Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Santorio Santori
and the Emergence of
Quantified Medicine,
1614–1790
Corpuscularianism, Technology
and Experimentation
Edited by
Jonathan Barry
Fabrizio Bigotti
Palgrave Studies in Medieval
and Early Modern Medicine
Series Editors
Jonathan Barry
Department of History
University of Exeter
Exeter, UK
Fabrizio Bigotti
Institute for the History of Medicine
Julius Maximilian University
Würzburg, Germany
The series focuses on the intellectual tradition of western medicine as related to the
philosophies, institutions, practices, and technologies that developed throughout
the medieval and early modern period (500-1800). Partnered with the Centre for
the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance (CSMBR), it seeks to
explore the range of interactions between various conceptualisations of the body,
including their import for the arts (e.g. literature, painting, music, dance, and
architecture) and the way different medical traditions overlapped and borrowed
from each other. The series particularly welcomes contributions from young
authors. The editors will consider proposals for single monographs, as well as
edited collections and translations/editions of texts, either at a standard length
(70-120,000 words) or as Palgrave Pivots (upto 50,000 words).
Associate Editors
Alexandra Bamji, University of Leeds
Carmen Caballero-Navas, University of Granada
Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
David Gentilcore, University of Leicester
Guido Maria Giglioni, University of Macerata
Benjamin Goldberg, University of South Florida
Georgiana Hedesan, University of Oxford
John Henderson, Birkbeck University of London
Martin Kemp, University of Oxford
Ian MacLean, University of Oxford
Cecilia Martini Bonadeo, University of Padua
Heikki Mikkeli, University of Helsinki
William Royall Newman, Indiana University
Vivian Nutton, Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance (CSMBR)
Antoine Pietrobelli, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne
Aurélien Robert, Centre d’Etudes Supérieures de la Renaissance Tours
Hester Schadee, University of Exeter
Giovanni Silvano, University of Padova
Michael Stolberg, Julius Maximilian University, Würzburg
Alain Touwaide, Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions, Washington DC & Los Angeles
Giulia Martina Welston, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London
John Wilkins, University of Exeter
Fabio Zampieri, University of Padova
Fabiola Zurlini, Studio Firmano for the History of Medicine and Science
Editorial Board
Justin Begley, University of Helsinki
Andreas Blank, Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt
Silvana D’Alessio, University of Salerno
Hiro Hirai, Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands)
Luca Tonetti, ‘La Sapienza’ University of Rome
Ruben Verwaal, Durham University
Alun Withey, University of Exeter
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Chapters 1 and 2 are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details
see licence information in the chapters.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
This book seeks to re-establish the centrality of Santorio Santori,1 not only
in the history of medicine but also in the history of science and technol-
ogy, by showing how, through studying his work and legacy, we obtain a
new and fuller perspective on the nature and development of corpusculari-
anism and early modern experimental philosophy. It does so by establish-
ing not only Santorio’s own contribution to both natural philosophy and
experimentation but also his legacy over the following two centuries, in
which his work was a fundamental reference point to many leading figures.
This legacy, however, was never one of simple acceptance of Santorio’s
ideas and findings: just as he sought to follow Aristotle and Galen by
adopting their methods rather than simply repeating their conclusions, so
successive generations of scholars were inspired to conduct their own pro-
grammes of experimentation and theorising by following his lead, even if
they often sought to explain his results through their own preferred natu-
ral philosophies. Yet, ironically, many of them did so applying versions of
corpuscularian and mechanical philosophy which (though they probably
did not know it) had been pioneered by Santorio himself, although his
own corpuscularian and mechanical models of nature remained largely
implicit in the construction of his instruments and experiments, or were
expressed only briefly in his medical commentaries.
