qui - maria vita romeo

54 Alessandro Chiessi
delimitation of the investigation area of medicine, the instruments that a
physician can and should use, and the limits to which they refer; in addition,
he establishes the need of the direct observation supported by the
study of diseases in medical literature. 12 is is the empirical approach that
can be found later both in medical treatises and in anthropological or social
analysis. Despite that, the Oratio Scholastica exhibits few intentions
that will become guiding principles for studies on the brutes’ actions and
for investigations about the disorders of human digestion; in other words,
in the subsequent years, Mandeville does what he stated in his youth.
e Disputatio philosophica de Brutorum Operationibus 13 is a text written
at the University of Leiden and, therefore, it reflects the Cartesianism
12 “Physice certe futuro medico necessaria est, ut naturam ac vim corporum naturalium, quorum
usus est in medicina maximus, penitus cognitam perspectamque habeat […]. Quanto igitur quis fuerit
in hac philosophiae parte versatior, quantoque clarius ac distinctius, quicquid est hujus generis perceperit
atque exquisiverit, ut satis ipsi liqueat, prius quam quicquam statuat; tanto ad pernoscendam medicinae
artem, eamque feliciter exercendam, est aptior […]. Huc pertinet, cum assidua lectio auctorum.” Ivi, pp.
6-7; for the limits of medicine: cf. ivi, pp. 12-13.
13 Brutus, a, um is an adjective in Latin meaning “heavy” and “inert” or “stupid” and “irrational,”
its substantivization may be expressed as “brute,” “animal” or “beast;” considering that the
choice of brutum cannot be accidental in spite of animal (probably a too neutral term that, in its semantic
range, may include men, understood as rational being) I opted for translating brutum with
“brute” or “beast.” e Disputatio philosophica de Brutorum Operationibus aims to show precisely
that the brutes—or beasts—do not possess a soul and so thought. For this purpose, the young
Mandeville refutes both the thesis which, on one hand, would consider brutes with a minimal ability
for reasoning since they are able to do organized things, and on the other hand the thesis which,
discovering a correspondence in some anatomical organs, would see a parallelism between men and
brutes about the capability thought. Additionally the aspirant physician summarizes the thesis of
Plato, Pythagoras, ales, Hobbes and Gassendi. After that, Mandeville compares the views that
were dividing the University of Leiden: the Aristotelian thesis, which sees the origin of life, feeling
and knowledge of brutes in the “Substantial Principle,” and the Cartesian, which considers thinking
one element of the soul. e criticism of the “Substantial Principle,” as well as being a refutation
against the Aristotelians, is also a detachment from the Scholastics, a detachment openly declared
by Descartes in the Discours de la méthode. Mandeville, on this occasion, adopts with some cautions
the Descartes’ positions. Cf. B. Mandeville, Disputatio philosophica de Brutorum Operationibus.
Quam annuente summo numine, sub presidio Clarissimi, Acutissimique Viri D. Burcheri de Volder,
Medicinae & Philosophiae Doctoris, hujusque, ut & Matheseos in Illustri Accademia Lugd. Batav. Professoris
Ordinarii. Publice defendendam assumit Bernardus de Mandeville, Rotter.-Bat. Ad diem 23
Mart. loco horisque solitis, ante meridiem, Lugduni Batavorum, Abrahamum Elzevirer, 1689 (hereafter
Disputatio philosophica de Brutorum Operationibus). For the cultural importance of Aristotelians and
Cartesians in the University of Leiden, see Treatise 1711 and Treatise 1730; cf. footnote 9.