Abstract
Relying on works by Plotinus, Galen, Ficino, Cesalpino, Kepler and Harvey, this chapter introduces the notion of ‘plantanimal’ imagination to explore the ways in which early modern philosophers and physicians conceptualized the elusive notion of vegetative perception. According to Plato, this perception was characteristic of plants (Timaeus, 77b). By concentrating on a series of interrelated notions that helped shape the category of vegetative perception (such as Ficino’s inborn intuitus, Cesalpino’s natural soul, Harvey’s unconscious tactility and Kepler’s telluric imagination), I will show how early modern thinkers manifested the need to expand the otherwise too narrow concept of animal and nervous reactivity. The process of nutrition will be at the centre of my argument. I will argue that the authors examined in this chapter laid the groundwork for a new idea of digestive and irritable self, through which living beings, including plants, were supposed to be endowed with a sense of natural discernment, capable of recognizing and altering their surrounding reality without losing any of their own identity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
See Goclenius 1590; Wolff 1732; Wolff 1734. On the Parva naturalia as the part of the Aristotelian encyclopedia in which issues of plantanimal life were especially investigated during the Renaissance, see Bydén 2018. On the early modern evolution of the discipline dealing with the ‘soul’, see Vidal 2016 [2006].
- 5.
- 6.
On Plotinus on nature and the vegetative soul, see Wildberg 2009.
- 7.
- 8.
Plotinus 1966–1988, III, 360–362. Plotinus’s enquiry concerns the level of θεωρία which is accessible to plants, trees and even the earth: ‘νῦν δὲ λέγωμεν περί τε γῆς αὐτῆς καὶ δένδρων καὶ ὅλως φυτῶν τίς αὐτῶν ἡ θεωρία’.
- 9.
- 10.
Ficino 1576, II: 1723: ‘Ars haec vivens atque naturalis omnes in se secundum actum naturales continet formas, non aliter quam ars humana possideat artificia. Materia enim quae in potentia formabili semper est ad omnes, non aliter ad actum perducitur omnium quam per vitam materiae quidem praesidentem, sed cognatam, in se omnes actu comprehendentem. Natura quidem haec artifex omnium, neque materia quadam tali vel tali, neque ipsa simpliciter materia ad suam indiget existentiam’.
- 11.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Formae igitur naturales in primis id habent, ut et appellentur et sint intelligentiae quaedam conceptusque expressi ipsius intellectualis naturae sive naturalis intelligentiae. Natura enim ipsa rerum artifex est potestas quaedam viva intellectualis animae, figurans materiam, non alienam, ut ars, sed suam: neque sicut ars extrinsecus, sed intrinsecus: neque electione tali, sed essentia tali ac sine instrumento atque semper’.
- 12.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Artificia sane ad visum spectantia dici solent intelligentiae quaedam ingeniaque artificis; multo magis soni musici; magis insuper cantus, quoniam cogitationem expressiorem affectumque vivum secum ferunt; maxime verba sive prolata sive scripta’.
- 13.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘in quolibet animato non qualitas elementalis, sed vitalis quaedam ratio principium est eorum quae in corpore fiunt’.
- 14.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Sed ut ad naturam redeamus, id est, vitam ab anima dependentem, in hac sunt rationes omnes formarum naturalium productrices, ipsaque in ea ratio qualibet non notio quaedam est, ex argumento vel indagine quandoque concepta, sed essentialis proprietas atque actus essentiae non differens ab esse tali quodam atque tali’.
- 15.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Est igitur in natura seminalis quaedam ratio eius quod inde gignitur, quae quamvis sit actus essentialis naturae ipsius ipsumque suum esse tale, tamen translatione quadam nominatur intuitus non acquisitus aliquando, sed naturaliter illic affixus, non quaerens aliquid, sed ab initio possidens, nec animadvertens in se aliquid, sed quasi stupidus, qualis in attonitis esse solet, ac forte talis quidam sensus, qualem nonnulli plantis attribuebant’.
