Biography

In some cases, the life of a philosopher is placed a latere in respect to the most relevant events of his epoch, while in others the biographies are deeply plunged into the tumultuous becoming of history. The rich life of Cesare Cremonini reflected the second case: an intellectual and a university professor who took part in the cultural and political life of a city as important as Padua and a philosopher under the protection of the illustrious Republic of Venice. Cremonini was born in Cento, a very small town between Modena and Ferrara, politically under the influence of the powerful Este family; we do not know the exact date of his birth, but we do know his day of baptism: December 22, 1550. His mother was Mattea Pilanzi and his father was Matteo; the family was active in painting: his grandfather, Giovan Battista, father, and brother, also called Giovan Battista, were all painters. We do not have any clear information about the first period of his studies: after the first degree in humanities – traditionally the initial step for entering one of the three big faculties in the sixteenth century – Cremonini chose the faculty of law: after a brief period, however, he left this cursus studiorum and devoted himself to philosophy. Probably, these steps of his education occurred in an unknown Studium of Ferrara; we know that he was a student of Federico Pendasio (1526–1603), a professor of Natural philosophy both at the University of Padua (1565–1571), and at the University of Bologna (from 1571 till his death) (Schmit 1980; Forlivesi 2012).

Thanks to his doctorate, taken most probably in Ferrara, Cremonini earned the licentia ubique docendi, the qualification necessary to teach in universities. During these years, he spent his time in the rich milieu of Alfonso II d’Este’s court (1533–1577) in Ferrara, and he became familiar with Giambattista Pigna, Francesco Patrizi, and Torquato Tasso. It is important to remember that Tasso had been a professor of Mathematics (1574) in the same faculty of Arts and Medicine where, from 1578 to 1590, Cremonini himself held his courses. In fact, in 1578 his first chair, as professor straordinario (adjunct professor) in secundo loco (second place) was Natural philosophy; from 1581 to 1584, he was both adjunct professor in primo loco (first place) and professor ordinario (full professor) in second place for the same discipline. From 1584 to 1587, he was only adjunct professor in first place and then until 1589, he was full professor in first place. During his last academic year at the University of Ferrara, Cremonini was appointed to the same chair of Mathematics that had belonged to Tasso, an important and relevant task, because the course was centered on the reading and explanation of Euclid’s Sphere. His life in Ferrara was very successful but not without problems: already during this time, in fact, the philosopher had faced some slanders by his colleagues, a hostility rooted in academic rivalry and, probably, in the very leitmotif of Cremonini’s life: the first accusation about his teaching and manner of reading Aristotle’s works is proved by a letter, sent on May 20, 1589, addressed to Duke Alfonso II d’Este (Tiraboschi 1833, p. 475; Schmitt 1984).

On the November 23, 1590, Cremonini was invited with an official decree to teach at the prestigious University of Padua. This date is very important because at that date Cremonini was in a position to take the chair of Natural philosophy as professor in secundo loco, the place freed by the death in 1589 of Jacopo Zabarella, who had spent part of his life in this position. Following the University’s antiprivilege rules, the latter philosopher, born in Padua, could not obtain the most prestigious place, steadily occupied by Francesco Piccolomini, full professor of the same chair but in primo loco. Moreover, Zabarella’s death was significant for another circumstance as well: in the same year, Girolamo Capizucchi also died. For the Jesuits, this meant the loss of the two most important professors in line with their positions (and their requests) inside the Studium of Padua (Muir 2007; Sangalli 2001; Grendler 2002, pp. 479–483). These two elements, a new academic horizon and the relations with the Jesuits, were relevant aspects of the early period of Cremonini’s activity in Padua; two official speeches, both in 1591, perfectly represent the philosopher’s role in the new Studium: the first is the inaugural lesson of his course (January 27, 1571), the second is the discourse held in Venice against the powerful Gymnasium patavinum founded by the Jesuits (December 20, 1571). In these two speeches, we can see the rich and complex profile of Cremonini as an intellectual and citizen: a skilful and cultured orator, he had profoundly changed his context and found a new identity in relation to an institution very different from the University of Ferrara. In this city, the Studium was strictly linked to the will of the Duke, and in management near to that of a private institution; under the protection of Venice, Padua University was a solid public reality with a greater degree of freedom, where Cremonini was able to develop his career (Schmitt 1980), inside and outside the Studium.