The reader may well wonder why, if Santorio was so important to early
modern science and medicine, has he been so little known or studied in
recent times? One answer might be the paradoxical one that Santorio was
a victim of his own success. His name became indelibly associated with
v
vi Preface
his Medicina statica, which was constantly reprinted, translated and com-
mented on for the next two centuries. In particular his name became syn-
onymous with the weighing chair he invented (the Sanctorian chair) and
with the measurement of insensible perspiration for which it was designed
(widely known as Sanctorian perspiration in the eighteenth century).
Although these remained a living part of scientific and medical theory and
practice until at least the time of Lavoisier, they were sidelined by new
forms of science and medicine in the nineteenth century, and Santorio
became seen as a ‘dead end’ in terms of the progress of science and medi-
cine. Although Lucia Dacome and others have done much to re-establish
the significance of medical statics in the early modern period, they have
tended to present this as an aspect of medical thinking and practice tied
closely to dietetics and the application of the six non-naturals to health
regimes, rather than exploring the broader implications of Santorio’s
work, which this collection seeks to emphasise. The contributions cover
different aspects and developments of Santorio’s legacy throughout
European medicine up to Lavoisier and explore the ‘dissemination’ of his
‘seminal’ ideas. They also demonstrate that Santorio’s researches, both
experimental and theoretical, extended well beyond medicine to cover
theory of matter, optics, clinical practice, technology and even astronomy,
fields in which his contributions served as a fountainhead of new ideas and
pioneered new approaches.
Santorio has also suffered from the downplaying of medicine as a source
of scientific development during the ‘scientific revolution’, and in particu-
lar as a source of mathematical, experimental and ‘mechanical’ models of
nature (including the human body) during this period. Traditionally the
focus has been on physics, and especially the development of a ‘mechanical
worldview’ through development in astronomy associated with men like
Galileo and Newton. More recently, this unilateral view has been rightly
criticised and supplemented by a recognition of the importance of ‘chy-
mistry’ (a term for pre-Lavoiserian chemistry developed by Newman and
Principe in their pioneering work in this area), not least in the work of
Boyle and Newton, which has in turn brought medicine back into the
picture, given the strong links between chymistry and medicine. Historians
have also identified the crucial role played by medical practitioners in the
development of all the sciences, including natural history (e.g. Linnaeus),
while even those natural philosophers not directly practising medicine,
such as Descartes and Leibniz, have been shown to be centrally concerned
with medical developments. Gradually this is filtering into general accounts
of scientific change.
Preface vii
and thus retained the concept of form as an active principle able to guide
the motion of corpuscles in an orderly manner. Such attempts are part of
what has been defined as an ‘Aristotelian corpuscularianism’ predomi-
nantly linked to North Italian philosophers (especially in Padua), includ-
ing Santorio. Compared to other Aristotelians, these thinkers, mainly
physicians, upheld a more direct commitment to the physical existence of
minima in their study of the combination of artificial substances to pursue
a truly quantitative and chymical analysis of them. In many cases, however,
they remained committed to the existence of substantial forms which they
used to explain the emergence of new properties. Santorio’s own version
of corpuscularianism and the adaptations and responses to this found in
the other natural philosophers reveal the complexity of this process.
This volume explores one particular aspect of this new approach by
detailing Santorio’s approach to medicine in the light of the theories he
developed, the instruments he invented and the experimental practices
he pioneered. It collects papers resulting from the international confer-
ence on ‘Humours, Mixtures and Corpuscles. A Medical Approach to
Corpuscularianism in the Seventeenth Century’ that we organised in
Pisa in May 2017 with support from the Wellcome Trust (Grant no.
WT106580/Z/14/Z) and the Institutio Santoriana—Fondazione Comel.
Bigotti’s contributions on Santorio himself, and the chapters on Obizzi, an
early opponent (by Zurlini), and on Santorio’s views on plague (D’Alessio
and Nutton), reveal both his continued commitment to a model of nature
which underpinned a medicine delivered with certainty by the rational phy-
sician and the fundamental departures from traditional medical orthodoxy
which his approach produced. The subsequent chapters of this volume
explore these themes for such key figures as Sennert (Newman), Beeckman
(Moreau), Descartes (Baldassarri), Leibniz (Blank) and Boyle (Ricciardo).
