Matter and Form in Sixteenth-Century Spain: Some Case Studies
In the last few decades, scholars have rethought the history of matter theories in important ways, particularly with respect to the sources, origins and antecedents of atomism and corpuscularianism in the seventeenth century. In particular, recent comment
- PDF / 214,334 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 73 Downloads / 193 Views
Matter and Form in Sixteenth-Century Spain: Some Case Studies Victor Navarro-Brotons
4.1
Introduction
In the last few decades, scholars have rethought the history of matter theories in important ways, particularly with respect to the sources, origins and antecedents of atomism and corpuscularianism in the seventeenth century. In particular, recent commentators have shown that the supposed opposition between atomism and Aristotelianism is insufficient for understanding the historical development of matter theories and their conceptual plurality. Along with corpuscular doctrines dating back to Antiquity, such as those of Heron or Asclepiades, well treated in Lasswitz’s classic work, certain aspects of the Aristotelian corpus and tradition have contributed in important ways to subsequent corpuscular doctrines.1 Even though Aristotle opposed atomism and maintained that matter was continuous, his thought did not completely rule out corpuscular explanations. In a recent book, Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, which offers an excellent panoramic view of the state of the art, the editors note that “the rich and disorderly results of contemporary research … indicates just how difficult it has become to defend old essentialist distinctions.”2 In her contribution to the book, Danielle Jacquart analyses some Salernitan and Chartrian works on medicine and philosophy, dating back to the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. She demonstrates that philosophers and physicians interested in the make-up of mixed
This work has been partially financed by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. I am most grateful to Encarna Pastor for his help with the transcription of the Latin texts. 1 On corpuscular theories in Antiquity, see Lasswitz, Geschichte der Atomistik; on Aristotelian tradition and its influence, see below, note 11. 2 See Lüthy et al. “Introduction.” V. Navarro-Brotons (*) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Valencia, 9 Mestral, 46110 Godella, Valencia, Spain e-mail : [email protected] D. Garber and S. Roux (eds.), The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 300, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4345-8_4, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013
99
100
V. Navarro-Brotons
bodies often relied on ancient works, which presented the structure of composite bodies as particulate, integrating such ideas into their own explanations. The result was a definition of a mixture as “the union of the mixable ingredients, which have been joined through their minima,” as stated by Bartholomew of Salerno.3 These texts undermine the assumption often made that Julius Caesar Scaliger was the first philosopher to adjust Aristotle’s definition of mixture to the needs of corpuscular theories through his influential definition of mixture as “the movement of minimal bodies toward mutual contact, so that a union occurs.” “The question thus arises,” the editors ask, “whether there existed, in the medical commentary tradition, a continu
Data Loading...