After this beginning in Padua, Cremonini’s reputation and fame constantly grew: in the academic years 1601–1602, after Piccolomini’s retirement, he held the chair of Natural philosophy as professor in primo loco, the role that he kept until his death on July 19, 1631, probably due to a lung disease. During this period, we see strong evidence of Cremonini’s importance: the increase of his salary from 200 to 2000 florins; his role as an orator on behalf of Cento in the delicate business regarding the victory of Pope Clemente VIII against Ferrara (May 27, 1598); and three times on behalf of the Faculty of Arts and Medicine, the task of making the speech on the occasion of the election of a new Doge (1606, 1616, 1618). His public role was also strengthened by his activity inside the Accademia dei Ricovrati, where he was elected with Galileo Galilei and Gambattista Pigna in 1600.

Another important chapter in Cremonini’s life was his presence in different debates: against Galileo Galilei on the nature of the skies (1605); with Paolo Beni supporting his pupil Giuseppe degli Aromatari against Alessando Tassoni on Petrarch’s heritage (1611–1613); against Giorgio Raguseo about the nature of elements and some points in Aristotle’s interpretation (1613); and against Pompeo Caimo about Galenism (1626–1627) (Ongaro 2000). His authority as professor and philosopher earned during his life in Padua, however, did not save him from the harassing attentions of the Inquisition of this city and, of course, of Rome: some relevant studies on these topics (Poppi 1993a, b; Sangalli 1998; Muir 2007) clearly show the tenacity of the Inquisition’s attacks against Cremonini. After a first moment of attention in 1599, Cremonini’s works and teaching activities were subject to examination seven times: in 1604 (the most recent discovery), 1608, 1611, 1614, 1619, 1622, and 1626. Despite this continuous fight with the Inquisition, Cremonini was very prudent and succeeded in escaping from any humiliating or violent consequence, reinforcing his standing as a masterly intellectual: in this framework, thanks to his teaching activity and cultural influence, Cremonini’s legacy is linked to libertinism especially during the seventeenth century; later, also as a result of the Naudeana et Patiniana (1701, 1703, p. 56), the posthumous books attributed to Gabriel Naudé and Guy Patin, Cremonini’s ironic and shrewd profile was strengthened by the famous motto ascribed to him: intus ut libet, foris ut moris (Kristeller 1968; Bosco 1989; Turner 2003; Cavaillé 2011).

Heritage and Rupture with Tradition – Innovative and Original Aspects – Impact and Legacy

In order to understand Cremonini’s contribution to late Renaissance thought, it is necessary to place this philosopher in the problematic and multifaceted scenario of Italian universities in the seventeenth century, with its debates and principal topics. First of all, it is important to bear in mind the prominent position of Aristotelian tradition and its relations with Christian dogma. Whereas in Europe, in France (Paris), and England (Oxford), Aristotle was often utilized in the Faculty of Arts as a first step for studying Theology, during the fourteenth century, the specific situation of Italian Universities and the absence of a strong tradition in this field in Studia such as Padua, Bologna, and Pavia favored a separation between natural philosophy, focused on Aristotle’s works, and religious faith. Despite the respect for Christian dogma, Italian professors often claimed the autonomy of reason in explaining natural phenomena and the reading and comments of Aristotle’s legacy were directed to the study of Medicine: the most common books were De caelo, Physics, De generatione et corruptione, Parva naturalia, the so-called Organon, Nicomachean Ethics, and Politics.