- 16.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Nam et haec est communis universi planta per suum quendam quietum substantialemque sensum sua vita fruens naturaliaque concipiens; atque hunc sine strepitu sensum, id est, sine distractione sui ad aliud Orpheus naturae tribuit in hymno naturae. In natura quidem intueri nihil aliud est quam esse tale et tale quiddam facere. Et quoniam quasi quodam intuitu et spectamine facit, ideo quod gignitur in materia spectaculum dici potest, atque ita insuper spectamen appellari naturae, ut solemus in puero dicere signum hoc huic ingenitum est quaedam concupiscentia et imaginatio matris’.
- 17.
Ficino 1576, II, 1724: ‘Intellectus autem et natura, quae a substantia intellectuali dependet, naturaliter possident, imo sunt illa ipsa quae intuentur et faciunt intuendo, quem quidem essentialem efficacemque intuitum appellat seminariam rationem’. On seminal reasons in the Renaissance, see Hirai 2005.
- 18.
Philoponus 2005, 14: ‘Indeed, even the very sharing in sense does not thereupon make an animal. Things, at least, that share only in the sense of touch are not animals, for zoophytes share in touch’.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
Galen 1550b, 111: ‘Ostensum enim a nobis est in commentariis de facultatibus naturalibus stirpes facultatem eam possidere qua tum familiares substantias a quibus nutriuntur, tum alienas a quibus laeduntur agnoscunt, ideoque familiares quidem attrahere, alienas vero avertere atque propulsare. Ob id ergo et ipse Plato stirpes et genere proprio ac peculiari sensus participes esse dixit. Nam et familiare et alienum agnoscunt’.
- 22.
Galen 1550a, 177–178: ‘Nam naturalis anima nequit cuiuspiam alterius cognitionis, quae ad sensus spectet, esse participes, utpote quae visiles qualitates, vel auditiles, vel gustatiles, vel olfactiles, vel tactiles nequaquam possit apprehendere, sed illas tantum quae his alere possunt, vel secus, insunt. Id siquidem ea attrahit quod possit illi esse alimento, id continet, id concoquit, id demum in illud transmutat quod affine sit et familiare rei quae alitur: ea vero quae alere nequeunt repellit. Et propterea recte profecto mihi Plato dixisse videtur stirpes esse sensu praeditas, eo nempe qui congruorum incongruorumve sit, ut hac deinde ratione non absurde animalia nuncupari possint, cum non omnino eo motu careant qui ex ipsis est’.
- 23.
Galen 1821–1833, IV, 764.
- 24.
Cesalpino 1593, 226v: ‘Tetigit hanc rationem Galenus in libro de Substantia facultatum naturalium in fine, ubi testatur Platonem ob id etiam plantis sensum quendam tribuisse diversum a caeteris, quo familiaria et aliena dignoscant’.
- 25.
Cesalpino 1593, 226rv: ‘Cum nutritio quatuor facultatibus naturalibus perficiatur, scilicet attractione, retentione, concoctione alimenti atque expulsione excrementorum, attractio autem et expulsio sine sensu tactus non fiant, perempto omnino hoc necesse est et nutritionem perire. Quod autem attractio alimenti et expulsio rei inutilis sensu tactus egeat, patet. Non enim attrahit natura alimentum, nisi id familiare esse sentiat, neque expellit aliena, nisi ab iis irritetur. Haec autem sine sensu tactus non contingunt, est enim tactus sensus alimenti 2. De anima, tex. 28. Ob id conclusit Aristoteles 3. De anima, tex. 67. Animalia solo hoc sensu privata mori necessarium esse’.
- 26.
