Renaissance Interpretations of Life in Heaven and Earth
Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America • San Diego • April 4, 2013
Session 1
Chair: Monica Azzolini (University of Edinburgh)
The Matter of Life, the Life of Matter: Understanding and Rethinking the ‘Activities Common to the Soul and the Body’ in the Renaissance
Roberto Lo Presti (Humboldt University of Berlin)
Aristotle introduced his Parva Naturalia project in the first chapter of his De Sensu et Sensato. He emphasized the necessity of combining theoretical research on nature per se with a different kind of investigation on the activities and conditions that are “common to the soul and the body.” This passage is a key to understanding his account of the relationship between bodily activities and psychic faculties and, more generally, of the conception of living body as “ensouled matter.” This paper will trace the ways in which the notion of “activities common to the soul and the body” was interpreted in some Renaissance commentaries on De Sensu. Special attention will be paid to the interactions among the ‘medical/empirical’ and ‘theoretical/philosophical’ issues in these commentaries.
Aristotle introduced his Parva Naturalia project in the first chapter of his De Sensu et Sensato. He emphasized the necessity of combining theoretical research on nature per se with a different kind of investigation on the activities and conditions that are “common to the soul and the body.” This passage is a key to understanding his account of the relationship between bodily activities and psychic faculties and, more generally, of the conception of living body as “ensouled matter.” This paper will trace the ways in which the notion of “activities common to the soul and the body” was interpreted in some Renaissance commentaries on De Sensu. Special attention will be paid to the interactions among the ‘medical/empirical’ and ‘theoretical/philosophical’ issues in these commentaries.
Matter and Nutrition in Jean Riolan’s Commentary on Fernel’s Physiology
Elisabeth Moreau (Free University of Brussels)
Jean Riolan the Elder (1539-1605), dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, is known to have participated in the Parisian controversy between Galenists and Paracelsians at the beginning of the seventeenth century. He provided a critical commentary on Jean Fernel’s work, starting with a scholion to the Physiologia, in the Commentarii in Sex Posteriores Physiologiae Fernelii Libros (Paris, 1577), which was reedited in his posthumous Opera Omnia (Paris, 1610). The aim of this paper is to explore Riolan’s assessment of the digestion of food, particularly with respect to the Galenic and Avicennian concept of radical or primitive moisture and the role of the secondary humors (ros, gluten, cambium) in nutrition. It will examine the different degrees of concoction assigned to the secondary nutritive humors, presiding over the transformation from food via chylum, from chylum to blood, and from blood to the substance of the part of the human body.
Jean Riolan the Elder (1539-1605), dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, is known to have participated in the Parisian controversy between Galenists and Paracelsians at the beginning of the seventeenth century. He provided a critical commentary on Jean Fernel’s work, starting with a scholion to the Physiologia, in the Commentarii in Sex Posteriores Physiologiae Fernelii Libros (Paris, 1577), which was reedited in his posthumous Opera Omnia (Paris, 1610). The aim of this paper is to explore Riolan’s assessment of the digestion of food, particularly with respect to the Galenic and Avicennian concept of radical or primitive moisture and the role of the secondary humors (ros, gluten, cambium) in nutrition. It will examine the different degrees of concoction assigned to the secondary nutritive humors, presiding over the transformation from food via chylum, from chylum to blood, and from blood to the substance of the part of the human body.
Renaissance Embryology and Astrology after Pico
Hiro Hirai (Early Science and Medicine)
The traditional relationship between medicine and astrology was transformed during the Renaissance. A major factor of this change was the criticism formulated by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494). In his posthumous work Disputations against Judicial Astrology (Bologna, 1496), he rejected the divinatory aspects of astrology while accepting its physical dimensions, which can be qualified as “natural astrology.” According to him, celestial bodies produce their effects only by physical means such as motion, light and heat. The field of embryology received a direct impact from Pico’s new theory. This paper will take up the case of a lesser-known philosophical embryology published in Italy during the 1560s by Sebastiano Paparella who taught theoretical medicine at Pisa and Perugia. Under the strong influence of Pico, he tried to restore cosmic bonds, which could bridge the gap between heaven and seeds in animal and human generation.
The traditional relationship between medicine and astrology was transformed during the Renaissance. A major factor of this change was the criticism formulated by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494). In his posthumous work Disputations against Judicial Astrology (Bologna, 1496), he rejected the divinatory aspects of astrology while accepting its physical dimensions, which can be qualified as “natural astrology.” According to him, celestial bodies produce their effects only by physical means such as motion, light and heat. The field of embryology received a direct impact from Pico’s new theory. This paper will take up the case of a lesser-known philosophical embryology published in Italy during the 1560s by Sebastiano Paparella who taught theoretical medicine at Pisa and Perugia. Under the strong influence of Pico, he tried to restore cosmic bonds, which could bridge the gap between heaven and seeds in animal and human generation.