1959), ;;og-12.

19 E.g., Calilco Galilei, Le opere (Flr.rence, rg2g--39) . voL I, 284, 410.

20 There has a p pr.ared for sa le within the past few ~ ·ears a copy of Philoponus's Commen tary

o n the Physica. wi th B1a rginal annotat.i ons said to be in I he hand ofGalileo. Ifthjs is true, the role of Philoponus would become ail the rnore . worth y of further study.

..

XII

174

21 See H. B. Gottschalk , 'Strato of Lampsacus: Some Texts', Proceedings 'If the Leeds Litera')• and Philosophical Society, Literary and Historical Section, II (1965}, 95-182.

22 See, however, esp. W. Schmidt, 'Heron von Alexandria im 1 7· Jahrhundert', Abhondlungen ;::ur Geschichte der Mathematik, 8 ( 18g8), 195-214, and Marie Boas, 'Hero's Pnewnatica: A Study of its Transmission and Influence', Isis, 40 (1949), 38-48, as well as Keller, op. cit. note 37 below-

23 There seem to be more than a dozen fifteenth- or sixteenth-century manuscripts con. taining one of at least three different independent Latin versions of the Pneumatica. For a partial listing, see W. Schmidt {ed.), Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia (Leipzig, 1899-1914), vol. I (Supplementum), 42-3, 50-2. On the medieval version overlooked by Schmidt, see C. H. Haskins, Studies in Medieva[ Science, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), 18 !-3, and L. Thorndike and P. Kibre, Catalogue tif lnlipits 'If Medieval Scientific Writings, 2nd edition (Catnbridge, Mass., 1963), col. 344· See also W. Schmidt, Das Pro£mium der Pnewnatik des Heron von Alexandria in lateinischer Ubersetzung (Braunschweig, 1894; copy a1 Paris, Bibliotheque na tionale). I can also add the following manuscripts to the list : (1) Krakow, Bibliotekajagielloftska, 568 (DO. III. 24); (2) New York, Columbia University Library, 22 .(De Ricci, p. 1262); (3) Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, lat. 7226A; (4) Roma, Biblioteca Lancisiana , 249. All of this will be dealt with in much greater detail in my forthcoming article on 'Hero Alexandrinus' to appear in the Catalogus trnnslationum et commentariorum.

24 These presumably are MSS 630 and 631 of the Biblioteca Oliveriana of Pesaro described in lnventari dei manoscritti delle Biblioteche d'Jtalia, val. 42 (by A. Sorbelli, 1930), 98. Also of potential interest for Guido Ubaldo are MSS 426, fasc. 16 (lnventari, vol. 39, 43) and 758 (Inventari, vol. 42, 131) of the same library. Drake is similarly vague in referring to another manuscript on p. 23.

25 The Dialogo was published in 1632, and by 1635 a Latin translation had already appeared. The Discorsi were published in 1638, but the first Latin version appeared only in 1699. The delay in translating the latter had important consequences, for in Italian it was inaccessible to Newton when he published the first edition of the Principia in 1687. His reading of the 16gg Leiden edition of the Latin translation of the Discorsi, however, led to important changes that were incorporated into the third edition of the Pri12cipia (1726). For further details see I. B. Cohen, 'Newton's Attribution of the First Two Laws of Motion to Galileo', in Atti del Simposio su Galileo Galilei nella storia e nellafilosofia della scimza (held Firenze-Pisa, 14-16 September 1g64), xxiii-xlii. I am indebted to Mr J. E. McGuire for calling Cohen's paper to my attemion.

26 One might quarrel with our selection here, but what of Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Gilbert, Huygens, Descartes, ~1ersenne, Gassendi, etc.?

27 One is at a loss to know how to interpret Drake's contention that Tartaglia's translation of Euclid was 'the first published translation of the Elements into any living language of Europe' (p. 2! ). .

28 1 t is interesting to note that when Coznmandino's Latin translation of Hero's Pneumatu;a was reprinted as late as 168o, Aleotti's four pneumatic theorems were translated from Italian into Latin for the first time and appended to the edition. See Heronis Alexandrini spiritaliwn Jiba a Federico Commandino in. Latinum corwersus. Huic editioni accesserunt Jo. Bapt. Aleotti quatuor theoremota spiritalia, ex ltalico in Latinum ·conversa (Amsterdam,' 168o), 101-20; see also note 25 above.

29 The court of Urbina, of course, patronized a wide variety of activities and not merely theoretical mechanics. An example of a quite different sort of scientific patronage is to be found in Federigo Bonaventura (1555- 1602), a contemporary of the thinkers discussed here. Since he wrote primarily on meteorology--one of the sciences of the sixteenth century least studied by modern scholars-little attention has been paid him, although his writings are quite substantial. On his work, see my forthcoming article in the Dictionary 'If Scientific Biograph)• arid my 'Theophrastus', section V lli, 3 and f>nssim, in Catalogus Trarulationum et commentariorum, vol. II (1970). Bonaventura was quite traditional and certainly had little orientation towards mathemattcs. I · mention this merel y to put Urbino more in perspecti,'e .

30 For further information and recent bibliography on this interesting Sienese figure of the generation before Alberti and his relation• to the later tradition, see James H . Beck, 'The Historical "Taccola" and Emperor Sigismund in Siena', Art Bulletin, 50 (rg68), 309-1 9 .

.31 On Alberti's interest in mechanics and in science and mathematics generally, sec tbe recent book Joan Gada! , Leon Battista Alberti: Universal Man in the Early Renaissance (ChicagoLo,dnn, 1969), esp. 200- 11.

; cts*ri·W ·w ,. • s --M"'

XII

32 This also seems to have been the in terpretation of Ale.'<andre Koy····e· ~·p . . ·~1·1 . • ·

1 t 8 d 'J . B · . . . · ~ ' , ~.· <. u.•. y 111 o D. Cl . no e , 41-54, an ean aposte Benedetti, cntJque d'Aristote' MilanrH:r o" , · E'·· 'c·

1 '

(Par· ) I 'd . ]] . ':' J ~.:2>- ':Jicr~.r a ~umu ..r l son ts, 1959, 3.) 1-]'l. . nc1 enta_ y, the tm~ortant research ofKoyrt; on r.:;; :iy 1node;·nscience

seems lo _be largely passed over 1n Drake's 1ntroduction. 33

.This is in striking contrast to the prefatory material to Guido Uboido\ "·'Ork which ac.cordmg to Drake ~·as a produ~t of the central Italian school ci 'the.oretic<.l mecl;u,i~' One m1ght argue that Gmdo Ubaldo s Preface and Pigafetta's Dcdi<·arion l..euer ~,;d Pwface ~1; ht be more pract1cally onented than the remainder of the wurl' in a~u'•I· to 1·- , 'h - hg h d- . . d · · . . ~ , ,. . "- ~- 1 1-'H;.:;s t. I)S C toW 10m t e e lhons were .e?Jca t:d. Sttlll the constant recurrence ofrhe dlcn.tr: ofuti lirv in borh docu-ments {pp. 24.1-58) 1s stnking. ·

If one adopts the ~theoretically oriented cen1·ral JraJ ian :sch'<}O-lveHur ;.-J1e .,,.~ 1., 1·,--~"y · d

th h l' - · - J -:;>. - •• .-.P on<nte nor er~ sc oo_ Jnterpret_ahon of_Drake, other difficulties arise~ \Ve have a c("-:n.rral it~lian ~ork (theoretical} w1th a practically onented preface being tra ns!a1·ed by a nor•' - r · )' . . {FT Pigafetta of Vicenza) who dedicates it to another northern h 1: ,;:."'1'." sla l<il t I •ppo \ 1 . ) d . - - a ,an \ olu iQ ..... avorgnano of en1ce an pub11shes tt also rn the north (Venice). -

34 Among th_e _copie~ of this t~anslation is one whi ch vvaog in the posse.ssior: of the- astronomer

acndl mabthematlCian Marcantomo Cadamosto of Lodi. 'The manuscript is '"'"' in New York o urn 1a TJn tversJty L1brary 22. . ' 35

H e tr~nslated the pre_fac~ to_ the Pne1~rna_tica into Ita lia n ;n i.:)82anri ded:icoted jr to Bernardo BuontalentJ. The manuscnpt IS Fnenze, Bibl. 'oteca nnionalt: BuTo ~ar1· ,,,3

"• ·I, ,-. K. l] [t 1 I (L 'd . , ' . .. -- . c>cC . J. nst.c. er

er ta zc~Jm Cl en_-L?ndon: I9~3f.), voL I, I76. The transb::tiou was priu trd. iu the nint::teenth centu:y m C. Gargwlh and Fndmando Martini {eds.), D~il• unb,mz ,U.J voto dz Erone ,4/essandrino volf,anu:amento me~zto d:. Bernardo. Davanzati (Florence, 1 862).

Manuscupts m F1renze, B1bhoteca nazwnale mag] VHl f. Biblioteca Vallicelliana R. 26. , . ' '492, GJsc. 9, and Roma,

37 A recent sch~l~r , who_ has ~tudied Aleotti w1th some care. -argues th 3 t he n:ad 1-Iero 'v . .-;th

the ey7es of a pr_act1sm g _eng1necr ·. ~ce ~:G. Keller, 1 Pneum2 tic.c;.,l\utc-m.~ta and the. VacuuJn-in

the V\ork of GJambattJSta Aleott1, Bnt2sh Journolfor the Histcry {!/ Sci<·ru:e 3 ' ,9

67

) 0

8-' at P· 339· See also note 28 above. ' 1 · ' ~3 't7,

38 ~ar1o ,Macc~gni: Le sjJec~la~io~i giovanili _'de motu' di Gz-:..;ncmd Batti.'sta. Bt.~nedati (Pisii 10

67

) and 2dem, Contnbuh alla b10b1bhografia d1 Giovanni Bat1'sta B•ned~t'i' Ph · ', . "c ) 337-64. . \,.. . ....... ' _.l! .fl.l) 9 \ J 9 '7 )

39 _It w~s publis~ed under the tide D emonstratio proportimnon m.Dtuu.m l<iu:iiz.."r:: ro,;lro .4ri.rtotelem

et a/ws phzlosophos (z.e., nearly the same title as that of Benefleili's Work) .in T~ioner's op,swlum perjJetua memona dzgmsszmum . . , (Cologne, r:,62).

