Descartes is well known as a mathematician and natural philosopher. However, none of Descartes's biographers has described the invitation he received in 1633 to fill a chair in theoretical medicine at the University of Bologna, or the fact that he was already sufficiently known and respected for his medical knowledge that the invitation came four years before his first publication. In this note I authenticate and contextualize this event, which I refer to as the ‘Bologna affair’. I transcribe the letter (...) written to the Bolognese Senate announcing efforts to bring Descartes to the university and explain the events that led to Descartes receiving the invitation. While many questions about the Bologna affair cannot be answered because of the paucity of the historical record, I conclude that the event invites us to consider again the larger historiographical issue of how best to integrate the history of medicine with the history of science and philosophy during the early modern period. (shrink)

In this paper I address Descartes’ use of analogy in physics. First, I introduce Descartes’ hypothetical reasoning, distinguishing between analogy and hypothesis. Second, I examine in detail Descartes’ use of analogy to both discover causes and add plausibility to his hypotheses—even though not always explicitly stated, Descartes’ practice assumes a unified view of the subject matter of physics as the extension of bodies in terms of their size, shape and the motion of their parts. Third, I present Descartes’ unique “philosophy (...) of analogy”, where the absence of analogy serves as a criterion for falsifying proposed explanations in physics. I conclude by defending Descartes’ philosophy of analogy by appeal to the value scientists assign to simplicity in their explanations. (shrink)

In the past decade, several Descartes scholars have gone on record claiming that, for biological purposes, Descartes likely accepts the practical scientific necessity of the existence of “physical natures,” even while his official substance-mode ontology and his characterization of matter in terms of extension do not license the existence of physical natures. In this article, I elaborate on the historical context of Descartes’s biology, the “practical scientific necessity” just mentioned, and argue, contrary to other interpretations, that Descartes does offer a (...) philosophical justification for the existence of physical natures, albeit not by appeal to the categories of substance and mode, or matter as such, but by appeal to our “nature” as a union between mind and body. (shrink)

Highlighting early modern medicine's program of explanation and intervention, I claim that there are two distinctive features of the physician's naturalism. These are, first, an explicit recognition that each patient had her own individual and highly particularized nature and, second, a self-conscious use of normative descriptions when characterizing a patient's nature as healthy (ordered) or unhealthy (disordered). I go on to maintain that in spite of the well documented Cartesian rejection of Aristotelian natures in favor of laws of nature, Descartes (...) and his most important medical disciple accepted both features of the physician's naturalism where human medicine was concerned. Thus, in this article I critically engage with standard portraits of Cartesianism and naturalism by integrating the histories of science, medicine and philosophy, but especially medicine and philosophy. (shrink)

Howard Adelmann’s majestic five volume Marcello Malpighi and the Evolution of Embryology was published nearly 50 years ago. A mix of paraphrase and translation, as well as extended commentary, Adelmann described Malpighi as “one of the cardinal figures in the history of biology. As we look back over the three centuries that separate him from us, he may, for all his towering stature, at first glance seem a distant figure. And yet he and his work are not so remote after (...) all” . Much has changed in the history of biology since Adelmann’s groundbreaking work, and among the many lessons to be taken from Domenico Bertoloni-Meli’s carefully researched, persuasive and, at times, beautifully rendered book is that the life sciences in the early modern period must be studied with an eye to the history of science, medicine and philosophy—i.e., calling Malpighi simply a “biologist” is very liable to mislead. This point, though only implicit in Meli’s choice to study Malpighi “in relati .. (shrink)

The German word Festschrift is a compound of fest, which derives from the Latin festum, meaning “festival,” and schrift, an abstractum of schreiben, which means “writing.” It literally means “festival-writing,” though in keeping with an academic tradition extending back to the nineteenth century, a more appropriate translation is “celebratory volume.” And that is precisely what this is. The essays collected here celebrate Nancy Siraisi, distinguished professor emerita in history at Hunter College and the City University of New York. Most Festschriften (...) are tied to a momentous occasion, such as a seventieth birthday or a retirement, but this volume arose sui generis, from a collective desire to celebrate Siraisi’s scholarly achievements and to acknowledge the professional and personal impact she has had on each of us, on the discipline of history, and on the history of medicine and science in particular. Siraisi’s work is marked by lucid prose, profound originality, authoritative analysis of texts, and an accessibility that invites attention and response: she has been an invaluable guide through the periods spanning the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century, always with an eye toward a better understanding of medicine’s connections to the broader intellectual, social, and cultural context in which it was taught, studied, and practiced. Her work embodies that rare combination of impeccable scholarship and deep insight guaranteeing its endurance, not only on its own terms but also through its influence on the rest of us. (shrink)

This book presents essays by eminent scholars from across the history of medicine, early science and European history, including those expert on the history of the book. The volume honors Professor Nancy Siraisi and reflects the impact that Siraisi's scholarship has had on a range of fields. Contributions address several topics ranging from the medical provenance of biblical commentary to the early modern emergence of pathological medicine. Along the way, readers may learn of the purchasing habits of physician-book collectors, the (...) writing of history and the development of natural history. Modeling the interdisciplinary approaches championed by Siraisi, this volume attests to the enduring value of her scholarship while also highlighting critical areas of future research. Those with an interest in the history of science, the history of medicine and all related fields will find this work a stimulating and rewarding read. (shrink)

Bringing together an international team of historians of science and philosophy to discuss the fate of matter and form, this volume shows how disputes about matter and form spurred innovation as well as conservatism in early modern science ...

This book brings together leading scholars in the history of science, history of universities, intellectual history, and the history of the Royal Society, to honor Professor Mordechai Feingold. The essays collected here reflect the impact Feingold's scholarship has had on a range of fields and address several topics, including: the dynamic pedagogical techniques employed in early modern universities, networks of communication through which scientific knowledge was shared, experimental techniques and knowledge production, the life and times of Isaac Newton, Newton's reception, (...) and the scientific culture of the Royal Society. Modeling the interdisciplinary approaches championed by Feingold as well as the essential role of archival studies, the volume attests to the enduring value of his scholarship and sets a benchmark for future work in the history of science and its allied fields. (shrink)