It is clear that Santorio himself was read differently depending on the par-
ticular approach of each author and indeed our contributors (like their
subjects) take rather different positions on the degree to which a corpuscu-
larian approach presumed, for example, the rejection of substantial forms.
With the establishment by the end of the century of forms of ‘mechani-
cal philosophy’ such as Newtonianism and the associated iatromechanical
model of the body/medicine, Santorio ceased, for a period, to be a direct
source of inspiration for theories of matter as a whole. However, his math-
ematical approach to the study of the body and his version of the notion
of ‘insensible perspiration’ remained very important to experimental tra-
ditions within medicine and natural philosophy, as is shown by the later
chapters on Borelli (Zampieri), Baglivi (Tonetti), De Gorter (Verwaal) and
Preface ix
Note
The introduction (by Bigotti and Barry) was made possible by research
funded by the Wellcome Trust under grants 106580/Z/14/Z—Wellcome
Research Fellowship for Bigotti entitled ‘Santorio Santori and the
Emergence of Quantifying Procedures in Medicine at the end of the
Renaissance: Problems, Context, Ideas’—and grant SIA
097782/Z/11/Z—Wellcome Senior Investigator in the Medical
Humanities award for Barry for his project ‘The Medical World of Early
Modern England, Wales and Ireland, c1500–1715’. The chapter by
Bigotti was made possible by research funded by the Wellcome Trust
under grants 106580/Z/14/Z—Wellcome Research Fellowship for
Bigotti entitled ‘Santorio Santori and the Emergence of Quantifying
Procedures in Medicine at the end of the Renaissance: Problems,
Context, Ideas’.
xi
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Fabrizio Bigotti and Jonathan Barry
1 A Tale of Oblivion and Rebirth 2
2 Santorio’s Life and Works 5
3 ‘Not that Close’: The Problematic Relations Between
Santorio and Galileo 26
4 New Instruments for a New Medicine 34
5 Outlines for a Conclusion 38
xiii
xiv Contents
Index403
Notes on Contributors
xvii
xviii Notes on Contributors
Fabrizio Bigotti is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Medicine
and the Body in the Renaissance (CSMBR), as well as a research fellow at
the Institute for the History of Medicine at the Julius Maximilian
University of Würzburg in Germany and an honorary Research Fellow at
the College of Humanities at the University of Exeter, UK. As an intel-
lectual historian, he specialises in the history of science, medicine, and
technology of the late medieval and early modern period (1300–1700),
focusing particularly on on the history of quantification and the role that
classical and medieval philosophies played in the development of early
modern logic, theory of matter, anatomy, and physiology. His publications
include works on late Renaissance Galenism, Vesalius, Acquapendente,
Santorio Santori, Scholasticism, early modern corpuscularianism and the
invention of precision instruments.
Andreas Blank holds a research position funded by the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF) at Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt. He has been a visiting
associate professor at the University of Hamburg and Bard College Berlin
and visiting fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science (University
of Pittsburgh), the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of
Science and Ideas (Tel Aviv University), and the Istituto per il Lessico
Intellettuale e Storia delle Idee (CNR, Rome). He is the author of
some 80 articles, mainly on early modern philosophy, in edited vol-
umes and journals such as Annals of Science, British Journal for the
History of Philosophy, Early Science and Medicine, Eighteenth-Century
Studies, European Journal of Philosophy, History of European Ideas, History
of Philosophy Quarterly, Hypatia, Intellectual History Review, Journal of
Early Modern Studies, Journal of Modern Philosophy, Journal of the History
of Ideas, Journal of International Political Theory, The Monist, Perspectives
on Science, Science in Context, and Studia Leibnitiana.
Silvana D’Alessio is Professor of Modern History at the University of
Salerno; her main interests are the revolt in Naples in 1647–1648, the
plague in the kingdom of Naples in 1656 and Hippocratic medicine in
the early modern age (especially in Pietro Andrea Canoniero’s treatises).