40 E.g., part o f Benedetti's Prefatory Letter ro ( ' b · l d '' (·r '

2 r-2) is omitted. ra ne e \..:J'U7.rnan -r:;. "'1accagni edition, 41

_This criticism~ is not directed particuiarly against l)rakt:, iOr obviously in focusing en a particular group ol problems one cannot deal with all possible relevant rn:.tters. 1 !c has ~hosen· for hts topt~ mechanics, and of nec~ssity has h~d r~ focus ~pan that an::a. of tu:nar; activiry. In what follov.s, l want merely to ra1sc some h>stonograplucal probl~m3 ·rel'·ii~·g in ,, . . 1 studies in the history of science. I should like to e1nph:t.;ize h..-.n~ ho~·;vrc; :h:·t ;_ 0,UH.;r~ . to th t" . h 1 - . - '"" . _, • •) ••• Ill rnr Oplnion

e ques 1on ~s m~c mor~ comp ex than the tnv1al 'Jotc.rnaJisr-e:..x.ternaJise di ...- ;1010my which some rece~t hts tonan~ of SCI~nce ?ave considered significant. This set':JTJS to be a d;s iii :r:tion made by professiOnally tramed hiStonans-and, what is worse, philuoophers--<:>f science. who one day woke ~p to find the big world of his tory all around them. f doubt wh,.,ther mam; historians Would be Impressed by such a simplistic categorization. '

, ~ 2 I ~ann~t ~dp thinking that much confusion arises in English fron1 the use: of the singular ;'Cience, wh1le mother European languages a plural form is prefern:r.L This is tcut", for example, tn_ the Inter~atw~al Congress for t.he HIStory _or ~oence (in_French: Congres internat io::al d'his,oJre des SCiences;. There seems to be a bmlt--m assumption jn English that there is a sna]e SCience' gove n d b · 1 ~ · -fi l d - 1 o ·

. r ~ y a stng e sc1ent1 c met 10 '.This someti1nes 01Js,.:ures tl-.t.e n::y :-e .aJ diversity ln method) subject matter and other factors, which distinguishes the- indi-t;-iduai s,jences.

..

ADDENDA

See also my introduction to Augustinus Steuchus, De perenni philosoph:ia (New York-London, 1972), v-xvii.

III

95, 16 -- read : Erastae Amatores . 103, n. 13 --This article has not yet been published. 104,n.37,l --read: Boscagli for Mazzoni

IV

212, n .17 -- These papers have now been published in L' Averrois!!'o in Italia (Rome, 1979), 91-120, 121 - 42

v See also my 'Filosofi a e scienza nelle universita italiane del X VI secolo • in Il Rinascimento: interpretazioni e problemi {R'?me-Bari, 1979) ,353 -98. 516, n .l 0 -- Melland's study is now publ i.shec'! as 'A n Examination of Bradwardine 's Geometry ' ,Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 19

(1978)' 113-75 . 521, n. 54 -- Collins 's book i s now . pub 1 ished as The Secular is Sacred. Platonism and Thomism in Marsilio Ficino 's Platonic Theology (The Hague, 1974). 52l,n.58 --Now publisl1ed as no.IJI above . 522, n .64 -- Not yet published. 523,n.68 --See now H.E.H. Jaeger, 'Studien z ur Frtihgeschichte der Herme neutik', Archiv Hire Begriffsgeschichte 18 (1974), 35-84. 523, n. 71 -- Now published as no. XI. 523, n. 75 -- The new Oxford history has still not appeared . 525,n.9l - - See now my 'John Case on Art and Nature ', Annals of Sciem:e 33 (1976) ,543 - 59; 'John Case and Machiavelli', in Essays Pre~eni.ed_to Myron P. Gilmore, ed. S. Bertelli & G. Ramakus (Florence, 1978),231-.4 0 ;

and :John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissa1~ce England (forthcoming). 525, n .1 02 -- Now published in F. Maddison, M. Felling and C. Webster (eds. ), Linacre Studies (Oxford ,1977) ,36-75. 527 ,n.J.l5 --Now published in History of Education 3 (1974) ,3-17 .· 528,n.l24 --Volumes on Th emistius (1 97 8) and Simplicius , In de anima (1979) have now appeared. 529, n .13 6 -- Not yet published

vr l 82,n . l7 --See nos. III & IX. l84,n.27 --N ow see Fredette's 'Galilee's De_motu antiquiora' ,!'.hvsis 14 (1972), 321-48. 186,n .-i·2 --Now published as 'Philosophy a nd the Enterprise of Science in the Late Middle Ages'. in The Interaction bel ween SCiencP a_nd Philosol)hY,

2

ed. Y .Elkana (Atlantic Highlands, N.J. ,1974), 51-113. 186, n.65 -- Talbot • s edition has not yet appeared. 187 ,n .66 - - Mahoney's study has not yet appeared; for mine see Addenda to V ,525 , n.l02. 189,n.90 -- See now also W . A . Wallace, 'Galilee GaL lei and the Doctores Paris ienses • , in R . E. Butts & J . C. Pitt (eds.), New Perspecti\•es on Galileo (Dordrecht-Boston,l978 ) ,87-l38 and W.A. Wallace (ed.) ,Gal::eo 's !early Notebooks (Notre Dame-London,l977).

VII

Now see E. Grant, Much Ado About Nothing. Theories of Space A.nd Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1981 ) . 354 ,n .3 -- See no. VIII

VJIJ

On this subject s ee now P . Galluzzi, 'll "Platonismo" del tardo C:r.que cento e ]a filosofia di Galileo' , in Ricerche sulia cultura dell' llali a

moderna,eo.P.Zambell i (Rome- Bari,l973),37-79; N . Jardine, 'Galilee's Road to Truth and the Demonstrative Regress', Studies in the Hisfory and Philosoph y of Science 7 (1976), 277-318; and W . L . Wis an , 'C ali lP o ' s Scientific Method • , in R. E .Butts & J .C .Pitt , New Pe rs pectives on Galileo (Dordrecht-Boston, 1978), 1-57.

84,n . 8 --The p oem is not by Galilee. See my "On a Poem Misatt ributed to Galilee', Is is 63 (1972),95-7. 129,n.ll5 --This paper never appeared. 13 7, n .137 -- This paper never appeared, but see Chap .l \T of my !\.rist'2.!,l."' and the Renai ssance ( forthcoming).

IX See al so my 'The University of Pis a in the Renaissance', ll isto~_::_of Educ:ation 3 (1974) , 3 -1 7; 'The St udio Pisano in the European Cultura.l Context of the Sixteenth Century ' ,in the Atti del conv_&~ : !'lreJJze _e la Tosc?n~ de i Mei:lici nell 'Europa del • 500 (forthcoming); and P . 2 am bel l i, ' Scienza, filosofia, re ligione nella Toscana di Cosima I', in Flore ncp and Venice :Comparisons and Relations. Volume H: Cinguecento (Florcnce,l980,3-52. 244 ,n.l --This collection has not yet been published. 24 7 ,n.l2 -- My study was never published , but work on Sor:1mc.is. i s now in

preparation by Dolt. Stefano de Rosa of Florence . 253 ,n.43 --Sen. V and 'Aristotle's Ethics in the Sixte enth Century: Some Preliminary Considerations'. in Ethik im Humani:omus (Boppard 1979 ) ,87 -112. 260,no.91 -- Fantoni's work seems to be comple te ly deri\ative from Borro' s De motu, a question which I sti"!l plan io trc2t 011 " r,olher occasion. 261 ,n . 93 - -See now no . IV above, 264, n .lll -- Thi s theme is developed more f ully in my _1'..!.:-}~ ; ol~ and tl'e Renaissance (forthcoming) , esp. Chap . l.

266 , n.1 23 --See the comment to 247 ,n. 12 above. 267 ,n.125 --Now published as no.XI .

26 8 ,n.12 9 -- Cranz 's bibliography is not yet publi shed. 269,n .13 9 --Not yet published.

272,n.149 --Now published,see the g e nerai note to IX,above .

XII

172,n.7 --Publi s hed at Padua, l 971. 172,n.9 --See nos.IX,X,XI.

173 • n: l 0 -- Now see C. Lewis, The Merton Tradition and Kinematics in Late Sixtee nth and Early Seventeenth Century 1taly (Padua 1980) 1 73, n .20 - Nothing fu rther seems to have developed fro~ this ..

3

INDEX

Here are included the names o£ individuals cited , with relatively £ew exceptions. P1ato(Platonism, Neoplatonism) and Aristotle(Aristotelianism) are not included since they appear repeatedly throughout these studies . A few other names mentioned merely in passing have also been omitted. Several intellectual movements(e . g. Atomism, Stoic ism, etc .) are included, as are the names of the various universities and colleges referred to.

Abbondanza , R.: IX 250 Aberde en Universi ty: V 486 ,

5ll;IX 245,251 Abra de Raconis,Charle s :

VI 186 Achillini,Alessandro: VI 170;

XII 164 Adam ,C.: VI 184 ,186 Aegidius Romanus: II 220 Aglaophemus: I 508,510;II 212,

217 Agnel li,Sc ipione : II 220 Ago s tini,A.: IX 25 7 Agric ola,Rudolf: V 513 Agrippa , Henricus Cornelius:

III 99 ,10l;VIII 86 Aguzzi Barbagli , D. : IV 213 Aix-en-Provence,University of:

VI 163 Ajo G. y Sainz y Zuniga,C.~L:

v 515 Albert the Great,Albertism:

II 220;VI l60;VIII 87,91, 130

Albert of Saxony: V 529;XII 173 Al berti,Leon Bat tista: XII 168 Alcala ,University of: V 509 ;

IX 245 Alcia to,Andrea : IX 250 Aldobrandini, Cinzio : III 101 Aldrovandi,Ulisse : V 503 Al eander,Hi eronymus : III 96,102 d'Alembert,Jean le Rand :

XII 171 Aleotti , Giamba ttista : XII 169 ,

174 Al exander of Aphrodisias : V 508;

VI 173 Allut,P.: I 513 Althaus,P .: V 529 Alti eri- Biagi,l1oLo : VI 191 ;

VIII 85 d'Alverny,M.-T.: II 216;IV 211 ftJlagnine, .: I 511

•

PJlastos,M.V. : I 510 ;II 216 Anaxagoras : II 226 Anaximenes: II 226 Anderson,P.J. : IX 251 Ange1i,Giu1io : V 522 d ' Angers,J. - E.: I 516;II 221;

I V 212 Annerstedt ,C . : V 487,520 Aqui1ecchia,G,: VIII 115 ftxchimedes : VI l78;VIII 108- 9,

ll2,12l- 2 ,128- 3l,l34;IX 271; X 6l;XII 163

Ardigo,R.: I 505 Aretino ,Pietro : IX 267;

XI 462- 3 Ariosto.Lodovico: IX 247 Arrnaingaud,A.: IX 247 Arnold of Villanova : VIII 87 As hmo1e,:Elias: II 227 Ashworth,E.J .: V 520 ;VI 186 Aspelin,G. : II 230,232- 3 Aston,T.H.: V 514 , 523 Atomism: II 232- 5; V 490, 517;

VI l89 ;VIII 137 Augustinus,Aure1ius: I 507,

509- 10,525;II 213 , 216- 7 , 230 Aur i spa,Giovanni : VI 174 Auweiler,E.J .: I 505 Avanzi,Carlo : VII I 97 Avernpace (Ibn Bajja) : VII I 102-