Cesalpino 1593, 226v: ‘Si enim membra nutritionis sensu non dignoscerent quae molestiam exhibent, brevissimo tempore animalia labefactarentur: nam ab excrementis, quae in ipsa quotidie acervantur, ulcerarentur ac putrescerent… Nutritio igitur plantarum absque ulla dignotione alimenti peragitur. Animalia autem nutriri non posse absque sensu alimenti, id est calidi frigidi humidi et sicci, quibus aluntur omnia viventia, et quorum est sensus tactus, quamvis superius ostensum est, iterum ex iis quae in medicina apparent, exactius ostendamus’.
- 27.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 450–451: ‘Quicquid enim contra irritamenta et molestias motibus sui diversis utitur, id sensu praeditum sit necesse est… Quicquid enim sensus plane expers est, non videtur ullo modo irritari, aut ad motum actionesque aliquas edendas excitari posse’. I have discussed the nature of Harvey’s sensus in Giglioni 2016. On the arrival of the ‘sensitive plant’ on the scene of early modern experimental science, see Giglioni 2018b.
- 28.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 451: ‘Quemadmodum tamen actiones et motus quidam sunt quorum regimen sive moderamen a cerebro non pendet atque ideo naturales appellantur, ita quoque statuendum est dari sensum quendam tactus qui non referatur ad sensum communem, nec cerebro ullo modo communicetur, ac propterea in eiusmodi sensu non percipimus nos sentire’.
- 29.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 216: ‘in omni nutritione et accretione, aequaliter necessaria est partium iuxtapositio et applicati alimenti concoctio ac distributio, neque haec minus quam illa vera nutritio censenda est, siquidem utraque novi alimenti accessu, appositione, agglutinatione atque transmutatione contingit’.
- 30.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 249: ‘Tantillum nempe est vitae animalis exordium quod tam inconspicuis initiis molitur plastica vis naturae!’
- 31.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 191: ‘Cupis harum rerum [i.e., ovarium, infundibulum, racemus, vitella] specimen aliquod? Finge animo pusillam plantam’.
- 32.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 251–252: ‘Hoc certo constat futuri foetus nihil omnino hoc die apparere praeter sanguineas lineas et punctum saliens venasque illas quae omnes ab uno trunco (quemadmodum iste a punto saliente) propagantur et per totum colliquamentum plurimis fibrarum ramificationibus sparguntur; quae postmodum vasa umbilicalia constituunt, quibus longe lateque disseminatis, foetus demum, prout augetur, ex albumine et vitello sibi alimentum haurit. Harum venarum earumque propaginum vivum exemplar videas in arborum foliis, quorum fibrae omnes a pedunculo oriuntur et ab uno trunco per totum folium diffunduntur’.
- 33.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 296: ‘Multo vero magis constabit animam ei [i.e., the ovum] inesse consideranti quo pacto quove motore vitellus rotundus et amplus, a vitellarii racemo abruptus, per infundibulum (exiguum nempe tubulum tenuissima membrana contextum nullisque fibris motoriis instructum) descendat viamque sibi aperiendo, uterum per tantas angustias adeat, ibidemque sese nutriat, augeat, albumine cingat. Cum interea nullum organum motorium in vitellario reperiatur, quod expellat, aut in infundibulo quod transmittat, aut in utero, quod attrahat: neque ovum utero per venas iungatur, ut in ovario; nec per umbilicum ab eo dependeat; ut Fabricius vere asseruit, et clare ad oculum liquet. Quid superest igitur tam ingentia opera cernentibus, nisi ut cum Poeta dicamus: Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus/Mens agitat molem’. See Fabrizi d’Acquapendente 1621, 9–10.
- 34.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 304: ‘Quinetiam foemina potiore iure efficiens videatur… Idque etiam exemplum a terra deductum magis confirmat: peregrina enim semina ad postremum pro terrae natura redduntur. Unde videretur probabile, foeminam plus in generatione efficere quam marem: nam in universo quoque, naturam terrae, quasi foeminam matremque statuunt; coelum autem et solem, et reliqua generis eiusdem, nomine genitoris patrisque appellant. Atque etiam terra sua sponte plurima generat sine semine.