During the sixteenth century, as a result of the studies developed in the previous century, a new approach arose: beside the Scholastic tradition, the new humanistic lesson had a powerful impact on university practice. Aristotelian humanism had important supporters such as Niccolò Leonico Tomeo (1456–1531), Angiolo Poliziano (1454–1494), and Ermolao Barbaro (1453–1493), and it promoted new translations in Latin and new editions of the Greek texts, among which the contribution of Aldo Manuzio (1452?–1515) and his typography in Venice played an important role. This new approach created a divide between two ways of reading and interpreting Aristotle: the first, traditionally linked to Averroes, which recalled the validity of the medieval lesson, and a second manner, focused on the contribution of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which found in the Hellenistic tradition the principal contribution for reading Aristotle. The differences and relations between these two traditions are very complex, also because of reciprocal influences and the different shades within each philosopher, but we could say that Averroes’s tradition tended to pantheism and Alexandrian traditions tended more toward a split between a transcendent God and the immanent world (Bianchi 2003). In this context, relevant for the history of North Italy’s Studia, we must recall the contribution of Pietro Pomponazzi (1462–1525), one of the most important philosophers of the Alexandrian traditions: a pupil of Nicoletto Vernia (1420–1499), Pomponazzi tried to explain the world’s order only by human reason and one of his most renowned topics was the immortality of the soul, widely debated in Latin and vernacular treatises during the Renaissance (Sgarbi 2016). His major work, De immortalitate animae (1516) was written only 3 years after the papal seal Apostolici regiminis (December 19, 1513) by Leone X, where certain Christian dogmas are reaffirmed: the soul truly exists of itself and essentially as form of the human body, it is immortal, created by God and instilled in the body, and each person has his own rational soul. Furthermore, the second part of this papal seal lays down the obligation for university professors to teach these dogmas and to confute every different philosophical argument. With De immortalitate animi and De naturalium effectuum admirandorum causis sive de incantationibus (1520), Pomponazzi proposed an intrepid approach for questioning world, miracles, and the nature of the soul (Landucci 2006). Although his faith in the Christian dogmas is undisputed, the philosopher attempted a clarification of reality from a rational perspective: the Church affirms the truth and philosophy interprets Aristotle. A rational explanation is applied by Pomponazzi on the soul too, depicting a horizon where recompenses and penances are immanent to mortal life; in this manner, a long philosophical and theological tradition, engaged in a research inside Aristotle’s thought on the question of the immortality of the soul, is undermined causing a strong reaction. De immortalitate was burnt in Venice and only the protection of Pietro Bembo and the magistrates of Bologna saved Pomponazzi from dire consequences.

After Pomponazzi’s contribution, the topic of the immortality of the soul remained an element of living debate: we could refer to Simone Porta (1496–1554), the author of De anima et mente humana (1552), and, most importantly in Padua’s context, to Jacopo Zabarella (1533–1589). With a solid education having a hallmark rooted in the new humanistic approach and in agreement with the interpretation of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Zabarella wrote works in an elegant Latin on the interpretation of Aristotle and he confirmed some of Pomponazzi’s positions; in particular, in his opinion the soul is the form which gives being to the individual body and moreover, the soul cannot operate without the phantasmata given by the perceptive organs and it cannot survive the body’s death: the Christian dogmas are not refused, but they are confined to the field of theology. Another important topic debated by Zabarella was the method in the logic field (Zabarella 1578a): his proposal of a regressus demonstrativus was a relevant issue in the university’s context (Zabarella 1578b). Zabarella and his pupil Giulio Pace (1550–1635) contributed to the diffusion and success of the Aristotelian tradition of Padua in Europe.

A last element of interest for understanding the cultural scenario of Padua is to be found outside the University, in the fragmented horizon of Accademie: Of particular importance, this features the activities of the Academia of Infiammati and of one of its members, Alessandro Piccolomini (1508–1579). Engaged in the defence and promotion of the vernacular, Piccolomini and the Infiammati achieved many important translations and new works in particular devoted to topics not sufficiently present in the university curriculum, such as rhetoric, poetry, and moral philosophy. In this sense, his adaptation of the Nicomachean Ethics was relevant to the new civil context, De la istituzione di tutta la vita dell’uomo nato nobile e in città libera (Piccolomini 1542, 1560).

In the versatile profile of Cremonini, all these elements are present. Already in Ferrara, with his familiarity with Francesco Patrizi (1529–1597) and the dynamic milieu of the Este court, Cremonini had a foretaste of the libertas philosophandi enjoyed by the previous generation of Italian philosophers such as Pomponazzi and, in a different manner, Patrizi. During the Counter-Reformation, however, the Church engaged in a conflict to re-establish orthodoxy: its fight was against the Platonism of philosophers like Patrizi, Francesco Giorgi, and Agostino Steuco in favor of peripatetic philosophy, but it was also fueled by the intention to restrict freedom in interpreting Aristotle. In this sense, the Church was not inclined to accept the split between faith and natural philosophy anymore, reaffirming the position articulated in the papal seal Apostolici regiminis. In Padua, during Cremonini’s life, these religious intentions were summarized by the work of Antonio Possevino (1534–1611), Biblioteca selecta (Possevino 1593), in which some opinions were considered particularly dangerous such as: «mundum esse ingenitum, animos mortales, Deum non curare res humanas».