3 Averroes (Ibn Rushd) , Averroism:

I 513;V 508, 519 ; VI 160, 170 , l87;VIII 83,102- 3,130;IX 269; XI 46 6- 9 ,472- 3,475

Avicenna (Ibn Sina): VIII 130 ; IX 253;XI 468- 9,473,475

de Backer,A.: I 525 Bacon,Franc is: II 226;VI 164-

6 , 177,182;VII 364 ;VIII 80, 88,104

Bacon, Roger : VIII ,87,126 Baldelli,Baldell o : IX 254-5

Baldi,Bernardino : XII 163 167-8 '

Balduino, Girolamo: V ~99 ; VIII 130

Bal iani, Giambattista : VII 117 Bal z,A . G.: VI 184 Bandini , A.l1.: V 522 Banez , Domingo : V 509 Barbaro ,Ermolao : I 512;VI 169 Barozzi , Francesco : III 101 :

V 495,506- 7; IX 260 . Barro".~ ) Isa ac : II 226 Barth, Kaspar von : :!: ':·16 Baruzi,J. : I 531 Bascour, H.: I 514 Batai11on , M. : V 528 Bates ,W . : I 528 Bay1e , Pierre : VI 166 Bec cadel1 i . Lodovico : III 103 Beck,J . H. : . XII 174 Becker , H.: I II 102 Bel larmino ,Robertu : I 527 ;

v 500 Benedetti ,A1essandro : V 504 Benedett i, Giambattj_s ta :

VII 352 , 362; VIII 101,108- 9 , l 22;XII 162- 3,165,167- 9 , 172

Ben1,Paolo : I 528;II 220; II I 101

Berlre1ey , George : II 236 Bernard,C.: VIII 88 Bertalot ,L . : III l02 ; V 530 de Bertolis, G. : V 527 Bessarion,Basil : I 528-9;

V 5l8 ; VI 168,170 Bevi1ac qua, Luc 'Antonio :

VII 134 Bidez,J .: I 510-1 · Bi ss i nger,A .: V 530 Blasius of Parma :. VIII 125, 1 32 Boas (Rall ), ~l.: II 232;Vl 181 ;

VII 365 ; XII 1H Boccadiferro , Lodo"V:ico : V 508 ;

XII 170 Boehm,A .: VI 192 Bohm , vl .: VI l90 ;XII 173 Boehner , P .: V 528 Bomer . A. : I II 102 Bol og:O.a , Universit:y· of: I 51 5 ,

529 ;III 99;V 480,482,L96 , 503;IX 248- 9,251- 2

Bolzoni , L.: IV 213 Bonamico . Lazzaro : liT 103 Bonaventin ·a , Federigc; : XJ:I 174 Bonaventur a , St .: I 525;II 21 2 ;

VI 162 Boncompagni,B .. : \f ~)27 Bonnerot , J. : V 529 Bordiga , G. : VIII lU8 Bor r o,Giro1amo: V1 1?0,189 ;

VII ~59;VIII ll9:IX 243- 4 , 247, 263- 72;X 6LXI ~t;;'- 76 ; XII 161;.,172

Borro.Le1io : XI 4(3 Borse~ti ) F c : III l04 Bo s cagli 1 Cosim o : Ill lOO;

VI 182; IX 263--4-

Bourgey , L. : VIII 93 Bouwsma , W. J. : I 528 Boyl e,Rober t : I I 223 ,227 ;

VI II 99 Brad war dine , Thomas : II" 20C;

V 5l5 ; XII 1'73 Brahe , Tych o : XII 174 Brant,S ebastian: V 513 Br een,Q.: I 512 , 528 Brerewood , Edwar d : V .<;?9 Br ews ter,D.: li 234 Br i ckman , B.: VII 356,3~1 Bridges , J . H. : VI II 87 Brucker , G. A. : I X 259 Bruc ker , Jakob : I 529- '"0;

II 2ll ; IV 213;\TI 1U:,P:> Bruni,L~onardo : I II 9~ ;\'J. 163 Bruno , Giordano : IV 201 , 203-4 ,

207- B;V 489- 90 ; VI 164 ; . . VII 352 ; VIII l15;XII 167, 171

Buchdahl,G . : VI 185 Budapest University : V d36 Buae , Gui1laU1!JP. : III "'6- 'i Bu1aeus , C. E.: V 529 Bulloch , J . I~ . : IX 251 Buonamic i ,Francesc o (s. YVI) :

V 523 ;VIII 90- l ,l29,lj4; IX 265- 7,270 ; X 6l ;XI 464 - 5 ; XII 164 ,171

Buonamic i, F . (s. XI X): V 520 , 52 2; IX 21<'J

Buontalenti,:Dernardo: Xli 175 Bur ana,Giovalmi Franc ts co :

XII 169 Bura tellus,G abr j.e l: I 5C:'2 ;

II ;:'20 Bl<rckbard t, Jako 1J : IV 2Li ;

IX 259 Burgersdi jk , Fra.:r1c o: V 4 ?2;

VI 183 Bllridsn , Jean : v <;88 , 51t'. :.29 ;

VII 365;VIII 89 , 101,,d4. ; XII 173

Burke,J . G. : IV 211 Burley , WalLer: XII l! ~ ]3urnet, Thomas : II 226 : VI J.33 :Furtt .E . A. : I X 261 BusOr 2gbi (Fubl:}_sher:J 0: L·..leca) :

v 522 Busson . H.: V 52 7 Busulini , B.: VIII l0t-'7, 3l2

Cabala : I 51 3; IV 206 , 2J.; ; VI 193

Ccdamosto.Mc..rcc. .. n toni o: :X!I 17~ Caeaar,Juiius : IX 254 Calepjno , ft...T-brogio : VIJI J..;:t:. Calogie:r13. , A., : lX 246 : }~ ~-) Calvin , Je2n : I jl6 ; Il 21 4 Ca~bridge Uni ve::--sity : --_1J 2.01;

IV 205;V 48'7: 52._ 1- 2:\:_ ~ t, ~'· : 191

Camdcn ,WilJ.iam: VI 183 Campanel la~ Torrunaso : I-\; c::J~ ;

VI 164 Ca~uzzi , ft~Cye~ : XI 46~

. ..-

Cano ,Me1chor: V 509 Capanno1i,Giuseppe: I X 26 5- 6 Cappel l etti,V.: VI I I 108 Car dano ,Girolamo : VI I 355 ,360;

VIII 92,l l4;XII 163,167- 8 Cartesiani sm . See Descartes Carton, R.: VIII 81 Carugo,A.: VI l89 ; VI II 90 Casaubon,Isaac : I 524 ; II 231- 2·

v 518 , Case , John : V 499- 500 , 525 ;

VII 364 Cass i rer, E. : I 511-2; II 230

234 ;TV 208 ;VI 167, 176 ; ' VII I 82- 3 , 85 , 104, 125 ,129 , l37 ; I X 261

Caste l lani , C. : V 526 ;VI 192 Castella.'l i , Giulio: VI 189 ;

VII 360 Castel li,E . : III 103 Castigl i on i , A.: VII I 121 Ca t ania , Universi ty of : V 486 Catcott,A.S .: II 233 Catena , Pi etro: V 507 Cavalli ,Frances co: V 527 Cavern i ,R. : VII 364; VIII Sl,

104 Cesalpino , Andrea : V 497 , 511 ;

IX 247 , 264- 5 Chalcondylas , Demetri os : VI 188 Chal da ic Ora cles : I 507 509- 10

512 ' ' Chamard, H. : I II 103 Cbampier , Symphorian: I 511, 513,

520 , 528 ;II 220 ,22 2 Charpenti er,Jac ques: I 528 ;

v 521 Charron , Pierre : IV 205 Chate1ai n , E.: V 515 Cheyne,George: VI 183 Chiovenda, E. : V 526 ; IX 254 Cicero : II I 9B; VI l 83; VIII 115 ;

IX 2.54 Clagett ,M.: V 516 , 529;VI 167 ,

l85 , 192 ;VIII 88 ,112,114 , 13l-2 ; XII 161- 2 , 173

Clark ,A. : V 500 ,521 , 524- 5 Clark ,J.T.: VI 186 C1asen ius,Daniel : I 530 Clavel in, M. : VIII 12 5 Clavius , Christopher: V 507 ;

VIII 131 Cleanthes: I I 22 6 Clement of Al exandr i a : I 508-

9 ; II 211-2 , 214- 7, 222,?31, 232 Clement VIII ,Pope: I II 100- 1 Cl jruent , L.: III-103 Clements, R. J. : II I 102 Clulee ,N.H . : V 525 ; VI 186 Cochrane , F .: VII I l3l ; IX 246

250,266 ' Cohen,I . B.: II 235; VIII 107 ;

XII 174 Coigne t, Michel : VIII 131 Coimbra Commenta tors: V 491,

509 , 5ll, 524;VI 169- 70 ; VII 355,357 , 360 ,36 5 ;VIII 92 ;

..

IX 268 Coimbxa Un i versity : v 492_ 3 519;'JI 169,192 ' Colaneri , J. : III 104 Colet,John: II 225 ;V 511- 2 Co1ie,R.: II 225 Co1~~gio Romano : IX 2a5 249 Col~1ns,A.B.: V 521 ' Col1iJms ,J. : I 505 Co1ogne,University of : v 486

492,511 ' Co1ombo, Re aldo : IX 250- l Columbus ,Christopher: X 60 Command:i.n o, Federigo : XI I 16"-

8, 174 ' Conr iJmg,Rermann : VI 164 17 ' 177 , , /, Consortini , L. : X 56 58 Contarini ,Giacomo : VIII 133 Cooper, L. : VIII 107 132·

IX 270 ' ' Cope, J . I .: II 236 Copenhav·er, B. P . : IV 21~ Copernicus, Nicolaus: IV 20.1

2ll;V 489-90, 514 ,517;VI i62-3,1'H-5 , l 77 ,180,l91 ;VIII 133· IX 248;XII 167 '

Cop1eston ,F.: VI 185 Cor deaux, E. H.: V 523 Cornelio ,Tommaso : VI I 364 ;

VI II 104 Corrin,C .A. : V 530 Cor sa:no,A . : VIII 92 Costauoni ,A .: IX 257;X 55 Costello, W. T. : VI 182 Cracow, University of : v 486 ·

VI 192 ' Cr akantnor pe,Richard: v 499 Cr an z,F . E.: V 517- 9,521 524

527 , 529 ;VI 186- ? ;IX 268 ' Cr apulli ,G .: V 527 -VI 189·

I X 260 ' ' Cr ehan,J. H. : I 531 Cr e1lius ,For tunatus : V 499

524,530 , Cr emonini , Cesare : V 508 ;