Her main works on medical themes are Per un principe “medico publico”.
Il percorso di Pietro Andrea Canoniero (Scandicci: CET, 2015); “Usi
politici della medicina nella prima età moderna”, in Interpretare e curare.
Medicina e salute nel Rinascimento, ed. by M. Conforti, A. Carlino and
A. Clericuzio, Rome, Carocci, 2013, pp. 269–282; “On the Plague in
Naples, 1656: Expedients and Remedies” in C. De Caprio, D. Cecere,
Notes on Contributors xix
xxiii
xxiv List of Figures
Introduction
F. Bigotti (*)
Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
e-mail: fabrizio.bigotti@uni-wuerzburg.de
J. Barry
Department of History, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
e-mail: J.Barry@exeter.ac.uk
Few, concise remarks, rife with admiration. Leibniz’s words bear witness
to the influence that the Italian physician Santorio Santori (1561–1636)
exerted on European medicine and natural philosophy. His works intro-
duced quantification in the life sciences, his devices helped Giovanni
Alfonso Borelli (1608–1679) to understand the vegetation of plants,
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) to conceive his hydrostatic medicine, Giorgio
Baglivi (1668–1707) to formulate his doctrine of fluids and solids, and
Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) his dietetics.1 Santorio’s masterwork,
Medicina statica (Venice 1614), became the textbook for generations of
physicians and a benchmark of experimental medicine. Praised by Herman
Boerhaave (1668–1738) as the ultimate example of medical perfection, it
set the groundwork for the studies of Archibald Pitcairne (1652–1713) on
fevers, John Floyer (1649–1743) on asthma, James Keill (1673–1719) on
digestion, Jean Bernoulli (1667–1748) on nutrition, Jean-Antoine Nollet
(1700–1770) on electricity up to Lavoisier’s and Séguin’s researches on
oxidation and metabolism.2 In learned circles Santorio’s authority was
equally heralded to uphold the existence of atoms, to explain action at a
distance as a stream of particles (effluvia Sanctorii) and to validate the
belief in the resurrection of the dead.3 And yet so pivotal a figure, likened
to William Harvey for importance and to Descartes for clarity of method,
is today little known, even by the most committed scholars.4 While apply-
ing to all languages, the lack of studies is particularly conspicuous in the
English-speaking world, where the only available monographs are transla-
tions of nineteenth-century Italian works, obsolete in their interpretative
framework and full of misleading information.
Santorio himself once joked about the fact that the destiny of commen-
taries is to fall into oblivion,5 a prediction that has so far proved correct.
His fame instead rested on his Medicina statica and in particular on its
dual emphasis on insensible perspiration and the weighing of the body
by using the weighing chair he invented. Although, as we shall see, these
inventions rested on his wider corpuscularian philosophy and his experi-
mental methodology, they took on a life of their own, not always nec-
essarily associated with Santorio’s philosophical outlook, and eventually
eclipsed the latter. Changes in medicine which appeared to render the
medical statics obsolete left Santorio in obscurity, and although recent
scholarship—particularly thanks to the contribution of Lucia Dacome6—
has helped to recover the importance of his statics, such a recovery has
not, generally at least, been accompanied by the same interest in Santorio’s
output as a whole.
Indeed, the context and content of Santorio’s works seem so at odds
with each other that they have been regarded as a trick history played at
his expense.7 This way of looking at his legacy began in the nineteenth
century with Charles Daremberg (1817–1872), to whom Santorio was ‘a
more or less forgotten relic of the ancient physiology’:
[…] we cannot share the enthusiasm of Baglivi, Boerhaave and many other
17th- and 18th-century physicians for the medical statics. I do not believe
that for this work alone one would erect a marble statue to Sanctorius today,
as was done after his death. Sanctorius is more or less forgotten: it is not
even read anymore. The whole edifice of his Ars statica is based on the old
physiology. […] One would be astonished to find so many ingenious instru-
ments in a commentary which is, moreover, entirely scholastic, if one forgot
that Sanctorius was above all a physicist and a mechanic, always in search of
novelties; so that medical statics is less the result of a medical system than the
application of studies directed towards the work of mechanics proper.8
with Lavoisier’s precise chemistry. The life sciences sat at odds with the
picture positivists were keen to sketch, and medicine in particular was
regarded as an empirical pursuit led by outdated methods and theories.