- 35.
- 36.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 277: ‘Nam ea quae videntur oculis, serviunt discursui: harmoniarum agnitio sine discursu est. Sic innatam esse pullo gallinaceo ideam milvi, sciscit I. C. Scaliger; non eam quidem simplicem, sed cum nota fugiendae perniciei.’ On Julius Caesar Scaliger and his contribution to early modern discussion on vegetative life, see Giglioni 1999.
- 37.
Kepler, 1937–, I, 314–315: ‘Statuta est enim omnis influentiae coelestis forma, non in actione coeli […] sed in receptione, et sic in passione naturae sublunaris, quae vel est sensitiva, vel sensitivae simillima. Animis quippe et facultatibus rerum sublunarium cognatio intercedit cum natura caeli; eaque triplex, caloris, motus, et rationis. Primum enim lux caelorum est caloris effectrix, et animae facultatesque rerum vegetabilium suum quaeque calorem in corpore quod informant excitant eumque pro viribus tuentur. Sic stellis additae sunt facultates quae illas movent, ut plurimum quidem materiales seu cum corpore dividuae, tam insitae quam adventitiae (qualis quidem hic penes nos est magnetica) sed tamen etiam animales: et hic quoque in terris similiter animae facultatesque rerum vegetabilium corporibus suis insunt vitae motusque causa’.
- 38.
Kepler, 1937–, I, 315: ‘Denique ut facultates illae stellarum motrices sunt mentis quodammodo participes, ut suum iter quasi intelligant, imaginentur, affectent; non ratiocinando quidem, ut nos homines, sed ingenita vi et quae in prima creatione ipsis est instincta: sic facultates animales rerum naturalium obtinent quendam intellectum finis sui (sine quidem ratiocinatione) in quem omnes suas actiones dirigunt. Tanta cum sint cognatio, nihil amplius est cur mireris eam συμπάθειαν, inter caelorum motus et facultates animales, quam supra manifestis experimentis confirmavi cap. VIII. et X.’.
- 39.
Kepler, 1937–, VI, 269.
- 40.
Kepler, 1937–, I, 317: ‘In Telluris globo gemina est facultas (quod meteora attinet), altera attrahendi aquas marinas in occultas concoctionis sedes, altera expellendi vapores concoctos per quendam quasi sudorem; aut si mavis, compara hanc expulsionem excretioni seminali animantium. Harum facultatum alteram expultricem, stimulari ab aspectibus planetarum harmonicis certissimum est: qua stimulatione efficitur, ut continua quidem (in fluminum generatione) at non perpetuo uniformis sit expulsio, sed multis intervallis interrupta eius vehementia, prout aspectus ordine astronomico inciderint. Et me hercule non absurde quis huic excretioni etiam voluptatem suam adiunxerit: ita multa terrae cum animantibus conveniunt. Eatenim docent medici, si quando humore genitali tument venae, facile vel per somnum, imagine dulci obiecta, nullo etiam contactu accedente, fieri excretionem. Quid vero huius rei similius quam quod constat inesse in terra facultatem, aspectuum coelestium perceptricem, quae stimulata aliquo aspectu, exsudet vapores pluvios? Utrinque species immateriata, obiecta phantasiae, ciet materiam genitabilem: quid impediet igitur utrinque ex perceptione speciei et expulsione materiae existere voluptatem?’.
- 41.
Kepler, 1937–, VI, 270.
- 42.
- 43.
Harvey 1766 [1651], 297: ‘Verum hac de re postea uberius dicetur, cum de anima embryonis generatim disputabimus et de vegetativae animae praestantia et numine ex admirandis ipsius (non sine providentia, arte et intellectu divino) operibus agemus, quae profecto intellectum nostrum non minus quam dii homines superant adeoque omnium consensu admirabiles sunt, ut obscura mentis nostrae acies lumen tam impervestigabile nullo modo penetrare queat’.