VI 177 ; VIII 128 Crescas,Hasdai : VI 162 Cr escini ,A . : VI l89~XII 172 Crlspo ,Giambattis.ta : I 526 Crombie,A.C.: VI l89 ; VIII 81

l06, l2~ ;XI I 172 ' Crosby,H. L. : V 515 Cudwo:rth, Ralph : I 530; II 214 ,

223, 228 ,230- S; VI 193 Cumont, f',: I 510- 1 Curtis,M.: V 517 , 523 , 525 ·

VI l82-3;IX 260 '

Da1lari,U . : IX 251 Da1 Pra,H . : . VIII 92 Danes ,?l erre: III 97 Da.'11Je!l.feldt, K.Il.: I 510 · IV 200 ,·

v 526 ' Dante Alighier i : VI II 131 ·

IX 265 ' Davanzati ,Bernardo: XII 1 69

Day, J ohn : V 520 , 524 Debus , A. G. : I I 226- 7 , 233;

IV 2ll Decembrio , Pier Candido III 94 Dee,John: IV 20a,210 ; V 501;

VI 186 Dejob,C .: XI 46 3 Del Torre ,M. A.: VI 192 Demo critus : I I 233; V 501 ;

XI 468,473 Denif1e,H. : V 515 Descartes ,Rene,Cartesianism:

I 530;III 94; IV 208;V 489, 511,5l4;VI 161 , 163- 6 ; 172, 177,183,185-G;XII 174

De Waard,C .: VI 181;VII 352, 365;VIII 101 , 104 , 117

Diaz , Damiao : IX 249,251 Dibon,P . : V 515 ;VI 182 Dicht1 , A.: XI 471 Digby,Kene1m : VI 186 Digges,Thomas: XII 167 Dijksterhuis,E . J.: VIII 86 Dini , Pietro : IX 261 Diogenes Laert ius: I 509;

III 93;IV 21 2 Dionisotti,C .: IV 210 Ps. Dionysius : I 507 ;II 215 Dioscorides : IX 253- 4 Dodds,E.R . : I 509 Dolet , Etienne : III 97 Dorat,Jean : II I 97

- 4-

Dorol1e,M. : V 523 Dorotheus,Gul ie1mus: XII 173 Douais,C .: VIII 87 Dougherty,J.P.: XII 172 Drabkin , I.E .: VII 365 ;VIII 107-

14,117- 8,120- 1 ,123, 129 ; IX 267,27l;XI 465 ;XII 161- 75

Drabkin , M.: XII 162- 3 Drake,S. : V 518, 5?.0 ,527;VI 173,

185,187,190- l ; VIII 107,133, l36;IX 257 , 267, 27l;XI 465 ; XII 161- 75

Dubar1e,D . : VIII 106,138 Dubler,C.E. : V 526 Duchene, Jos epb : II 227 DUr ing,I . : VI 160 Duhamel , Jean Bap+:iste : II 221 Duhem,P .: V 516, 5~?;VI 165 ,

167,187 ;VI I 352-3,359 , 365 ; VIII l01,104;IX 267;XI 465- 6 , 469;XII 161

DuP1essis- Mornay,Phi1ipe: I 531

Dutens,Louis: II 236 Du Vair,Gui1laume: IV 205 Du Val,Guillaume : V 518;VI 169,

182

Ebert,H, : I 5l5, 523 ;II 221 Edinburgh University: V 49 2 ,

511 Edwards,W . F.: V )20,530 ;

VI l83,189 ;VIII 80,82 , 84,92, 97- 2 ,125,137 ; XI 468:XII 17 3

Egidio da Viterbo: V 494

Ebr le,F.: VI 167 Elie , H,: V 529 Elizabeth I of England : V 500 Emden, A,B.: V 515 , 523;IX 248 Empedocles : I I 226 Epicurus: II 233 Equicola,Mario : III 99 Erasmus , Desider i us: V 489 ,

511-3 ; VI 163 Ermini,G. : XI 463 Escbweiler,K, : V 519,530 Estienne,Henri : III 97 Estienne , Robert : III 97;

VII I 134 Euclid : V 495,505- 6;VI 178 ,

183;VIII 108- 9,113 , 126,131 ; IX 257- 8,261- 3,27l;X 54,57-6l; XII 174

Eusebius : I 508;II 213,216- 7, 222

Eustache de Saint- Paul: VI 186 Eutocius: VIII 131 Evora,University of: V 286

Fabbrucci,S.M.: IX 246- 7 , 257 , 266 ; X 55,58

Fabri, Honore: VI 177,186 Fabricio d'Acquapendente,

Gir olamo: VI 190 Fabro , C. : II 216 Fabr on i , A.M. : V 487,522 ;

IX 243,245- 9 , 251,254- 5 , 257, 263- 7;X 55,6l;XI 462- 4

Facc i olati,F.: V 520,527 Falloppia,Gabriele : V 504;

VI 171,189;IX 250- 1 :F'alqui, E.: VI II 131 Fantoni,Filippo : V 505; I X 256-

63;X 53- 62 Farre1l,Sister Luigi: VI 183 Farrington,E. : II 226 :Farulli : X 58 Favaro,A. : V 527;VI 192 ;

VII I 84,90,107,130,132 ; IX 24 3- 4,246- 7 , 255,266 , 271; X 53- 4 ;XI 465 ; XII 161

de Fay e , E. : II 213 Fede1 i ,C . : IX 250- 1 }'ellmann,E.A.: VI 192 Fernel, Jean: VI 188 Ferrar a , University of : III 98-

l02 ; V 495 ,503;VI 163 Festugiere,A . J . : I 5ll ;III 102 ;

IV 200,210 Fic ino,J~arsilio: I 507- 15 , 518,

520- 1,524-32;II 21 5-25,230- l, 234 ; III 94- 5,99-lOO;IV 200, 205,207;V 494 ,5l2 , 516 ; VI 193; XI 469

}'inch , Jolm: XI 249 Fine ,Oronce (Fine) : V 505;

IX 260; X '74 , 57 Fiorentino , ? . : IV 204;VI 167,

176 , 187 Flrpo, L . : III 104 ; IV 204,212 ?isber, H.: V 526 Flavel , John: V 499

Fletcher, J .11.: V 516 , 523 F1or ence,University of:

VI 188 ; IX 248- 9;X ~3 Florencio del JHiio Jesl.1s :

v 528 Flower,l1.: II 227 Fludd,Robert: II 226,233-4;

I V 204 Fobes . F.H. : VI 181 Fogl ietti,R.: IX 251 Foix de Candale,Frangois:

IV 204., 208, 210 Fonseca,Pedro de: V 500,524 Fonseca,Rodcrigo: IX 249 ,

265- 6 For nari , Simone: IX 247 Fortius Ringelbergius,Joachim:

VIII 87 Foucber , Simon: I 531 Fournet,F. : VI 186 Fowler,T . : VI 182,184, 192 Fox Morc i llo,Sebastiano :

I 527; II 221 Fracastoro,Giro1amo : VI 188 ;

I X 255 Fraile,G. : V 528;VI 192 Franceschini,A. : III 104 de Franco , L.: VI 191 Frederick II, Emperor: IX 249 Fr edette , R.: VI 184 Fr e i burg , Univei·si t-y of: V 486,

511, 530 Frencb,P . J . : IV 2ll;V 525 Freudenber ger,T.: I 515,~23- 5 ,

528 ; II 214,221- 2 Furl ey,D. J.: VII 359

Gabriel , A.: V 521 Gado1,J. : XII 174 de Gaetano,A.L.: IX 246 Gaetano da Thiene : VIII 130 Ga1e,Theo~hilue : I 530;II 223,

228- 31,234 Gale,Thomas : II 228 Galen : V 50A,524;VI 171:

VI II 87 ,97;IX 253

- 5-

Galilei , Galileo: II I 100,104; I V 208;V 487, 489,495- 7,505-7,514 ;VI 162-6,170-3,175, 177,179;VII 352 , 365 ;VIII 80-138;IX 243-73; X 53-62;XI 462, 465,467- 8, 4?l;XI I 161-71

Galilei,Vincenzo: VIII 133 Gal land,Pi erre: III 98 Gall ego de la Serna, ,Juan:

VIII 89 Galluzzi,P. : IV 213;V 527 Galtier: I 525 Gargiolli,C.: XII 175 Garln,E.: I 509,511-2,515,517,

521;II 219-2l; Iv 2oo ,2os , 210, 214 ; V 518,520,523;VI 176, 181-2, 184,189 ;VIII 86,92 , 104,112,12 5,128 ,l35- 6 ;I X 244, 247 ,259- 61 ,265-7;X l 464,470; XII 172

Gasquet,F.A.: VI 187

Gassendi,?ierre : III 98; I V 208;VI 163,J84;VII 361; VIII SO, l36;XII 174

Gaza,Theodore: V 518;VI 168, 174

Geach,?.: VI 189 Ge i ger,L.B .: II 216 Geiler von Kayserberg: V 513 Gent,W.: II 234;VIII 101 Gentile,G.: VIII 115 Gentili,E.: VIII 106 Genua,Marcantonio: VIII 92 Gerhardt,C .J .: I 531 Gerr ish , :B .A.: I S:i.6 Gershenson,D.E.: VIII 81 Gers~~y.~ . : II 211 Gesner, Johannes l~atthaeus :

I 527;II 211 Geymon.at, L. : VIII 90 , ]_)6 al-Gha z?~i : VI l62;VIII 130 Gherardi,A.: IX 249 GberarQini,Niccolo: VIII 132 ;

IX 246 Gbini, Lnca : V 503;IX 250 Giacobbe, G. C.: IIT 104 ; V 527;

IX 260 Giacomell .i,R.: VIII 107,129,

132 Giacomini,Lorenzo: IX 247 Gibson,S.: III 104;V 521, 525 ;

VI 183;IX 253,? 60 Gilbert, N.W . : IV 212; V 517,

520, 523;VI 170 , 180, 183,189 ; VII 360;VIII 80 , 8 3-4 , 92,98, 106,ll2,l30, 1 38;XI 465- 6, 468;XH 17 3

Gi1bert,William: VIII 95; XII 174

Gilmore,M.P.: II 226 Gilson,E.: I 523;V 521,529;

VI 167 ,183 ,18:0-·6 ,188 Giorgi,Alessandro: XII 168 Giorgi,Francesco : I 511,513-4,

520,528;II 221-2;IV 207; v 500

Giovan.~i a'Arezzo: VIII 92 Giril1,T . R.: IX 261 Glanvi1le,J .J.: VIII 92 Glasgo>:,Univers)ty of: V 511 Glucker,J . : V 518 Goclenius,Rudolph: VIII 98 Gonzaga,Agostino: IX 247 Goodfield, J .: VIII lJ.B Gorraeus,Joa~~es~ VIII 87 Gottschalk,H. B.: VI 181;