Thus, when the phenomenon of the ‘insensible perspiration’, to which
Santorio’s contributions had meanwhile been reduced, ceased to be a
pressing concern for medical practice, Santorio was praised instead for
having applied Galileo’s methods to medicine.11
Not less problematic, in the least, is the contemporary attempt to coun-
terbalance such an approach. If framing major scientific changes in terms of
‘revolutions’ does get away from Whig history, it sets the discussion of his-
torical problems within a structuralist dichotomy (old/new, before/after,
closed/open, etc.), which hinders any attempt to grapple with the com-
plexity of historical sources. Worse still, in a Panglossian move that reduces
everything to language and text, it advocates for the necessity of accom-
modating historical actors and empirical evidence to narratives and histo-
riographic paradigms, thus requiring historians to locate events on the one
side or the other of an imaginary threshold, which does not exist. As with
all a priori approaches, it works best in challenging established accounts,
but it is of little help when—as in this case—the task is that of evaluating
the merits of historical figures that have been forgotten or whose contribu-
tions defy easy encapsulation. In this sense, the relevance of authors such as
Santorio—but the same would apply to Daniel Sennert, as William Newman
shows in his contribution—is that they are a constant reminder that there
is ‘no simple way’ to deal with history. To approach early modern authors,
texts must be studied closely and historical evidence used to enlarge and
enrich our tentative characterisations of a period or a trend. Thus, in locat-
ing Santorio’s legacy, we pose as reference the existence of a ‘constellation
of problems’ that are shaped by both converging and diverging historical
accounts, each in turn seen as the result of various actors, ideas, methods
and aims admitting of different solutions, where the old and the new sur-
vive, commix and react, in a way that is impossible to distil into a unifying
picture, be it a paradigm or an episteme.12 Such an approach will lead to a
better understanding of Santorio’s intellectual legacy reversing the oblivion
that has affected an author whose contributions are still reduced nowadays
to the caricature of a man living on a weighing chair.13
This new approach ought to start necessarily from sketching afresh the
main traits of Santorio’s life, character and works. These, now enriched by
substantial findings, will help us to reconstruct in turn the problems his
research was moved by and the directions along which it developed.
1 INTRODUCTION 5
Santorio’s testimony, we can infer that the period Santorio spent abroad
was approximately 1588–1592/1593. Indeed, as early as 1594 we find
him back in Venice, as the recipient of Mercuriale’s consult addressing
Santorio’s concerns about the cure of a melancholic disease afflicting the
Venetian nobleman Arcangelo Agostino.46 In keeping with Capello’s
account, scholars have fixed Santorio’s return to Venice at around 1599,
but 1594 is much more likely and is further corroborated by the epistolary
correspondence between Santorio and the physician Eustachio Rudio
(1548–1612). In it Santorio had informed his friend as to the hesitations
felt in the Venetian establishment in following up on the promise to
appoint Rudio at the chair of practical medicine in Padua, which eventu-
ally took place in 1599.47
By the early 1590s, Santorio had already developed his distinctive inter-
ests in quantification and experimental medicine. If we accept what he
states in the preface of his Medicina statica (1614), and later again in his
letter to Galileo (1615), he had been experimenting on himself as well as
on different subjects for a period of 25–30 years.48 This points to 1584 as
the earliest date for the beginning of his trials, prior to any possible meet-
ing with Galileo. Santorio’s studies on optics also took shape around that
period and he had the opportunity to refine his knowledge of applied
mathematics as part of Pinelli’s circle.49 Pivotal to his early scientific devel-
opment were the influences of his teacher Giacomo Zabarella, as well as
those of Contarini and Sarpi. While Zabarella’s works introduced Santorio
to the purest form of ‘Venetian Aristotelianism’, which stressed logical
rigour, method and natural philosophical explanations over more meta-