- 44.
I have discussed the relationship between pain and unconscious imagination (‘raw imagination’) in Elijah Montalto’s Archipathologia (1614) in Giglioni 2018c, the view of pain as a vital response in Cardano in Giglioni 2018a, and the connection between nausea, natural perception and imagination in Glisson’s theory of irritability in Giglioni 2008.
References
Allen, Michael J. B. 1992. Summoning Plotinus: Ficino, smoke and the strangled chickens. In Reconsidering the Renaissance, ed. Mario A. Di Cesare, 63–88. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. (repr. in M. J. B. Allen, Plato’s third eye: Studies in Marsilio Ficino’s metaphysics and its sources. Aldershot: Variorum, 1995).
Boner, Patrick J. 2008. Life in the liquid fields: Kepler, Tycho and Gilbert on the nature of the heavens and earth. History of Science 46: 275–297.
———. 2013. Kepler’s cosmological synthesis: Astrology, mechanism, and the soul. Leiden: Brill.
Bydén, Börje. 2018. Introduction: The study and reception of Aristotle’s Parva naturalia. In The Parva naturalia in Greek, Arabic and Latin Aristotelianism: Supplementing the science of the soul, ed. Börje Bydén and Filip Radovic, 1–50. Cham: Springer.
Carpenter, Amber D. 2010. Embodied intelligent (?) souls: Plants in Plato’s Timaeus. Phronesis 55: 281–303.
Celenza, Christopher S. 2002. Late antiquity and Florentine Platonism: The ‘Post-Plotinian’ Ficino. In Marsilio Ficino: His theology, his philosophy, his legacy, ed. Michael J.B. Allen, Valery Rees, and Martin Davies, 71–97. Leiden: Brill.
Cesalpino, Andrea. 1593. Quaestionum medicarum libri duo, in Quaestionum peripateticarum libri quinque. Daemonum investigatio peripatetica. Quaestionum medicarum libri duo. De medicamentorum facultatibus libri duo. Venice: Giunta.
Christie, James. 2019. From influence to inhabitation: The transformation of astrobiology in the early modern period. Cham: Springer, 2019.
Das, Aileen R. 2013. Galen and the Arabic traditions of Plato’s Timaeus. PhD thesis. Warwick: University of Warwick.
Descola, Philippe. 2013 [2005]. Beyond nature and culture. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fabrizi d’Acquapendente, Girolamo. 1621. De formatione ovi et pulli. Padua: Luigi Benci.
Falcon, Andrea. 2015. Aristotle and the study of animals and plants. In The frontiers of ancient science: Essays in honor of Heinrich von Staden, ed. Brooke Holmes and Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, 75–91. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ficino, Marsilio. 1576. Opera, et quae hactenus extitere, et quae in lucem nunc primum prodiere omnia, omnium artium et scientiarum maiorumque facultatum multifaria cognitione refertissima, ed. Adam Henricpetri, 2 vols. Basel: Heinrich Petri.
Fortuna, Stefania. 2012. The Latin editions of Galen’s Opera omnia (1490–1625) and their prefaces. Early Science and Medicine 17: 391–412.
———. 2014. Le traduzioni di Galeno di Niccolò da Reggio: Nuove attribuzioni e datazioni. Galenos. Rivista di filologia dei testi medici antichi 8: 79–104.
Galen. 1528. Libri tres. Primus, de facultatum naturalium substantia. Secundus, quod animi mores, corporis temperaturam sequuntur. Tertius, de propriorum animi cuiusque affectuum agnitione et remedio. Trans. Johann Winter von Andernach. Paris: Simon de Colines.
———. 1550a. De naturalium facultatum substantia, Trans. Vittore Trincavelli. In Galeni Pergameni de naturalibus facultatibus libri tres, ed. Thomas Linacre and Jacques Dubois, 170–178. Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, Philibert Rollet and Barthélemy Frein.
