Search

In medieval natural philosophy and medicine, magnetic attraction was the most commonly invoked example for the effects of so-called 'occult qualities' or 'occult powers.' According to this conception – which dates back to Galen, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Avicenna – magnetism was caused by an insensible quality and not, therefore, by one of the four primary qualities (hot, cold, wet, dry). Already disputed in medieval times, however, was whether the magnet's 'temperament', 'mixture' or 'complexion' might not account for the attraction of iron. In the early modern period, trained physicians above all increasingly refuted 'occult qualities' in magnetism, while at the same time retaining a Galenic framework. They argued instead for more elaborate theories invoking the magnet's and iron's 'complexion' or their single primary qualities, such as 'humidity' or 'heat.' Medical concepts were often combined with meteorological ideas for causal theories of natural phenomena like magnetism. By telling this unheard story of 'complexion' in theories of magnetism, we show not only how medical theories were transferred from medicine into other fields of research, but also that an established narrative in modern historiography is highly questionable: contrary to what was assumed by the contemporary critics (e.g., Descartes) and many modern historians, several Galenic physicians did not subscribe to a theory of occult qualities (in the case of magnetism) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early-modem Jesuit universities did not offer studies in medicine, and from 1586 onwards, the Jesuit Ratio studiorum prohibited digressions on medical topics in the Aristotelian curriculum. However, some sixteenth-century Jesuit text books used in philosophy classes provided detailed accounts on physiological issues such as sense perception and its organic location as discussed in Aristotle's De anima II, 7-11. This seeming contradiction needs to be explained. In this paper, I focus on the interst in medical topics manifested in a commentary by the Jesuits of Coimbra. Admittedly, the Coimbra commentary constituted an exception, as the Jesuit college that produced it was integrated in a royal university which had a strong interest in educating physicians. It will be claimed that the exclusion of medicine at Jesuit universities and colleges had its origin in rather incidental events in the course of the foundation of the first Jesuit university in Sicily. There, the lay professors of law and medicine intended to avoid subordination to the Jesuits and thereby provoked a conflict which finally led the Jesuit administration to refrain from including faculties of medicine and law in Jesuit universities. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, a veritable Jesuit animosity towards medicine emerged for philosophical and pedagogical reasons. This development reflects educational concerns within the Society as well as the role of commentaries on Aristotle for early-modern learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]