physical and theological commitments typical of the late scholastics,
Contarini emphasised the importance of empiricism and scepticism against
the use of authorities in philosophical disputes, as exemplified in his De
perfectione rerum libri sex (1576). This attitude was later sealed by the
personality of Sarpi, to whom Santorio remained deeply attached through-
out his life.50 In the early 1600s Sarpi managed to enrol Santorio as the
physician of the Convent of the Servites in Venice, and given the proximity
of Santorio’s house to the convent he was the first to assist Sarpi when he
was attacked there by assassins paid by the Roman Curia on 5 October
1607.51 The two shared a variety of interests, not only in medicine and
anatomy, but also in distillation, quantification and optics. A case in point
are Sarpi’s early notes on the composition of matter, collected in the
Pensieri Naturali as early as 1578, which form the background against
which to read Santorio’s approach to the same question in his first work,
10 F. BIGOTTI AND J. BARRY
logical fallacies and leads to the death of the patients. Individuals, on the
other hand, ought not to be seen as qualitative distinct atoms but as tem-
poral and spatial instantiations of universal properties (distinguntur per
hinc et nunc) which are the same in all and are hence measurable.61 Such
properties are quantitative, being figure, number and position, and out
of them all the perceptual qualities emerge, in a clocklike mechanism.62
These premises allow the doctor to gather essential information about the
arrangement of universal properties in individual subjects and so to draw
a precise diagnosis sustained and mediated by the use of instruments such
as the pulsilogium, a pendulum-regulated device that allows one to moni-
tor variations in pulse frequency over time (see Figure 2.6).63 The book
gained immediate success and established Santorio as a medical authority
well beyond Italy.64 Throughout the seventeenth century, it still consti-
tuted a source for Joachim Jungius (1587–1657), Caspar Bartholin the
Elder (1585–1629) and Gottlieb Wilhelm (von) Leibniz (1646–1716).65
Despite this initial success, however, Santorio kept practicing in Venice as
a private physician.
The years 1605–1607 saw the development and final settlement of the
Venetian interdict, in which Venice defended successfully its liberty against
the meddling of the Pope and his nuncii. Although Santorio kept a low
profile throughout the unfolding of the political events, in 1610 his name
was mentioned by Fulgenzio Manfredi (1560–1610)—a theologian who,
initially close to Sarpi, later became an informant of the Roman Curia—as
someone who read prohibited books and was acquainted with heretics.
From both personal and official accounts we are informed that Santorio
indeed was close to Sir Henry Wotton (1568–1639), the English ambas-
sador in Venice, who the Roman Curia monitored closely as an active
instigator of Protestant doctrines and smuggler of prohibited books in the
Venetian nobility, via the mediation of Paolo Sarpi and his friends.66
Manfredi reported Santorio as of close conversation with Sarpi and reveals
that both Sarpi and Contarini were plotting to provide him with a chair in
medicine at Padua.67 And, on 6 October 1611, Santorio was indeed
appointed to the chair of theoretical medicine and also became affiliated to
the ‘Collegio dei Medici Fisici’ in Venice.68 Although important, his politi-
cal connections were considerably strengthened by the esteem of his col-
leagues. Amongst them was the Milanese doctor Lodovico Settala
(1550–1633) who, when requested by the Senate of Venice to hold the
same chair, declined, recommending Santorio as the most worthy candi-
date.69 Santorio and Settala maintained a very close relationship
1 INTRODUCTION 13
Fig. 1.3 Santorio in his weighing chair. From Santorio 1625, col. 781
16 F. BIGOTTI AND J. BARRY
Fig. 1.4 Ideal portrait of Santorio as sitting on his chair. Letterhead from
Stephan Mack, Scriptores Medico-Statici, Ms 11100, p. 159, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, Vienna
Fig. 1.5 Anonymous (Frans Pourbus II?) Portrait of Santorio Santori. (Identified
by Fabrizio Bigotti in 2017). Oil on panel, 91 x 76. Antwerp, The Phoebus
Foundation. © The Phoebus Foundation 2020
1 INTRODUCTION 21
Fig. 1.6 Santorio Santori engraved by Jacopo Piccini in 1659. From Santorio 1660
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
1870–1871. Navy yard, New York.