In 1590, when he arrived in Padua, it is easy to understand Cremonini’s delicate situation: as professor of Natural philosophy, his course was once more supervised by the Inquisition and, in order to face this obstacle, the choice of Cremonini was a continuous play of prudence and erudition. This feature is perfectly represented by his inaugural speech of January 27, 1591: Cremonini introduced himself as a philosopher and humanist through a wide range of literary and philosophical citations, linking his image with a noble tradition of inaugural oration typical of the humanistic approach. Furthermore, his humanistic education and his attention to literature were shown also in his poetical works written throughout his life (Cremonini 1590, 1622). The framework of his speech is the perpetual motus which rules reality, a powerful movement wherein all elements of the world are dragged «mundus nunquam est, nascitur semper et moritur» (Cremonini 1591). In this motus, the human being is the problematic microcosm illustrated with references from Plato, Dante, and Petrarch, without any mention of Aristotle, showing a strategic solution for bypassing the attention of the Inquisition and of some hostile colleagues. Nevertheless, his approach did not protect him from the attacks of his adversaries: the success of his courses and the rigour of his interpretation of Aristotle’s work took him far away from the Christian lessons about peripatetic philosophy. In his works, Cremonini went further than Zabarella: for the philosopher of Cento the world is not created by God and the sky’s movement is caused by the desire toward God. Against Averroes’ idea of a unique intellect, Cremonini finds in this reality the principle of differentiation between the human being and other animals and the connection between soul and body is guaranteed by innate heat, which is placed in the heart (Cremonini 1626).

Cremonini’s interpretation of Aristotle led him toward the affirmation of the mortality of the soul; this element, together with the other positions about the peripatetic philosophy, must be placed in a moment of conflict between the Padua Studium and the Jesuits.

This aspect is almost inseparable from Cremonini’s philosophical works and teaching activity: today, we know that Cremonini was, in fact, one of most determined rivals of the Jesuits, a contrast which was not limited to academic disagreements. In Padua, a cultural vision and the influence on young people of the aristocracy and the upper class are at stake: indeed, in that period, Padua’s Studium was one of the most important – and wealthiest – Universities in Italy, for its liberal and antiprivilege rules as well as because it was under the protection of Venice. In 1589, the Jesuits’ College, one of those first established in 1542, expanded until it had 450 students among which 70 from the aristocracy (Muir 2007). After 2 years of harsh conflict in which Cremonini played an important role, in 1591 the Venetian Senate declared that only Jesuit novices could attend the courses in the Jesuits’ College. Between 1591 and 1606, when Jesuits were banned from Venice’s territory, the attacks conducted by Jesuits became increasingly intense; during these years, the first accusations against Cremonini were made: the first, possibly in 1599, but the trial has still not been ascertained, and the second in 1604, in which the names of Cremonini and Galilei were linked together. This second accusation is interesting because both the opinions and the teaching of the two philosophers were brought to the Inquisition’s attention; this attack had been prepared at three separate times: the first, certain Jesuit sermons inviting citizens and students to denounce any ideas in the odor of heresy (March 3, 1604); the second, a denunciation of Cremonini by one of his colleagues Camillo Belloni (April 12, 1604); the third, another denunciation against Galilei made by Silvestro, another colleague (April 21, 1604) (Poppi 1992). The elegant and clever defence that Cremonini presented to the Signoria of the Republic was a plea for the civic value of culture, denouncing the subterfuges concocted by Jesuits. Furthermore, we see Cremonini’s willingness to explain his position even in front of the tribunal of the Inquisition in Rome in order to dispel any doubts about his conduct, because: «La cosa è di tale importanza, che non solo a persone di qualche grado si conviene mancar di colpa, ma del sospetto della colpa» (Cremonini 1998, p. 108). On this occasion, we observe Cremonini’s particular strategy for facing the criticism of his interpretation of Aristotle: the philosopher accepted only the authority of Venice’s Senate, avoiding every claim made by the religious power. The Jesuits employed an interpretation designed to link Aristotle’s doctrine to Christian dogma, proposing lessons where Aristotle’s original works were not used. On the contrary, with a different approach linked to humanistic tradition, Cremonini and many professors in Palazzo del Bo, the principal location of Padua’s Studium, proposed a method founded on an ideal of education addressing the formation of a citizen of the Venetian Republic and guided by sceptical doubt. On the occasion of this first trial and on similar occasions later, the protection guaranteed by Venice preserved Cremonini from any serious persecution. After all, during the same period, there was another strong supporter of the Republic living in Venice: Paolo Sarpi (1552–1623), who devoted an important part of his work to defending an education guided by the ideals of civic humanism. A similar outline of the trial which took place in 1604 occurred for the famous accusation of 1611, where once again Cremonini and Galilei came under attack: «Videatur an in processu Doctoris Caesaris Cremonini sit nominatus… Galileus philosophie et mathematicae professor» (Berti 1878; Poppi 1992). And once again, the libertas patavina saved Cremonini from the Inquisition’s darts. The philosopher’s trust in Venice’s protection is perfectly represented by his famous affirmation full of regret, quoted in a letter from Paolo Gualdo to Galileo (July 29, 1611): «Oh quanto harebbe fatto bene anco il Sr. Galilei, non entrare in queste girandole, e non lasciar la libertà patavina».

