Traditionally, research on early modern philosophy has highlighted Italian, French, and English sources. Although recently peripheries are gaining more scholarly attention, the canon remains strong. It might seem odd to postulate the early modern Spanish Empire as periphery but in terms of Renaissance philosophy it certainly is. Apart from some highly influential authors like Francisco Sanchez, we do not know much about the Peninsula's philosophical debates.
Fortunately, some scholars engage in shedding light on obscure intellectual landscapes. The book under review is a remarkable case in point. It offers a translation of La vera medicina, a core dialogue of the Spanish volume La nueva filosofía de la naturaleza del hombre, which contains several interconnected dialogues and was edited by Oliva Sabuco de Nantes y Barrera in 1587. Furthermore, the study is the first to offer a detailed contextualisation of the text in English. This is all the more noteworthy as the first English translation of Sabuco's (entire) oeuvre, New Philosophy of Human Nature, by Mary Ellen Waithe, Maria Colomer Vintró, and C. Angel Zorita (2007) does not approach the highly complex epistemological concepts of the text.
In the translated dialogue Sabuco charges Antonio, a young shepherd or, as Pomata puts it, the author's “mouthpiece” (3), with the challenge to critically evaluate the traditional views of natural philosophy and medicine, represented in the persona of an unnamed physician, called señor doctor. The Introduction provides a neat summary of the innovations in Sabuco's medical philosophy: Sabuco postulates the brain as “chief organ” (41) in the bodily hierarchy. In a further step Antonio refutes the pre-eminence of blood in favour of the “white juice,” or chyle, that resides in the brain and nourishes the body via the nerves. Sabuco creates a reversal of traditional physiology in a twofold strategy: within the microcosm the liquid is linked to the significant impact of the so-called humidum radicale, which lowers the importance traditionally ascribed to the calidum innatum; within the macrocosm the chyle is linked to the influence of the moon, which curtails the importance of the sun. As Pomata rightly points out, this framework can be understood as a “feminist” strategy (avant la lettre, I would add) since in the Renaissance the metaphorical reading of moon, brain, and moisture is female, that of sun, heart, and heat male. Pomata therefore locates the text within the Querelle des femmes.
In this context she offers some interesting new material concerning the intellectual environment of Sabuco: Pomata implies that Oliva might be the unknown lady who prefaced Crístobal Acosta's Tratado en loor de las mugeres (1585), a text that belongs to the Querelle corpus. This conclusion allows her to open a new position in the debate about the authorship of the text. Since the 1903 discovery of the will of Oliva's father Miguel, in which he claimed authorship of the Nueva Filosofía, the book was attributed to him. Pomata refuses to finally decide the disputed question and consequently uses male and female pronouns when referring to the author. But she suggests that the female authorship could be understood as a “promotional strategy” (30) to better adopt a pro-femmes-voice in this quarrel and identifies the Nueva Filosofía as a so-called paradox. This hypothesis does not seem very plausible to me: texts belonging to the discourse of natural philosophy such as the Nueva Filosofía may well provide arguments for the Querelle but are themselves not part of the genre in which this debate takes place. Besides, although Sabuco's rhetoric is highly elaborated, it does not adopt the mockery of a sham-fight, which classifies the paradox.
Pomata uncovers new facts regarding Sabuco's sources and intriguing details of the Nueva Filosofía’s reception history. For an English-speaking readership this study is an initial contribution to situate Sabuco's text in its historical context. Scholars familiar with the text will benefit from the new findings and welcome stimulations in the debate about the authorship.
Pomata's translation is a highly readable text without omissions and anachronisms, which unfortunately is not the case in the previous English translation. The book under review therefore is the appropriate resource to fill reading lists and to make Sabuco's text accessible to a broader audience.