XII 174 Goujet,C.-P.: III l03 ;V :C•22,

529;VI 188 Grabmarm,M .. : VI 167 Grant,E.: VI 185; VIII 102 , 104,

l07;XH 162 Gravero3. ,J 4: II /.2'( Greenberg,]}. A. : 1'111 81 Greenwood,J _G.: VI.l 361 Gregory XIli,Popc : X 158;

XI 463 Gregory,~avjd: II 236;VI 183

~~~;i-~~~"~5m8.-.......... ~ ........ -. .. ~----~~-·,-~·-~·~·=· .. -.•r~~===-~==--~-~"~¢~,=:·=··~---~@:--;·'i-~'·~~··· ~- -~-r-·=·~-~-~--~"~"*~-~-~17RGZJ7~-~-•-~- ~--2JE&7b:tzrzrit:~- •-·~'~-~-~~- m-~-~-~-~,~-~~~~~ .. ~.---~~ ... --•• mmarm·;~•-~~~-~~·-~3ks~:s: IL771 ~

- 6-

Gregory,J.C.: II 234,236 Gregory,T .: II 232;III 104;

IV 204,212;VI 180;VIII 136 Gri£fiths,J.: V 520;VI 183 Grima1di,V . : VIII 113 Grimani,Domenico: I 515;II 221 Grmek,M.D.: VIII 121 Grosseteste,Robert: VIII 126 Grotius,Hugo: II 225 Grouchy,Nico1as: V 518 Gua1do,Pao1o: IX 266 Guericke,Otto von: VII 365;

VIII 101 . Guer1ac,H.: II 232;VI 191 Guia1,Joan: IX 249 Guido Uba1do del Nonte : V 493 ;

VIII 131;XII 162-3,166-9 G~ndersheimer,W.L.: III 102;

v 521 Guthrie,W.K.C . : I 511 Guzman,Gabriel de: XII 175 Gysj,Lydia: II 230

Hal1,A.R.: VI 191;VIII 90 Ba1ler,J.: V 520 Hanke,L.: V 521 Hanschmann,A.B.: VIII 81 Harrison,C.T.: II 232 Harrison,J.: II 230 Hartfe1der,K.: III 102;V 530 Harvey,Wi11iam: V 487,502 ;

VI 172-3,175,177,179,188; XII 167

Haskins,C.H.: XII 174 Hauwenreuter,Johannes: V 530 Heckscher,W.: V 527 Beereboord,Adriaan: VIII 93 Heiberg,J.L.: V 527 Heide1berg,University of :

V5l3 Heimann,P.I1.: IV 212 Heitmann,K.: II 216 Hen1e,R.J.: II 216 Hennebart,F.: III 102 Henry,J.C,: IV 213 Henry of Ghent: II 220 Hepburn,A1exander: IX 257 Herbert of Cherbury,Edward:

I 530; II 221 Hermelink,H.: V 530 Hermes Trismegistus, Hermeticism:

I 507-l0, 5l2-3,52l,524;I I 212 , 217 ,218-20,22 3,226,231-2; III 99;IV 200-14;VI 193; I X 26l;XI 471

Hero of Alexandria: VI 181: VII 354,361-2, 364-S;XII 163, 165-6,168- 9,174

Hervet,Gentian: V 511 Heeiod: IX 254 Hesse,M.: IV 201 ,211;IX 261 Heurnius,Otto: II 225 Heytesbury,Wi11iam : V 520;

XII 173 Hinz, J, : V 529 Hippocrates: IX 253 Hirth ,W.: V 518

Hobbes,Wi11 i am: VI 164 Hoe£er,J.C.F. : II 228 Hof£ding,ll.: VI 184 Hoffman,E.: I 506 Horner: VI l83;IX 254 Hoskin,!'!.: VIII 107 Howe1l,W.S.: V 523-5;VI 182-3 Huet,Pierre Daniel: I 530;

II 221 Humphreys,K.W.: VIII 87 Hutcbinson,John: II 233 Hutin,S .: II 227 Hutton,S. : IV 213 Hux1ey,A.: I 505-6 Huygens,Christiaan: XII 174

Iamb1ichus. See Jamb1ichus Ibn al-Haytharn: VIII 88 Iossius,Nicander: VIII 120 d'Irsay,S.: V 515, 519,530;

IX 249 !socrates: IX 254

Jaeger,H.E.H.: V 523 Jamb1ichus: I 507-10,519-20,

522,524; II 211,217,228; III 94

James,T.E .: V 516 Jammer,N.: II 234;VIII 101 Jardine,L. : IV 2l3;V 515 Javellus ,Chrysostomus: V 524;

XII 170 Jayne,S.: II 225;V 530 Jedin , H.: I 514 Jena,University of: V 486- 7,

492 , 511 Joachim of Flora: V 513 John of St. Thomas: V 509 Johnson,F.R.: VIII 89 Jones,R.F.: VIII 89 Jones,w.: II 233 Jones,W.H.: II 236 Joston,C.H.: II 227 Justin Martyr: I 52 2;II 213,231 Juvena1: I X 254

Kaltenbrunner,F, : X 58 Kargon,H.R . : II 232 Kaufman,G. : V 515 Kearney,H.: V 498, 523-5;VI 182-

3 , 192 Keckermar~~,Bartholomaeus :

V 492,500;VIII 97-8 Kehr,P.F.: X 55 Kei11,John: VI 183 Kel1er ,A .G.: V 526;XII 17~-5 Kelley, D, R.: VI 180; VIII 80 Ke1so ,R. : V 530 Kep1er ,,Johann: V 487,530;

IX 26l;XI I 170,174 van Kesse1,P.J .: IX 249 Kibre,P. : I 5l2 ;II 2l9;IX 2"0;

XII 174 Kieszkowski , B. : I 508-10 ;11 217 Ki:rcher, Athana sius: VI 186 Klibansky , R.: I 512, 514,523 ;

II 215

~~ ~ ~ r \ Koch,J.: V 515

Koyr~,A.: II 234- 5;IV 205; VI l75,l9l,l93;VIII 83,90, l07- 8,1l2,ll7,120,l22-3,l29, l36;IX 261,266;X 6l;XII 172, 175

Krabbel,G.: I 529 Kremer , K. : II 216 Kristeller,P.O.: I 506-8 ,5l0-

3,520-1,532;II 216-7,219, 224;III l02,l04;IV 200,208, 2l2;V 515,517- 8,520-2,527; VI 176,180,182,185,187; VIII 80;IX 250,2 59 , 26 3,266; X 56,59;XI 463,465,470, 472; XII 175

Krus~,c.: I 505 Kubrin,D.: II 235 Kuhn,T.,S.: VIII 104 Kurrus,T.: V 530

Lacombe,G.: V 5l8;VIII 91 Lactantius: I 509:II 213 ,2l7,

231 ' Lambin,Denys: III 97 Lasswitz,K: II 232 Last,H.: VII 359 Lauchert,F.: I 5l6;I1 214 Laud,Wi11iam: V 520;VI 163,183 Lee,H .D. P.: VIII 113 Lee~ans,E.A.: II 222 Le:fevre d'Etap1es, Jacques:

I 5l3;V 518; VI 169 Le£f,G.: V 515 Lefranc,A.: V 529; VI 188 Lehmberg,S.E. : II 22n Leibniz,Gottfried Wi1he1m:

I 506-7,525,530-2;II 211 ;

-7-

IV 208 ;VI 166,173 Leiden,University of : Y 486 , 492 Leipzig,University of : I I I 95,

102 Leite, S. : V 520 Lemay,Ro: V 515 Lemmi,C.W. : II 225 Leonardo da Vinci: XII 168 Leonico Tomeo,Niccol6: III 99~

V 527;VI 169 LeRoy,Louis: V 521 Lesky,Eo: VI 189 Leucippus: II 233 Levi,A.: V 521 ,529 Levinus: VI 188 Le\va1ter,E.: V 51'?,521 ,530 Lewis,C.T.: VIII 115 Libri,Giuli o : IX 265- 6 Liceto,For tun .io : V 500;VI 17 7 Lirnbri~k,E. : III 102 Linacre,Thomas: V 5ll ; VI 188 Linus: I I ?2 6 Lipenius,Hartinus: IV 2:C3 Lips ius , Justus : I V 205 Lobeck ,C.A.: I 510 Locke, John: II 2l2;V 512;

VI 183:VIII 80- l Lohr,c.H:: V 5l5,523;VI 180,

186

..

Lombarao Radice,G.: IX 249 Lonergan ,C. : II 211 Lonicer ,Joannes: IV 213 Lorra:ine, Gardinal of': III 97 Louis Xli(o£ France): III 96 Lucchetta,F.: IY 212 Lucretius: I 50?;11 217 ,233;

VII 359-60,365;Vlli 137 Luther, Martin: I 516;II 214;

v 500,510,519

Naccagni , G. : V 516;VIII 106 , 108;IX 254,26l;XII 169 , 175

Macera ta~ University o:f :. IX 251 NcColl( ?J,James and Jo~~ =

IX 249 McConica,J.K.: ¥ 523- 4 , 530 McCue,J. F .: VIII 113 McGuire~J.E.: II 211,225 , 233,

235;IV 200- JA-;V 515 ;VI 180, 19l;VIII 136;XII 174

Macham.er,P.: V 515 McLachlan, B.: II 2 35 Mcl~aurLu~Colin: I I 2".)6 Haclean, LW.F.: V 5J.5;VI 180 NcMu1lin,E.: VIII 106,125 McTighe,T . P. : VIE 1~6,125;

IX 261 NcVaugh,M.: V 516;IX 269 Madan,F.: V 524,526 Maech1.ing , E.E.: IV 21:5 Hagirus ,Johannes: V 492 ;VI 191,

193 Nahoney,E.I'. : I 53-hV 527- 8;

VI 188, 190-l;VIII BO:XII 173 Maier,A.: V 516;VI ct67, 185 ;

VIII 88 , 104;XII 161 Naignan,Emmanuel: V 517,528;

VI 160-1,189 Naine tti,l'Iainetto : VIII 84 Maioragio, JVi.a:rcantcn:i.?~ o: I 528 Mal1ett,C . E.: V 523 1•\anacorda,G.: IX 2,;9 Mancini,Domenico: lX 25,i Manuel,F.E~: II 235 Harce1,R.: I 508;JI 216 l'Iarcucci, E. : IX 2 ~-7 ~largo1in,J .C.: I ll l03; V 520 Narinus: I 509 Naritain.J. : I 505 Ma rkowski 1 !'-1 .. : V ~)16 l'!arongiu, A. : IX 24-9- 50 Marti,B. M.: JX 249 JVIarti.nez. Pedro: VI l89 Na.rtini~F.::: XII 1?5 l•lartinoli , G. : IX 2~· ~ Marx,K • .F .. H .,: VI 183 Hasai,F.: I 5l0;.U 216 Massa,Eo: V 521 Nates,B.: VI 191 Hatsen,H.S.: Vl 1.8 8 JVIaurolico.Franct-sco= :XI l 168 Maylender)i.: n: 2 46 Hayo,T.: li 2;.2 Nazsacurati.G.: III lOli Mazzoni,JacOpo; I :=t2B,5:;o;

II 22l - 2;III 100- l;IV 210;

' ~ - ~ -- -~~~~~~~~~~· ~- --· :~ ·-· t§,'g~i(fr-5• - ~ .. ?'' _., _.,.;,, ···~i

VI l82 ;IX 264- 5 ;XI 470 ; XII 171

Mazzuchell i ,G.I"l.: IX 254 , 263, 266- 7.;XI 462

l"!edici , Cos i mo I de' : IX 243 , 248 , 250-l, 255,259 , 272 ; X 59

l"!edici , Ferdinando I de ': IX 243,2 48 , 272

Medici , Frances c o I de ': III l OO ;IX 250,259-60,264 ; X 56,60

M£ifort,J. : II 214 !~elanchthon,l'hilipp : III 95,

l02;V 491,5l0,530;VIi 359-60

Melisius: I I 226 Memmo , l'.E .: VIII 115 ~1ercuriale , Girolamo : IX 253 !'.erk , K.: I I 213

- 8-

l~ermann,Thomas : IX 249 Merrill,R. V.: III 102 Merry,D . H. : V 523 J~erse1me,Marin : VI l66;XII 171,

174 Metzger , H. : II 227 Michaud,L .-G .: I 529 ;II 228 Michel,P . M. : IV 201 Middleton, W.E. K. : VII 352 Miklich.D. R. : VIII 118-9 Miles,L:: I I 225 Milbaud,G.: VI 186 Milton,John : V 487 Minieri Riccto,C . : I 526,529 Minio Paluello , L. : V 518;

