During the sixteenth century Galen's De constitutione artis medicae enjoyed a great success: in about fifty years it received four different Latin translations and three commentaries. Certainly this is also true of other medical classical texts, but such success is surprising for a treatise which did not have a wide circulation either in the Middle Ages or in the seventeenth century and later. In fact it is preserved in its entirety in only one Greek manuscript and in a Latin translation (...) by Niccolò of Reggio, who worked mainly for King Robert I in Naples in the first half of the fourteenth century. Furthermore, in his edition of 1679 René Chartier made a mistake, which the humanistic editors of the Greek Galen had avoided. The last part of the De const, art. med. itself enjoyed a considerable fortuna as an independent tract on prognosis in the Greek and Latin manuscript tradition. The editors of the Aldine and the Basle editions knew such an excerptum, at least in the manuscript Par. gr. 2165 of the sixteenth century, and rightly decided not to print it. Chartier found it in the manuscript Par. gr. 2269 of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and published it in the wrong belief that it was a new treatise of Galen's . He was followed by Carl Gottlob Kühn in his edition of 1821, who printed the De const, art. med. in the first volume and the De praesagitura in vol. xix.497–511. The error was not publicly detected until Kalbfleisch in 1896. (shrink)

During the sixteenth century Galen'sDe constitutione artis medicae(i.224–304 Kühn) enjoyed a great success: in about fifty years it received four different Latin translations and three commentaries. Certainly this is also true of other medical classical texts, but such success is surprising for a treatise which did not have a wide circulation either in the Middle Ages or in the seventeenth century and later. In fact it is preserved in its entirety in only one Greek manuscript (Florence, Laur. plut. 74.3 = (...) L of the twelfth or thirteenth century, with later corrections = L) and in a Latin translation by Niccolò of Reggio, who worked mainly for King Robert I in Naples in the first half of the fourteenth century. Furthermore, in his edition of 1679 René Chartier made a mistake, which the humanistic editors of the Greek Galen had avoided. The last part of theDe const, art. med.itself enjoyed a considerablefortunaas an independent tract on prognosis in the Greek and Latin manuscript tradition. The editors of the Aldine and the Basle editions knew such anexcerptum, at least in the manuscript Par. gr. 2165 (= P) of the sixteenth century, and rightly decided not to print it. Chartier found it in the manuscript Par. gr. 2269 of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and published it in the wrong belief that it was a new treatise of Galen's (vol. ii. 170–95 = viii.891–5). He was followed by Carl Gottlob Kühn in his edition of 1821, who printed theDe const, art. med.in the first volume (289–304) and theDe praesagiturain vol. xix.497–511. The error was not publicly detected until Kalbfleisch in 1896. (shrink)

Summary The enthusiasm of Renaissance humanists for classical learning greatly influenced the development of botany in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Humanist scholars restored the treatises of Theophrastus, Pliny, Galen and Dioscorides on botany and materia medica to general circulation and argued for their use as textbooks in Renaissance universities. Renaissance botanists' respect for classical precepts and models of the proper methods for studying plants temporarily discouraged the use of naturalistic botanical illustration, but encouraged other techniques for collecting and (...) communicating new observations: herbaria, botanical gardens and field trips. (shrink)

Summary The genealogy of observation as a philosophical term goes back to the ancient Greek astronomical and medical traditions, and the revival of the concept in the Renaissance also happened in the astronomical and medical context. This essay focuses primarily on the medical genealogy of the concept of observation. In ancient Greek culture, an elaboration of the concept of observation (tērēsis) first emerged in the Hellenistic age with the medical sect of the Empirics, to be further developed by the ancient (...) Sceptics. Basically unknown in the Middle Ages, the Empirics’ conceptualisation of tērēsis trickled back into Western medicine in the fourteenth century, but its meaning seems to have been fully recovered by European scholars only in the 1560s, concomitantly with the first Latin translation of the works of Sextus Empiricus. As a category originally associated with medical Scepticism, observatio was a new entry in early modern philosophy. Although the term gained wide currency in general scholarly usage in the seventeenth century, its assimilation into standard philosophical language was very slow. In fact, observatio does not even appear as an entry in the philosophical dictionaries until the eighteenth century—with one significant exception, the medical lexica, which featured the lemma, reporting its ancient Empiric definition, as early as 1564. (shrink)

In this article I examine the origins and progression of the practice of vivisection in roughly the first half of the sixteenth century, paying particular attention to the types of vivisection procedures performed, the classical sources for those procedures and the changing nature of the concerns motivating the anatomists who performed them. My goal is to reexamine a procedure typically treated as something revived by Vesalius from classical sources as a precursor to early modern discoveries by placing the practice of (...) vivisection in its sixteenth-century context. There were a variety of reasons for employing vivisection in the sixteenth century, including exploring the differences between living and dead bodies, considering how parts of the body worked, and advocating the entirely new idea of the pulmonary transit. By exploring the discussions of Berengario, Niccolò Massa, Vesalius, Colombo and Juan Valverde I try to elaborate on these various reasons and their origins. (shrink)

Giovanni Battista Rasario was a well-known physician and translator of Greek classical texts of the Renaissance. In 1562–1563, he edited Galen's Opera omnia, printed by Valgrisi in Venice. This edition is remarkable because of the order of Galen's works, its new translations and also its forgeries. As the preface indicates, other scholars and physicians collaborated with him on this edition. This essay investigates the philological and historical issues of Rasario's edition through an analysis of its preface as well as the (...) dedication letter. Both are rich sources of information on the work accomplished by Rasario, and also bring to light the hitherto unknown relationship between him and his collaborators. (shrink)

The present dissertation discusses the relationship between cultural constructions of climate and practical attempts at regulating the latter’s perceived influence on human beings in the ‘long’ seventeenth century—a time of crucial historical and intellectual changes. Drawing upon a broad range of printed and manuscript sources written in various languages, the research presented here reconstructs the long-term success of classical ‘climate theories’ and the concrete behaviours that these theories inspired in early modern Europe and the American colonies. By investigating the various (...) strategies that were used to cope with, and capitalize on, the perceived influence of climate, the dissertation challenges common characterizations of climate theory as a form of determinism. After a preliminary chapter about the origins, transmission, and circulation of climate theory in its multiple and conflicting forms, the following chapters each explore a different way of negotiating climatic influence in the ‘long’ seventeenth century, notably diet and lifestyle, geographical displacement, and environmental engineering. The ‘Epilogue’ then briefly looks at post-seventeenth-century developments before drawing some general conclusions about the historical evolution and cultural significance of early-modern climate theories. Situating itself at the intersection of several disciplinary fields, this dissertation examines, on the one hand, the interplay of environmental ideas and practices in specific historical contexts; and, on the other hand, the acquisition, transmission, and circulation of environmental knowledge at, and across, different socio-cultural levels. It thus raises questions of tradition and innovation, consistency and diversity, ‘learned’ and ‘popular’ culture, investigating the ways in which epistemic paradigms are formed and transformed across time and space. (shrink)