1871. Worcester, home station.
1872. Promoted to commander. Receiving ship, New York.
1873–1874. Commanding side-wheel steamer Wasp in the Rio de
la Plata.
1875–1876. Navy yard, Boston.
1877–1880. Naval Academy, Annapolis.
1880–1883. Navy yard, New York.
1883–1885. Commanding steam sloop Wachusett, South Pacific
Squadron.
1885. Assigned to Naval War College, as lecturer on naval history
and strategy.
1886–1889. President of Naval War College.
1889–1892. Special duty, Bureau of Navigation. Member of
commission to choose site for navy yard in Puget Sound.
1892–1893. President of Naval War College.
1893–1895. Commanding cruiser Chicago, flagship of Rear
Admiral Erben, European station.
1895–1896. Special duty at the Naval War College.
1896. November 17, retired as captain on his own application after
forty years’ service.
1896–1912. Special duty in connection with Naval War College.
1898. Member of Naval War Board during Spanish War.
1899. Delegate to Hague Peace Conference.
1906. June 29, rear admiral on the retired list.
1914. December 1, died at the Naval Hospital, Washington.
Academic Honors
D.C.L., Oxford, 1894; LL.D., Cambridge, 1894; LL.D., Harvard,
1895; LL.D., Yale, 1897; LL.D., Columbia, 1900; LL.D., Magill, 1909;
President of the American Historical Association, 1902.
PUBLISHED WORKS
Uncollected Essays
REFERENCES
Genoa, 67
Germany, recent naval policy of, #$1#–xv, 51;
trade of, 25;
rivers of, 33, 69;
central position of, 53;
possible acquisitions in West Indies, 288;
political character and aims of, 292, 302–308, 317–327;
and Far East, 299;
her sea routes threatened by Great Britain, 312–316, 333, 336.
See Navy, German
Gibraltar, an important base, 20, 22, 58, 69, 74, 152, 154;
acquired by Great Britain, 26, 147, 157;
siege of, 85, 86, 107, 178;
Nelson at, 196, 199, 209
Good Hope, Cape of, 20, 26, 33, 51, 152, 290, 314
Graves, British Admiral, off the Chesapeake, 160, 164–170
Gravina, Spanish Admiral, at Trafalgar, 210–211, 214, 219–220
Great Britain, growth of, in naval power, #$1#, 32–34, 43–44;
colonial policy of, 45, 46, 343;
naval policy of, 47–48, 141–146;
community of interests with United States, 111, 291–295, 318–332;
in American Revolution, 143–144;
gains of, in Seven Years’ War, 147–154;
navy her first line of defense, 191–195;
in commerce warfare with Napoleon, 223–228, 310–311;
and problem of imperial federation, 293;
threatened by Germany, 302–308;
policy of, relating to seizure of private property at sea, 333–338.
See Navy, British
Guadeloupe, 25, 143
Guantanamo, 58, 103–107, 111
Naples, 38, 39
Napoleon, as a strategian, 11;
anecdote of, 12–14;
quoted, 4, 14, 55, 58, 70, 78, 110, 155, 173, 241, 271, 287, 296, 335;
at Marengo and Mantua, 76, 257;
a believer in the offensive, 80, 81, 152, 153;
in commerce warfare with Great Britain, 92, 93, 95, 223–228, 331;
armies of, 172;
and the northern neutrals, 184, 187;
his plan for the invasion of England, 191–198;
and the Trafalgar campaign, 221–223, 248;
downfall of, 237;
at Waterloo, 239
Napoleonic Wars, 12, 31, 80, 81, 142, 307, 310, 343
Naval Administration, civil vs. military, 113–115;
in peace and war, 115–118;
British, 118–122;
United States, 122–124.