VI 187 Mitterelli,J .: IX 257;X 55,

58- 60,62 M6nch,W. : III 102 Moleto,Giuseppe: V 507 Molland,E .: II 214 Molland , A. G.: V 516 Monantheuil,Henri de : V 493 Monnerj ahn,E . : II 219 l•1ontaigne ,Michel de: III 98;

IV 205;IX 247,267;XI 462- 4 ; XII J 67

l~or.te,Giambattista da : V 50"l1onte,del. See Guido Ubaldo Mo1e,i..ecatini,Antonio: III 100-l ~1on tgomery , J . W. : I 516 Iol[ontpellier,University of :

v 488,503- 4,510 I~ oody , E .A. : V 523;VI 184- 5;

VI I j 52;VIII 102,105,107, J 3l - 2 ;IX 244 , 266- S; X 61 ; XI 465 ; XII 172

More, Henry : II 22~· , 227,234 More , Thomas : II 226 ;V 489 , 5ll-

3 ;VI 163 Moreri . Louis: II 228 I•lorhoi' ;Daniel Georg: I 517,

':·26 , 529- 30 ~lor ini. U. : V 522 Moses : 'I 508, 521,526 ; II 217- 8,

222- 3 ,226- 7, 233 ;IV 21 3 l'1 o :3hejm ~J . L . von: I 530;

II 230- l

Miiller,K.: VI 186 Muir~ead,J.H.: I I 230 Mulvaney.R. : I 532 Munoz Alonso,A . : v 528 Munoz Delgado, v _ : v 528 ;

VI 176 . 185 Murdoch,J.E.: VI 185- 6 Musaeus: II 226 Musscbenbroek,Petrus van :

VIII 115

Namer,E . : VIII 106 N'aples, University of : VI 192 di Napoli,G.: II 219,221;

VI l8l;VIII 92 Nardi,E. : V 516 , 527 ; VI 176,

l8l , l89,19l ; XII 164 Nauert,C . G.: III 103 ;VIII 86 Nedoncelle,M.: I 523,531 Negri,G .: IX 247 ,266 ; X 55 Newton,Isaac : II 214 , 228 , 234-

6;IV 204 - 6,208;V 487;VI 175, l77,l79,183,l9l;VIII 80- 1, 106;IX 261;XII 167,170- 1 , 174

Niavis,Paulus. See Schneevoge1 Niccolai,G .: IX 246 Nicholas o£ Cusa: I 514- 5,518,

520,525, 528- 3l;II 211 Nicholas V,P ope : VI 169 ,174 liichols , J.: II 228 Nicorremo , L,: I 529 l'licolaus o£ Autrecour t: VI 16 2;

VII 354 Nicolson,M.H . : II 227 Nifo,Agostino : V 499 , 508,524;

VI l69- 70,188;VII I 91,94; X 59 :XII 164

Nisbet;R .: VIII 115 Nitzsch,F.: V 519 , 529 Nizolio,Mario: I 53l ;VIII 11 5 Nobili,Flaminio : IX 265 Nobi~,H . M .: V 518;VI 190 Nock,A.D. : IV 210 Noland.A.: VIII 104 Nozzol!.no,Giuseppe : IX 257- 8,

260;Y. 54,56 Numenius: I 508 ;II 222

Ockham,>iilliarn of : VI 160 O'Donnell,,T .R. : VII 354 Oliva,C . : VI 188 Olschki,L.: VIII 89,129,133 ;

IX 246,267;X 58 ; XI 465 O' Malley,C.D.: V 526;VIII 89;

IX 2 ~-9 O'Malley, J . W. : V 521 Ong;w, J , : III l 03 ; V 523, 529 Ongaro,G.: VI 192 Ores!I!e,lHcole : V 488;VIII 101 ;

xn J61 Orleans, University of: III 96 Ps .-Crpheus : I 507- 8 , 510 , 512- 3;

II 212- 3,217 ,220,223, 226 , 229, 23l;III 99 ;IV 200,206- 7, 213

Osborne, E.~ .: II 214

r

.. 'i .

-9-

Ottonaio, Fr encesco delJ ': I X 255,257,261,263;X 54,56

Ox£ord, University of: II I 101; v 485 , 487-8,49~-502,511,513; VI 160 , 163,18l ; IX 245,260; XII 173

Oxf ord,Jesus College : V 499 Oxford , ~1erton CoJ lege: V 48E,

515,529 ;VI 181 Oxford,Oriel College: V 520 Oxford.St . John's College:

v 499 Oxi'ord ,Wadb8lll College : I' 49?

Pac e ,Giulio (Pacius) : V 491, 499,524;VI 169- ?0;VII 359-60;VIII 92;IX 268

Pacioli,Luca : IX 255 Padua , Universi.ty of : III 94,

') '-l 10l;V 486- 8,492-3,,95·-6 , 502-7 , 5l9;VI 160,1C8-9 , 188 : VIII 80- l3B;IX ~43,2!5,248-9 , 254 ,268 : X 53- 4 ;X!I 1~4 _

Paganini , P .: IXc249~~~~~~ , 2 6' Pagel ,W .: II 22,;V ~L~ 0 J 29;

VI l89,l9l-2;IX 265 Pa1is ca ,C . V. : VIII 135 ·Pansa ,Muzio : I 529;II ?2 1 , 231 Pappus : VIII 131 Papuli , G.: VI 181,186 Paquier , J, : III 103 Paracelsus: XII .1.67 Pardi ,G .: Illl04 -T7 r: ~ Pai·is. Unlverslty of : _t.l.J.. ::;6M-o,

101:2 ; V 486-8,495,502 ,510, 512 ,516 ; \TI 169,181;!~ 245, 252;XI 463 ;X1I 173

Parthey,G.: I 519 Pertington,J.R. : 11 2?6:232 Pascal,Blaise: IV 208;1'1 179 ;

VIII 106 Pa ssmore,J.A . : II 230 Past.or,L .: X 59 Patetta , F . : X 56 Pa.tri z i ~ :F::·anc esc a: da C1 tsrso :

I 5lliiii 100- J ,l04;1V 201, _ 208 , 210, 213;V 490 , 52"/ ;VI l6); VII 55?-~ . 356- 8 , 360~5; VJil 92;~ir~63; Xl ~66 ; XI1 170

Patry,h .: l~·~l , Paul Ili , Pope : I 5l6 : T! 221- 5:

X 59 Paul of PerguJa: V 520 Paulo~~ Veni ce : V 493- -~ ,520;

VI l60 ,172;VII: 91 Pavia, Uni·tersi ty of: lii 99 ~

102; lX 2M3 Pelligrini,F~ : V ~ 26 Penda~i o,Federigc : V ~08 ;

XII 170 Pereira :Benjto : J 52S-6 ?ergP~c.inc ,_ G-in.co;uo : "fr .. -JI 13 4 Pericn , Joac~im : ~ ~lE Persio . JJ1tonio : \.TII 3(A ;

vin' 1o4 Perugi a., Univers.:!.. T .. y c.l : XI 463 Petau, J)eYcy s: I 52 5-6

Peter o:f .A bano: VIII 83, 87 Pe ter o:f Mantua: V 516 Peter of Spain: V 493- 4;

VIII 87 ?etersen,P. : V 519-21,523,

530 ;VI 167 ,182 ; VIII 82,98; IX 265

Petr arca,Francesco: III 94; v 489;1H 163,168-9

Petrella,Bernardino: V 499; VIII 84,128

Pettas,W.: V 522 Feur bach,Georg : V 505;IX ~57 ,

259- 60;X 54,-60 Pi'anner, Tobias : I 530 ; II 211 PherycyQeS : II 226 }'hi lo:ponus , Joannes: III 93 ;

V 508;VI 160, 173; VII 353; VIII 10l- 2 ,130 ;X 6l;XII 164-5

Piccolooini ,Al essandro : V 506;IX 260 ;XII 168

Piccc·l omini , France s co : V 524; VIII 84 ,128

Pi co della Mirandola, G-ianfrancesc o: V 489;VI 169, 17~ ; VII 352 , 360 ;VIII 92; XI 466;XII 164

Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni : I 507 ,511- 5,518 , 520 . 522 ,524- 5, 528-9, 531; II ~ 11.215- 6 , 219- 24,229- 31; IV 207;XI 265 ; X 59

Pic otti,&.B .: V 522;IX 245, 248

Pi fferi,Francesco: IX 25'7; X 54 , 57

p: ga£etta, Filippo : XII 172, 175 Pike,Sam-ael : II 233 Pindar : IX 25 4 }'j ne .~1 . : V 522 Pines,S . : VII 354,~ E 5;XII 1 73 Pisa,1Jniversity of: III 98- lOO,

102 ; V 485,~87 , 493,495 , 507, 519;VI 163,170 ; VI II 90-1, 107 , ll8,127 ,132,l37;IX 243-72 ; X 53-62 ;XI 462- 76;XI I 1'72

Planer, Andreas : V 510 l' lautus : VIII 115 P:!.etho,Georgius Gemi stus:

I 509-10 , 520 , 529; II 216; Ill 9lf

Pliny t he Elder : VI 174 ; VIII 97

I'lotinus : I 507,519- 20 , :'22- 3 ; II 217 ,219 ; II I 94;VI 174

Plucbe,No8l .Anto i ne : II 233 ~-- luJ:rLi1ler . C: . : V 525 Plutarc1i: I 509 ,51 5, 520-1 Pole,Reginald: II I 103;V 511 !'oliteJ.1a , J .: VI 186 ?C'lizi e.no,P.nge lo : V 5lf3;VI 188 Pomponaz zi, P1e tro: IV 205 ; ·

V 517 ; VI 170- l ; XII 164 Pop!--:iJ'l~ R,H . : VI l85; Vlii 136 Poppi, A.: V 520,523; Vl 180- l,

l 86 ,1!39

Porphyry: I I 217 ;V 493;IX 252 Porta,Giambattis ta : XII 168- 9 Porter,H.C.: V 530 Porzio,Simone: IX 250 , 253 ,264 Possevino,Antonio: I 527 Poste1,Gui11aume: I 528;

II 221-2; V 500 Powe1, GTiffin: V 499 Powicke,F.M.: V 515 ;IX 248 Prant1,C.: VI 189 Procissi,A.: VIII 130 Proc1us: I 507, 509-10, 520 , 524;

II 217 , 219 ;III 9A ;V 495 Prost ,A.: II I 103 . Prunai,G.: XI 463 Psel1us, Michae1: I 507,509- 10,

520 ,527 . Ptolemy: V 50 5- 6 ;VIII 126;

IX 257-8,26l;X 54,57,59 Purnel1, F .: III l04;IV 213- 4;

VI 182; IX 265 Pusino ,I.: I 509 Pye,Samue1 : II 233 Pythagoras ,Pythagorecnism :

I 508, 510 ,513; II 212 , 217 , 219 ,226-7,229; IV 206-7,213

Quarant otto ,C1emente : IX 251, 265-6

Radhakrishnan,S. : I 506 Raffar,Vincent: V 521 Ragni sco,P.: VI 167 ,176 ;

VIII 128 Ra1 egh ,Wa1ter : II 226 Ramus ,Peter : III 96- 8;V 489 ,

496 ,502, 510- 1, 513 , 518 , 521 ; VI 164,169 ,174-S;VIl 352

Randa11,J.H.: I 505 ;7 522; VI 171, 176 ,180- 1,186,189; VIII 80- 138

Rasarius, Joanne s BaJ)tistn: XII 173

Rashda11 , H. : V 515;1X 248- 9, 252

Rasis: IX 25 3 Rattansi,P.M.: I I 225- 6,233,

235;IV 201, 204- 5;V1II 136 Ravetz , J . R, : VIII 80,133 Recht,E. : VIII 121 Rees,B.R.: VI 181 Reif,P .: V 520 ; VI 131 Remond . N. : I 506, 532 Renan , t .: V 522; VI 167 Renaudet,A. : III 103 ; V 529 Reuchlin,Johann: I 511 Reusch ,H,: I 525 Ricci , Michelange1c•: IX 262 Ricci,Osti1i6 : I X 246 ; X 58 Riccoboni,Antonio : V 507 Rice,E . F.: V 518; VI 187-8 Rigg,J~ .: II 226 Ri1ey, L. W.: V 517 ; VI 167 Rinte1n,F.: VI 186 Risse .W.: V 520,523;VI 176 ,

183iVIII 82 ,92; XI 265 Ristori , Giuliano: IX 2?5-9 ;