Cremonini’s most significant books of this period come within this conceptual and political framework; among these, particularly Disputatio de coelo (1613) represented a relevant case. This book was published 1 year after another Jesuit defeat, in 1612, when Venice forbade every citizen of its territory from sending his sons to Jesuit schools. Despite his reactionary character (Muir 2007), this work represented a specific approach to humanistic culture: Cremonini promoted philosophy as a research without guarantee of certainty, a discipline which can expose only possible truths. These assumptions are rooted in the same double-truth of Pomponazzi but applied to a different context, where the libertas philosophandi is more difficult and dangerous; in this sense, the dedication to Niccolò Donato, reformer of Padua’s Studium, is very significant: a clear statement of Cremonini’s political and cultural affiliation. This book engendered a complex debate made of accusations and clever responses by Cremonini (1616), but there is another element of great interest: the attention to method. This topic, object of debate in Padua till Zabardella’s contribution, was not a novelty in Cremonini’s reflection; already in 1596, the philosopher had written the Tractatus de Paedia (Cremonini 1596). The treatise was created as an introduction for his course dedicated to Aristotle’s De physico auditu, but, on this occasion, Cremonini proposed a radical method rooted in the heuristic function of experience for natural philosophy, ethics, and theology. In this manner, Cremonini refused abstract logic such as that of mathematical demonstration and opened the way for a method more sceptical than the systematic doubt of Descartes’ future lesson in Discours de la méthode (1637) (Kessler 1997; Vasoli 2007).

Another element of interest in the Tractatus de Paedia is the relation between professor and student: unlike the Jesuits’ approach, for Cremonini this relation is founded on reciprocity and election. The reciprocity is guaranteed by the use of Socratic dialogue as a better method of teaching, the election is found in the conviction that not everyone can learn everything (Muir 2007): the Paedia is a method for building a learning community that has the features of the Respublica literaria of which Cremonini was a noble member. In this context it is necessary to place the philosopher of Cento, who had responded to every accusation by saying that his affirmations were made «ex Aristotelis doctrina deinde secundum veritate». In the harsh time of the Thirty Years’ War, his complex relation with civic power and religious doctrine was a model for the following generation of intellectuals: a difficult harmony between public adhesion to common sense and private freedom, a polyphony which is near to the arrière-boutique of Michel de Montaigne, another philosopher who had focused on the heuristic and sceptical power of experience. It is not surprising that in 1630 a group of Cremonini’s students founded the Accademia degli Incogniti, which openly embraced libertinism. And this is the portrait of Cremonini that the seventeenth century preserved thanks to the work of authors such as De Silhon (1634), La Mothe Le Vayer (1637), Naudé (1644), and Crasso (1656).

Cross-References