———. 1550b. Fragmentum ex quatuor commentariis quos ipse inscripsit de iis quae medice dicta sunt in Platonis Timaeo. Trans. Agostino Gadaldini. In Claudii Galeni aliquot opuscula nunc primum Venetorum opera inventa et excusa, 107–134. Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé and Philibert Rollet.
———. 1821–1833. Opera omnia, ed. Karl Gottlob Kühn, 20 vols. Leipzig: Carl Cnobloch.
———. 1916. On the natural faculties. Trans. Arthur John Brock. London/Cambridge, MA: Heinemann and Harvard University Press.
———. 1934. In Platonis Timaeum commentarii fragmenta, ed. Heinrich Schröder. Leipzig: Teubner.
———. 1951. Compendium Timaei Platonis, aliorumque dialogorum synopsis quae extant fragmenta, ed. Paul Kraus and Richard Walzer. London: The Warburg Institute.
Garin, Eugenio. 1974. Plotino nel Rinascimento. In Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, 537–553. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. (repr. in E. Garin, Rinascite e rivoluzioni: Movimenti culturali dal XIV al XVIII secolo, Bari: Laterza, 1975).
Garofalo, Ivan. 2004. Agostino Gadaldini (1515–1575) et le Galien latin. In Lire les medecins grecs à la Renaissance: Aux origines de l’edition medicale, ed. Veronique Boudon-Millot and Guy Cobolet, 284–321. Paris: De Boccard.
Gersh, Stephen. 2017. Analytical study of the Commentary on Ennead III. In Commentary on Plotinus, ed. Marsilio Ficino, vol. 4, xi–ccxxxi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giglioni, Guido. 1993. Conceptus uteri/conceptus cerebri: Note sull’analogia del concepimento nella teoria della generazione di William Harvey. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 48: 7–22.
———. 1999. Girolamo Cardano e Giulio Cesare Scaligero: Il dibattito sul ruolo dell’anima vegetativa. In Girolamo Cardano: Le opere, le fonti, la vita, ed. Marialuisa Baldi and Guido Canziani, 313–339. Milan: Angeli.
———. 2008. What ever happened to Francis Glisson? Albrecht Haller and the fate of eighteenth-century irritability. Science in Context 21: 465–493.
———. 2016. Sentient nature and the great paradox of early modern philosophy: How William Harvey and Francis Glisson reinterpreted Aristotelian φύσις. In Natureza, causalidade e formas de corporeidade, ed. Adelino Cardoso, Marta Mendonça, and Manuel Silvério Marques, 9–28. Ribeirão (Vila Nova de Famalicão): Edições Húmus.
———. 2018a. If you don’t feel pain, you must have lost your mind’: The early modern fortunes of a Hippocratic aphorism. In Et amicorum: Essays on Renaissance humanism and philosophy in honour of Jill Kraye, ed. Anthony Ossa-Richardson and Margaret Meserve, 313–337. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2018b. Touch me not: Sense and sensibility in early modern botany. Early Science and Medicine 23: 420–443.
———. 2018c. The temperament and the imagination in Elijah Montalto’s Archipathologia (1614): A Galenic account of mental illness in the Renaissance. In Dor, sofrimento e saúde mental na Arquipatologia de Filipe Montalto, ed. Adelino Cardoso and Nuno Miguel Proença, 85–127. Ribeirão (Vila Nova de Famalicão): Edições Húmus.
Goclenius, Rudolph, the Elder. 1590. ΨΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΑ: hoc est, De hominis perfectione, animo et in primis ortu huius, commentationes ac disputationes quorundam theologorum et philosophorum nostrae aetatis. Marburg: Paul Egenolph.
Granger, Herbert. 1985. The scala naturae and the continuity of kinds. Phronesis 30: 181–200.