~~~- ·-..... ~ .o:--"''· ·~"' ··1: ... ~.~' ~~~·' :zs--a;~····

-10-

X 5A., 59 Ro berte11i , J<'rancesc c: IX 2 50-

l;XII 171 Rocco,Antonio: VIII 138 Rochot,B.: VI 182 Rohault,.T. : VI 183 Rome,Universi~y of: I~I 99-

102·VI 204 ·V 495 50~ : VT 163 · IX ~52;XI ~63, ' - · - ,

Rose,P.L. : V 518,520,52~,527; VI 173 ,187 , 190 ;IX 262

Rosen,Edwa.rd : IV 209:Y ~·25 ; VIII 80; IX 261- 2;XTI ::.72

Rosenfie1d, L. : V 529 Ro sentha1,F. : VII 354 Rosner,E.: VI 184 Ross,W . D.: VI 181 Rossi,G,: XI 470 Rossi, P.: II 226;I~ 200 Roth,C.: X 56 Roth,}L: VIII 89 Rotta , P.: I 505 Rovezzani,Giuse?pe: 1X 2 54 Rue11o , F.: V 530 Rupprich, H.: III 1C•2 Ruse hi, GiovaiLl}i 1X. 255

Sabbatani , L.: V 526 Sabra,A.I.: VIII 68 Saccardo, P . A. : V 526 Sacrobosco,John: V 5C5- 6;

IX 257-8 , 260;X :•4 , 57,62 Saffret,H. n.: I 5i0 Sagi ttarius,Tbomas: VII I 98 Sailor,D. B.: I 526;II ?25,:27 ,

232- 3 St . Andrew 1 S lJn i ve:rsity : \l 511;

VI 192 Sai tta,G,: I 507 , 515;IJ 216,221 Salamanca, Uni.v ersity of: 11 486 ,

·1-92 , 50'1 Sallust: IX 254 Salter. H.E .: V 525 Sandys;J. E. : II 228 Santillana.G. dB : VII} 136 San tori, SaY1t nric: VIJ1 J.2J Sarton,G. : ZII 172 Sassen ,F. : VI 163,183 Sassetti~Fllipp~: I X 2~7)266 Saulnier . Y.~. : V 529 Scvi le,. Henry: v 50l;VI 183 :::2vino , Antcnio : X 60 Savonarola.Girola~o : !I 212,

219 ,230; ~ ~13;X 59 Savorgna.rj , Gjul io~ XII .1 ·7.5 Sc a1ichus,Pa~lus : I 5~~ ; II ·221-

2 Scal iger,Jul j_us C~esa- : I 522 ;

III 97, VII ;;52

~~:~~~~f~;-~s -~u2oi·~,~~P~ r~·'? ~ :~ 28 V 51 3; VI J6J,l85;VI: )t·3

Schegk ,Jakob: V 510 ; \'1 l 91 Sche iner, Chrlstopher: 1 136 Sche1hor n,j.G.: I 526, ~ Q- 9 Schiaffino , E.: IX 249: ~1-? Schmidt, C.: V 530

lt· Schmidt,W.: VI 181;VII 354, ~~ 365;XII 174 · SchneeYoge1,Pau1 : III 95,102 l .. l 518 SchraiDID,M.: V Jl Schroder,K.: II 225 j; Schiiling,H.: VI 189 1\ Scotus,Joannes Duns; Scotism: • II 220 ;VI 160 ;VIII 103 1 Scotus Eriugena,Joannes: ~ II 215;III 94

Sebba,G.: VI 184 Segre,A.: v 522 Serena ,A.: III 103; V 527 Seripando,Girolamo: I 514 Serranus, J oannes: IV 210 Seton,Jo~~ : V 499 Sett1e ,T.E.: VIII 97 ,106-7,

118-9 ;IX 246,267;X 58 ,61; XI 465 ;XII 172

Sextus Empiricus: I II 93 ; IV 202 ;V 501;VIII 86

Shap iro,S. : VII 364 Shea,W . R. : VI 19l;VI I I 80,138;

I X 243 ,262 , 269 Short,C .: VIII 115

-11-

Sibyll i ne Oracles: II 231 Sidney,Phi1ip : I 531 Siena,University of : IX 249 ;

XI 463 Sigwart ,C.: V 529 Silva-Torouc a,C .: XI 472 Si1verstein,T.: II 216 ;IV 211 Silvestro da Va1sanzib io:

II 23:3 Sirneoni,L.: IX 251 Simon ,Richard: I 526-7 Simp1ic ius: I 519;III 93;V 508;

VI 160,173;VII 353 ;VIII 101 ; X 61 ;XII 164

Sixtus IV,Pope : X 59 Sixtus of Siena: V 500 Smith, J.W .A.: II 228 Socrates : II 217;III 98;XI 469,

474 So1ana,M.: VI 192 Soldanj., .Tacopo : VI 184 Sommaia,Girolamo da : IX 247- 8,

26 6 Sommervogel,C. : I 525 ;V 519 ;

VI 11;8 Sophocles : VI 183 ; IX 254 So to ,~oming o : V 499, 509 ;

VII 357 , 359 , 362, 365;VIII 91- 2 Soudek.J. : V 518 ,520;VI 188 Souther·n,R.W . : VIII 12 6 Spamp&nato,V. : VII 356 Speroni,Sperone : VI 188;

VIII 189 Spinoza,Eenedictus : VI 205 Spitz,L.W.:I5ll . Sprat. ThDI!las : II 236 Stabile ,G.: XI 462 Stanl ey~Thomas : II 226 Stannard,J. : V 526 Statius,Acbilles : XII 169 s teenberghen,F .van: I 523;

V 515 ;VI 167

E

Stegmiill.er,F.: V 519;VI 188 Steinschneider,M.: XI I 173 Stelling-Michaud,S.: V 515 Stelliola, Niccolo Ant onio:

XII 168 Stephen,L. : II 233 Steuco,Agcstino: I 505- 32;

II 214 ,221- 7,229- 32 , 234 ; IV 2m'

Stevenson,W. H.: V 52 5 Stevin,Simon: XII 167 Sti11ingrleet,Edwa.rd: I 530;

II 227,235 Stoicism: I 516 ;IV 205 ,212 ;

V 490,5l7 ;VI 171,174 Stone ,L.: V 517 Strato of Lampsacus: VI 16 2 ;

XII 165 Straus,W. L. : VIII 89 Strong,E.W.: VI I I 106 ,125;

IX 261 Sturm.Johannes: III 101 ,104 ;

v 5)0 Suar ez,Francisco : I 526 ;V 492 ,

511 Suetonius: IX 254 Swinesl1ead, Richard: XII 173 Swogger,J .H.: IV 213 Sy11a,E.TI.: V 516 Syrianus : I 519

Taccola,Il : XII 168 Tacitus: IX 254 Ta isner,Jean : XII 169 Talbot ,C .H.: VI 187 Ta1on, Omer: III 96 ,98;V 502,

511, 521 Tannery ,P .: VI 184,186 Targion.i- Tozzetti,G.: IX 254,

257,26l,266;X 55 Tar t ag1.ia, Nic c o1o : VIII 101 ;

XII 162- 3 ,167-9, 174· Taton ,R.: VII I 107 Te1esio., :Bernardino: IV 204 ; .

