Craig Martin

In the faculty of arts at the University of Padua in the years around 1600 professors debated the reliability of astrology, the existence of occult celestial influences, and the idea that celestial heat is present in living bodies. From the 1570s to the 1620s many professors in the faculty of arts pushed back against astrology and Jean Fernel's theories surrounding astral body. Girolamo Mercuriale, Alessandro Massaria and Eustachio Rudio thought that some forms of astral causation and Fernel's ideas were incompatible with their observations of disease, Aristotle's philosophy and Hippocratic theories. Later, Santorio Santorio and Cesare Cremonini, who were allied to the political circle of Paolo Sarpi, polemicized against astrology. Their writings show that at Padua medical theory was linked to Aristotelian cosmology, which emphasized the incommensurability between celestial and terrestrial elements. Their rejection of astrology, however, did not lead to the complete marginalization of astrology at Padua. By the middle of the 1620s, as the political climate changed in Venice, the University of Padua hired professors who promoted astrology and Fernel's theories about the celestial nature of innate heat. The diversity of opinions about astrology reflected Venice's divided politics and multiple approaches to interpreting Aristotle and other authorities.

ABSTRACT It is well attested that Francis Bacon considered his History of Winds to be an exemplar, but what lessons should be taken from its example have been subject to debate. Instead of looking at this work as a mere model for the fusion of natural history and natural philosophy, it is also possible to see Bacon as trying to provide tentative solutions to outstanding questions regarding the wind, a topic that was deeply scrutinized during the early modern period. An examination of Bacon’s provisional concluding rules reveals deep correspondences with earlier works, such as José de Acosta’s Natural and Moral History of the Indies, that revised classical understandings of the wind based on experience, experiments, and accounts of travels beyond Europe. Understanding the History of Winds as a genuine attempt to solve outstanding questions about the wind uncovers its debt to earlier traditions, including those related to Renaissance natural history, and shows it’s influence in relation to specific theories of the wind beyond its call for methodological reform.

The subject of meteorology was central to Girolamo Cardano’s thought. It held together his encyclopedism by tying the celestial realm to the sublunary world and human action. Meteorology, for Cardano, links abstract knowledge to the practical and operative. While many of his Aristotelian predecessors understood weather prediction as distinct from meteorology as a natural philosophical field, Cardano’s profound interest in conjectural arts and probabilistic reasoning led him to tie causal explanations to methods of forecasting future conditions of the air and their effects on humans, especially regarding health and disease. While it might be expected that Cardano would have emphasized astrological tools for weather forecasting, instead he went in a different direction, namely, embracing the ancient tradition of weather signs and revising Aristotelian theories of winds. At the end of his career, which he mostly spent writing commentaries on Hippocratic writings, he integrated his understanding of weather signs with Hippocratic rules of prognosis, revising traditional understandings of the causes of winds.

In this paper I describe the context and goals of Francisco Vallés' In IV librum Meteorologicorum commentaria. Vallés' work stands as a landmark because it interprets a work of Aristotle's natural philosophy specifically for medical doctors and medical theory. Vallés' commentary is representative of new understandings of Galenic-Hippocratic medi-cine that emerged as a result of expanding textual knowledge. These approaches are evident in a number of sixteenth-century commentaries on Meteorologica IV; in particular the works of Pietro Pomponazzi, Lodovico Boccadiferro, Jacob Schegk, and Francesco Vimercati. Vallés' conviction that Meteorologica IV is relevant to medical knowledge depends on his understanding of Aristotle's theory of homeomerous substances and their relation to composite substances. The application of Meteorologica IV to medical topics became commonplace in the following years, and this Aristotelian book became widely known as a bridge between natural philosophy and medicine.

What causes winds was regarded as one of the most difficult questions of early modern natural philosophy. Vitruvius, the ancient Roman architectural author, put forth an alternative to Aristotle’s theory by likening the generation of wind to the actions of the aeolipile, which he believed made artificial winds. As Vitruvius’s work proliferated during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, numerous natural philosophers, including Descartes, used the aeolipile as a model for nature. Yet, interpretations of Vitruvius’s text and of the relation of the aeolipile to natural winds varied according to definitions and conceptions of air, wind, rarefaction, condensation, and vapor.

The Divide between the prominence of final causes in Aristotelian natural philosophy and the rejection or severe limitation of final causation as an acceptable explanation of the natural world by figures such as Bacon, Descartes, and Spinoza during the seventeenth century has been considered a distinguishing mark between pre-modern and modern science.1 Admittedly, proponents of the mechanical and corpuscular philosophies of the seventeenth century were not necessarily stark opponents of teleology. Pierre Gassendi and Robert Boyle endorsed teleology, Leibniz embraced entelechies, and they creep into Descartes's natural philosophy, despite his adamant attempts to eliminate them.2 Nonetheless, critiques of ends in ..

Renaissance Aristotelianism expressed itself primarily through commentaries on Aristotle's texts that were printed or read as lectures as part of the curriculum of universities. These commentaries possessed a wide variety of forms and reflect the great diversity of Renaissance Aristotelianism. Meteorologica IV became associated with practical pursuits beyond natural philosophy narrowly defined. In particular, interpreters linked this book to medicine and alchemy. ;Chapters one and two discuss the effects of humanism on commentaries and translations of Meteorologica IV. Revised sensibilities to ancient texts led many sixteenth-century commentators, including Pietro Pomponazzi and Agostino Nifo, to reject the method of their predecessors in favor of a method of commentary that would illuminate the actual words of Aristotle and the interpretations of Greek commentators. Similarly, humanist translations sought to revolutionize scientific terminology by eliminating transliterations and what they considered to be medieval corruptions. While these translators often exaggerated their revolutionary nature, their new terminology created a new textual tradition sharply divided from that of the middle ages. ;The third chapter addresses the issue of the place of Meteorologica IV in relation to the rest the Meteorologica and the Aristotelian corpus. The lack of continuity between the subjects of the fourth book and the previous three made this question controversial beginning with the Greek commentators. ;The application of the commentary tradition on Meteorologica IV to medicine is the topic of the fourth chapter. In particular, I trace how beginning in the early sixteenth century commentaries written at Bologna and Padua typically emphasized the application of Meteorologica IV to medical issues. The desire to use Aristotle to explain Galenic and Hippocratic medicine culminated in the commentary of the Spanish physician Francisco Valles who wrote a commentary on Meteorologica IV for the explicit purpose of elucidating medical theory. ;The final chapter discusses alchemical themes. Starting in the Middle Ages alchemical writers and commentators alike had linked this books discussions of homeomerous matter and distinctions between art and nature to alchemy. In the first half of the 17th Girolamo Trimarchi and Niccolo Cabeo integrated their commentaries with their knowledge of alchemy