Hartbecke, Karin. 2006. Metaphysik und Naturphilosophie im 17. Jahrhundert: Francis Glissons Substanztheorie in ihrem ideengeschichtlichen Kontext. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Harvey, William. 1766 [1651]. Exercitationes de generatione animalium, quibus accedunt quaedam De partu, De membranis ac humoribus uteri, et De conceptione, 160–603, in Opera omnia. London: William Bowyer.
Henry, John. 1987. Medicine and pneumatology: Henry More, Richard Baxter, and Francis Glisson’s Treatise on the energetic nature of substance. Medical History 31: 15–40.
Hirai, Hiro. 2005. Le concept de semence dans les théories de la matière à la Renaissance: De Marsile Ficin à Pierre Gassendi. Turnhout: Brepols.
———. 2007. The invisible hand of God in seeds: Jacob Schegk’s theory of plastic faculty. Early Science and Medicine 12: 377–404.
Kepler, Johannes. 1937–. Gesammelte Werke, ed. Walther von Dyck, et al., 19 vols. Munich: Beck.
Kohn, Eduardo. 2013. How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1996. Aristotelian explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nutton, Vivian. 1987. Galen’s philosophical testament: ‘On my own opinions’. In Aristoteles – Werk un Wirkung. Band II: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben, ed. Jürgen Wiesner, 27–51. Berlin: De Gruyter.
———. 2003. A translation of Galen’s De substantia virtutum naturalium by Niccolò da Reggio. In Medizin in Geschichte, Philologie und Ethnologie: Festschrift für Gundolf Keil, ed. Dominik Groß and Monika Reininger, 321–332. Königshausen & Neumann.
Pagel, Walter. 1967. William Harvey’s biological ideas: Selected aspects and historical background. Basel: Karger.
———. 1976. New light on William Harvey. Basel: Karger.
Petit, Caroline C.L. 2007. Gadaldini’s library. Mnemosyne: A Journal of Classical Studies 60: 132–138.
Philoponus. 2005. On Aristotle: On the Soul, 2.1–6. Trans. William Charlton. London: Duckworth.
Plotinus. 1966–1988. Enneads, ed. A. H. Armstrong, 7 vols. London/Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann/Harvard University Press.
Regier, Jonathan. 2014. Kepler’s theory of force and his medical sources. Early Science and Medicine 19: 1–27.
Roe, Shirley A. 1981. Matter, life, and generation: Eighteenth-century embryology and the Haller-Wolff debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saffrey, Henri-Dominique. 1996. Florence 1492: The reappearance of Plotinus. Renaissance Quarterly 49: 488–508.
Skemp, J.B. 1947. Plants in Plato’s Timaeus. The Classical Quarterly 41: 53–60.
Sprague, Rosamond Kent. 1991. Plants as Aristotelian substances. Illinois Classical Studies 162: 221–229.
Temkin, Owsei. 1964. The classical roots of Glisson’s doctrine of irritation. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 38: 297–328.
Vidal, Fernando. 2016 [2006]. The sciences of the soul: The early modern origins of psychology. Trans. Saskia Brown. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wildberg, Christian. 2009. A world of thoughts: Plotinus on nature and contemplation (Enn. III.8 [30] 1–6). In Physics and philosophy of nature in Greek Neoplatonism: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, ed. Riccardo Chiaradonna and Franco Trabattoni, 121–143. Leiden.
Wolff, Christian. 1732. Psychologia empirica methodo scientifica pertractata. Frankfurt/Leipzig: Officina libraria Rengeriana.
———. 1734. Psychologia rationalis methodo scientifica pertractata. Frankfurt/Leipzig: Officina libraria Rengeriana.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giglioni, G. (2021). Plantanimal Imagination: Life and Perception in Early Modern Discussions of Vegetative Power. In: Baldassarri, F., Blank, A. (eds) Vegetative Powers. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 234. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69709-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69709-9_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69708-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69709-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)