V 489- 90,518 ; VI 164,174- 5 , 191; \~I 352- 3 , 355-8, 360 , 363-5;VIII 92 ,104 ; IX 248;XII 170

Terr.kin,O.: VIII 89 Terence : VI 183 Tertull ian: I 525 ;II 212 Teza,E.: IX 247 Tha1es: IJ 226 Them i stius: V 508 ;VIII 130 ;

I X 269:X 61 The ophrast us : III 93;VI 16 2 ,

168,173- 4 ,181;XI 474;XII 174 Thomas Aquinas , Tbomism: I 505-

6,522 , 526,532;II 21 5, 217, 220; III 94 ;V 494 ,52 ~ ;VI 160 ; VI II 91,100 ,1 30

Thor ndike,IJ.: V 518;VI 181; YIII 81,86- 7 ; IX 257;XIJ 172, 174

Thuro t,C . Thwing,L . Tigers ted

VI 173

v 515 VII 360

, E.N . : IV 21 3 ; V ~18 ;

. - N ~·.

- 12-

Timpler,Clemens: V 500 Tiraboschi,G.: III 103;VI ~66 Tole t us , Franciscus: V 524;

VII 355,357,359,362,365; VIII 92

Tomitano,Bernardino: V 499; VIII 92

Tommasi,Car1o : III lOO;Vl 182; IX 263

Toppi,N.: I 526,529 Tore11i,Le1io: IX 251 Torrice11i,Evange1ista:

VII 365;VIII 101 Torrini, M. : IX 250 Toulmin, S. : VIII 118 Trapezuntius,Georgius: V 493-

4,513,518 Traversari ,Ambrogio : III 93 Trengrove,L .: II 235 Trincavellus,Victor: XII 173 Tubingen,University ol : V 486-

7,492- 3 ,510-1,513;IX 245 Tu1loch,J.: II 227,230 Turin, University of: III 99 ;

X 56 Turnebe,Adrien: III S6- 7;

VII 361- 2,365

Ueberweg,F.: I 519 ; Vl 184 Underwood,E.A .: V 527 Uppsala , University of : V 4EG- 7,

493 ; Vl 192

Vailati,G .: VIII 108 Va1darini,A.: VIII 81 Val1a,Giorgio: XII 165,169 Valla,Lorenzo: I 516;V 489,513;

VI 163 Valori,Baccio : IX 264 Van der Meer,AbrahaJJC: I 5"2.7 Vans teenberghe,E .: I 514 Varcbi,Benedetto: V 503,506 Vaso1i,C .: I 514;IV 200,214;

V 516 , 523;VI J.76, l31,186,le9; VIII 102;IX 465;XII 172

Vatable,Fra~~ois: V 518 Vatier,Antoine: VI 185 Venturini,Antonio: IX 255 Verdi,A.: V 522;X 53 Verger,J. : V 517 Vernia,Nicoleto: XII 1'?0 Versoris, JoaJl.nis: V 516 Vesalius , Andreas: IV 21.l;V 4'10 ,

504 ;VI 171,188-9;V1II 89; IX 248;XII 167

Vespucci,Amerigo: X ~60 Vettcri,Pier : X 56 Vieri I Francesco ce t (Verino)'

I 528,530; II 221-2;III ~9-lOO;VI 182 ;IX 263- 6,2?0; XI 46 4 ,4?0

Vil l ey,P.: IX 267 ;XI 464 Vill iers,C.de: IX "2.~7 Vil los1ada,R.G.: III 103;

V 528-9;1X 249. Vimercato,Francesco: V 508;

VI l69;VII 360

Vincentini , F. : V 5~ 2 Vinci,F .: IX 246 Vio,Tommaso de : V ~ -99 Viotti,Bartolommeo: V 496 Virgil: VI 183 ;IX 254 Vital Chatellain,JoC.: I ~25-·

6 Vite11i , H.: VI I 353 Vitoria,Francisco de: V '508- 9 Viulard,Pau1 : IX 249 Vives,Juan Luis : V 511 \Tiviani,U~: V 523;IX 263)200;

XI 462- 4 Viviani,Vincenzo: VII I 128,

132;IX 246,262 Vogel ,Cornelia de: I ~23 Vossius,Ger.ardus Jo8rmes : l 52'7

Wadsworth,J.B .: I 513 Walker , D.P .: I 510-1,513-5;

II 211,217,224,228;III 102; IV 200,20'J,208;VI 1c(·; IX 2;,:•

VJallace , WoA. : V 528; VI l8G : 136 ~ 189 ;VIII bl ,l37 : IX ?66-7: X 61 ; XI 4G7;XII 173

Wa1ton.C . : IV 213 Waterland,Daniel: YI J.tl3 Watson,A.G.: V 525 Weber,H .: III 103 Web er,H.E.: V 529 Webster,C.: II 2ll; V 515;

VI l80 ,189;VIII 80 \1/echel,Andre: VIII 87 Weinberg.B.: V 518;VI 1'73,lE~ Weinberg,J~: X 57 \1/eisheivl.J.A. : V 515-6.525 \1/eiss , R: : ·n 22 6 · We11maJ1Jl,E.: I 510 \1/erner .K.: y·r 167 \~estmEn,R . S.: IV ?00- J -1 ",Oh' t W. 1 " . ~ - r 2 ~- - r \ ~~ ~~-3 l .L.J..}~m : 1. 1 ,:_ !_ ~ t.:.:..>-o~

Wbi te : L.'l'~: YII ~l G~: VIli S'G White , ~homa::: : VI 1 2.6 \\'hi tmore, P. J, S . : ·,;I lol \•rh1tteridge,G-_ ~ V )26 Wiener,?.P.: VIII 8~,lOl \lli1kie , J.S : VI 1~9 WjJ.lmarzl::O~ : :r 51.::5, ~.,J.~>-E :

II 221 Wilson , C.: V 516 Wi~d,E.: I ~ll ;IX ~5:' ',hndelband..\1 . : VI JcH Wi.on, lL.; X. 55 Vi}. ttenberg, 1J1:; ive:rTi ·L } o~ :

v 486,511 Wohlwill,E.: XI 461 Hol.ff,Ct.J' i f:ti::n ; Y ::-J.l;-,·1_ ] ... t'3 ~

J 93;Ylii eo "~tJo J.fsc:n,lLA . ~ V 51 :-J ; 1/I Jc-l9;

VII 354 \>/oJ.1ey .. Tohn : \' 501 v.'<;od,An-::non:y: II 2:::<:< \oiurzbu:['g~un ~_ versity : .. . ~:: '.:~ ,.:,..::.6 ,

511 Wulf ,J:I~c.n.A.rice de : I ~ .. ot \!.!tu1dt,I-'i .: V ~·1 9: 53 C: ; \'I J.:..~=-;~}36

Wurms,F.: V 518 v/yc1if,John: VIII 88

Ximenes ,L.: X 55

Yates,F . A.: I 511,524 ; II 224-6,231;III l03;IV 201- 8 , 210 214; IV 259 '

Zabarel1a,Jacopo : V 496,499-500 , 508 , 511 , 520,524-5,530 VI 160 , 164,169- 71,178,181 VIIl 80- l38;IX 267 ; XII 16 171

..

- 13-

Zambell:i.,P.: III l03;IV 200, 214; TX 259

Zanchius,Bieronymus: V 500,524 Zanta,L.: V 517 Zervos,C,: I 509 Ziegelbauer,M..: IX 257;X 55 Zi1sel, E.: viii 90,127 Zimara,M!a:rcantonio: VIII 130 Zimmermann,A.: VI 187 Zock1er, O.: I 525;II 221,227,

233 Zoroaster ' I 508 , 510-l; II 212 ,

217-~0,223,226,231;IV 200 , 206-7,21.3

-14-

INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS

Abe r deen University Library

116: v ··530

Arez zo Bi blioteca del la citta

38 : XI 463

Edinburgh University Library

; .~ . 3 . 89 : v 520 ])eo 5 . 55: V 530 1Jk. 5 . 5 : IX 257 La. III . 72l : v 530

Florenc e Biblioteca Laurenziana

89.14 : IX 259 Ashb.673(604) : IX 261

Bibli oteca Nazionale VIII, l492 : XII 175 magl.VII I,49: V 523 magl.VIII , 75: IX 248 rnagl.XX, 6l : IX 259 Banco rari 223 : XII 175 Conv . soppr.A .9 . 482 : IX 258;

X 60 Conv . soppr . B.7 . 479 : IX 259;

X 59 Conv . soppr. B.l0 . 480 : IX 260;

X 60- l Conv. soppr .B. l0. ~8l: IX 258;

X 60 Conv . soppr . E . l . 483 : IX 258;

X 60 C.:mv . soppr.l<' . 9 . 4'78 : IX 259 ;

X 59 Gal iJeo 27 : V 523 ; VIII 130 Palat.l025 : III l04 ; I X 264 Rinuccini 27 : IX 261, 266

Biblioteca Ri ccar diana l ~7(M . III .i7) : IX 259 1221(6) : IX 259

Krak0·,.,~ Bibli oteka Jagie1lonska

568(DD.III.24 ): XII 17 5

Lond~n Britis h Library

Add . l0,266 : X 56

l"lilan Bi blj.oteca Ambrosiana

D.386 i nf .: III 103 Q. l 22 sup .: IX 266

New York Columbia Universi tY Library

2 2 : XII l7 4- 5 •

Oxford Bodleian Library

Rawl. D. 274 : V 520 , 524

Pa ris Bibliotheque Nationals

lat.7226A: XII 174

Pesaro Bib1ioteca 01iveriana

* 42 6 : XII 17 4 *630: XII 174 *631: XII 174 *758: XII 174

Pis a Archivio di Stato ,

Univ . G. 77 : III 104;IX 254- 5 , 257- 65 ; X 56- 7

Univ.159 : IX 255- 6 Univ . l64 - 75 : IX 265 Univ . l64 : X 56 Univ.l65 : X 56 Univ . l70: X 56 Uni v . 1 72-7 : X 56 Univ.l77 : IX 254 Univ . l78: IX 26 5 Univ.l8l: IX 256

Biblioteca Universitaria 231-4 ,332- 46 , 355 : v 522

Rome Biblioteca Ca sanatense

*459(A . I.20): IX 266 Bibl ioteca Lanc isiana

249 : XII 174 Bibliote ca Vallicelliana

R. 26 : XII 175

Toulouse Bi bliotheque de la Ville

*490 : VIII 87

Vatican Biblio teca Apostol ica

vat . lat.7046- 7058 : X ~9 vat . lat.7053: IX 259 ; X 59 Ross .l009 : IX 268 ; XI 462 ,

471- 6

Venice Bibliotec a Marciana

lat .2982: IX 25 5

Volterra Bibl ioteca Gua rnac ciana

*9335 : X 56

Those l1SS indicated by an asterisk have not been seen

~ .·

c; :;' .. .

..

studies_in_renaissance_philosophy_and_science_excerpt_schmitt.pdf

Documents

science history

renaissance philosophy

philosophy history

philosophy of science

pisa science

renaissance essays

schmitt studies

perennial philosophy