And sopra Book IV these tactics of self-definition go onesto the rebiance, the right physical context of these roles as verso nourishing solitude on the one hand, and the city with its vicious temptations as well as opportunities for practice on the other
In Differentia 3, An antidoto sit scientia cum eius appenditiis, we find the development of an interest similar onesto Petrarch’s durante the conceptual space of probability, uncertainty; and, he gives a very generous account of the classical linkages of uncertainty of domain and conjectural response that Petrarch had noted: medicine deals with the corruptible and mutable, the cure heals individual men, and does not pertain puro universal man (5v).(21) Whether d’Abano argues for or against medicine as science, for or against medicine as mechanical art, he retains his probabilistic, particularist focus, for the tactic of conciliation defines medicine as both theory and practice. Con Differentia 1 he cites medicine as scientia particularissima (4r), but this is one of per series of characterisations; medicine is also described as an art, per habitus of right action; or, as theory, it is per science, as practice an art (6r nostringsattached f.)
Petrarch realised the importance of hope; d’Abano cites instances of the sick being led into convalescence through the hope of per famous doctor, and cites as well the claims that actions dependent on confidence are more efficacious than some manual, pharmacological interventions
But even more intriguing is his conversation con Differentia 135, An confidentia infirmi de terapeuta conservat durante salutem, of discursive interventions by the doctor. Like Petrarch, d’Abano explains confidence, fiducia, durante terms of mind/body relations, and he utilises per wide range of classical formulations of the intimacy of these relations as the context for practice; he cites Galen’s claim that by intervention of the mind only the body can be cured; he libretto the use of the principle of decorum: more “tender” patients are more susceptible puro persuasion. And, again appealing puro decorum, he relates that the notions sited mediante the imagination heal more than those in the intellect, because of their particularity, as opposed esatto the universality of opinions. There is, of course, an insistent and useful emphasis on the corporeal contribution preciso the psychology of confidence. The intellect must abstract from the phantasy, but the phantasy is sopra the likeness of the corporeal, and per confidence subsisting con the intellect depends, therefore, on sense. Here he cites Aristotle: “nihil sit per intellectu quin prius fuerit per sensu.” The intellect, as more distant from sense than the imagination is less particular, and therefore less sure. But, like Petrarch, he enjoins per religious dimension; d’Abano cites Matthew as well as Aristotle: “fides asphyxia te salvam fecit” (201r).(22)
Indeed, d’Abano shows himself much less hostile than Petrarch to the discursive interventions which address states of mind of the patient; he not only cites Galen’s Prognosticon–“he who persuades best, heals best”–but utilises classical references, sicuro be found durante rhetorical as well as medical texts, preciso the interactions of the body and the passiones animae; confidence is, of course, per passio animae (201r).(23) Durante contrast, Petrarch rather incoherently disallows medical eloquence as dysfunctional mediante his letter puro Pope Clement VI, while recommending puro him at the end of the letter verso proper frame of mind, good cheer, as conducive puro health.(24)
Mediante short, we could argue that d’Abano includes verso rhetorical analysis, and his vital strategy is per psychological mapping onto practical effect. But per Peircian focus on the practical requires not simply taking account of the practical resonances of investigative program; rather, Peircian methodeutic, rhetorical reconstruction of inquiry requires verso pragmatic account of the construction of inquiry itself, for the most important practical effects for Peirce are durante inquiry itself, sopra the actions and revisions of action and attitude of a community of inquirers. Peircian rhetoric would address the community as a whole, redescribing the Petrarchan confrontation with the doctors as a stage of negotiation per the construction of inquiry sopra general; Petrarch and his Scholastic opponents actively need each other, and interactively define themselves.(25) Book III of the Invectives, the attack on medicine and the defense from the medical attack on poetry, is an account of interactivity, an example of a specific act of self-characterisation. The Invectives esibizione Petrarch developing and testing his identity as inquirer; the Averroists, the medici, are simply an extreme collaudo, verso radical occasion for Petrarchan self-construction (ICM, I, 836, 844).(26)