And mediante Book IV these tactics of self-definition go sicuro 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
Durante Differentia 3, An rimedio sit scientia cum eius appenditiis, we find the development of an interest asiandating similar sicuro Petrarch’s sopra the conceptual space of probability, uncertainty; and, he gives per 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 onesto 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. Durante Differentia 1 he cites medicine as scientia particularissima (4r), but this is one of a series of characterisations; medicine is also described as an art, a habitus of right action; or, as theory, it is per science, as practice an art (6r 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 tete-a-tete sopra Differentia 135, An confidentia infirmi de medico conservat in salutem, of discursive interventions by the doctor. Like Petrarch, d’Abano explains confidence, fiducia, in 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 notes the use of the principle of decorum: more “tender” patients are more susceptible to 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 to the universality of opinions. There is, of course, an insistent and useful emphasis on the corporeal contribution puro the psychology of confidence. The intellect must abstract from the phantasy, but the phantasy is durante the likeness of the corporeal, and per confidence subsisting per the intellect depends, therefore, on sense. Here he cites Aristotle: “nihil sit sopra intellectu quin prius fuerit mediante 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 tua 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, puro be found mediante rhetorical as well as medical texts, onesto the interactions of the body and the passiones animae; confidence is, of course, verso passio animae (201r).(23) Sopra contrast, Petrarch rather incoherently disallows medical eloquence as dysfunctional per his letter sicuro Pope Clement VI, while recommending onesto him at the end of the letter a proper frame of mind, good cheer, as conducive puro health.(24)
Sopra short, we could argue that d’Abano includes a rhetorical analysis, and his vital strategy is a psychological mapping onto practical effect. But a 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 mediante inquiry itself, in the actions and revisions of action and attitude of a community of inquirers. Peircian rhetoric would address the community as per whole, redescribing the Petrarchan confrontation with the doctors as a tirocinio of negotiation sopra the construction of inquiry in 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 spettacolo Petrarch developing and testing his identity as inquirer; the Averroists, the medici, are simply an extreme test, verso radical occasion for Petrarchan self-construction (ICM, I, 836, 844).(26)