See Admiralty
Naval Training, 8–15
Naval War College, Mahan at, #$1#;
aims of, 10–15
Navarino, battle of, 178
Navies, motives for, 18, 355–357;
a protection for commerce, 19;
fighting order of, 61;
an offensive weapon, 71–73
Navigation Acts, British, 337
Navy, British;
training of officers in, 8–9;
compared with French, 43;
maneuvers of, 72;
tactics of, in the 18th century, 156–158;
protection afforded by, 306–308;
French:
training of officers in, 8–9;
compared with British, 43;
weakness of, in Revolutionary Wars, 146, 171–174, 178;
faulty policy of, 155–158;
German: growth and purpose of, 111, 299, 307, 317–320;
United States:
interested chiefly in material, 8;
in Civil War, 41;
insufficient, 44;
in Spanish War, 59–60, 245, 250–253;
concentration of fleet of, 60, 274–275;
administration of, 122–124;
requirements of, 128–134
Nebogatoff, Russian Admiral, 83
Nelson, British Admiral, his place as a naval leader, #$1#;
in the Trafalgar campaign, 5, 62, 63, 196–223;
his pursuit of Napoleon in the Mediterranean, 58;
on concentration, 61;
quoted, 80, 82, 85, 175, 253;
and the rule of obedience, 126–127;
in the Copenhagen campaign, 184–190;
in command of channel forces, 191–192, 195
Netherlands. See Belgium; Holland
Neutrality, League of Armed, 184–190
Newport, Rhode Island, #$1#, 164, 166
New York, 31, 69, 73, 164–167
Niagara frontier, warfare on, 231–232, 235–236
Nile, battle of, 153
North Sea, 23, 25, 51, 313–316
Nossi-Bé, 82, 83
Pacific Coast, of United States, 35, 40, 67, 111, 112, 285, 289;
immigration to, 350, 356
Pacific Ocean, interest of the United States in, 289, 299–301
Panama Canal, its effect on naval policy, 18, 27–29, 325;
an interior line, 51, 301;
central position of, 67, 70, 77;
strategic importance of, 100–112, 149, 150, 356–357;
need of controlling approaches to, 285–287;
and the Monroe Doctrine, 288–291, 318
Paris, Treaty of, 147–148;
Declaration of, 99, 337;
city of, 198
Parker, British Admiral, 184–190
Peace Conferences, at The Hague, #$1#, 132, 331, 342, 346
Peninsular War, 81, 82
Pensacola, 29
Philippine Islands, 252, 349
Pitt, Sir William, British Prime Minister, 143, 151
Plevna, 56, 57
Plymouth, England, 24, 31
Pondicherry, 78, 154
Population, affecting sea power, 43–44;
of Pacific Coast, 301
Port Arthur, threatening Japanese communications, 56, 57;
attacked by siege, 71, 82;
squadron based on, 256–271, 275
Port Mahon, 289
Porto Rico, 241, 349
Ports, in Gulf and Caribbean, 128, 29;
flanking communications, 56–58
Portsmouth, England, 31
Preparation, for war, 128–134, 229–230, 237–238, 357
Private property at sea, immunity of, 78, 93, 98, 99, 328–341;
Rule of 1756 regarding, 227–228
Prussia, 147, 153, 189, 191, 228
Puget Sound, 67
Pyrenees, 52, 65
Ratisbon, 50
Red Sea, 152
Resources, affecting strategic value of positions, 68, 69, 74
Revel, 188–190
Rhine River, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 197.
Richelieu, Cardinal, 31, 60
Rions, Commodore de, 174