Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-569ts Total loading time: 3.929 Render date: 2022-10-02T20:54:16.658Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2022

David Marshall Miller
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Dana Jalobeanu
Affiliation:
University of Bucharest
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberdeen University Library. MS 2206/3/3. Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Ablondi, Fred 2005. Gerauld de Cordemoy: Atomist, Occasionalist, Cartesian. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Acosta, José de 1590. Historia natural y moral de las Indias. Seville: Juan de Leon.Google Scholar
Adams, Marcus P. 2016. “Hobbes on Natural Philosophy as ‘True Physics’ and Mixed Mathematics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 4351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Robert Merrihew 1983. “Phenomenalism and Corporeal Substance in Leibniz,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 8: 217257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, Peter 2007. Al-Kindī. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adamson, Peter, and Pormann, Peter E. (eds.) 2012. The Philosophical Works of Al-Kindī. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adriaenssen, H. 2017. Representation and Scepticism from Aquinas to Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aguilonius, Franciscus 1613. Opticorum libri sex philosophis iuxta ac mathematicis utiles. Antwerp.Google Scholar
Ahnert, Thomas 2004. “Newtonianism in Early Enlightenment Germany, c. 1720 to 1750: Metaphysics and the Critique of Dogmatic Philosophy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35: 471491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiton, Eric J. 1972. The Vortex Theory of Planetary Motion. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
Aiton, Eric J. 1975a. “The Elliptical Orbit and the Area Law,” Vistas in Astronomy 18: 573583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiton, Eric J. 1975b. “Kepler’s Ideas on Infinitesimals, Limits, and Continuity,” Vistas in Astronomy 18: 671672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Haytham, 1972 [1572]. Opticae thesaurus: Alhazeni Arabis libris septem, nunc primum editi. New York: Johnson Reprint Company.Google Scholar
Al-Haytham, 1989. The Optics of Ibn Al-Haytham, Books I–II: On Direct Vision. Edited by Sabra, A. I.. 2 vols. London: The Warburg Institute.Google Scholar
Al-Kindī, 1975. “De radiis, edited by M-T. d’Alverny and F. Hudry,” Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge 41: 141259.Google Scholar
Alanen, Lilli 2003. Descartes’s Concept of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Alberti, Leon Battista 1991. On Painting. Edited by Grayson, Cecil. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Alexander, Peter 1985. Ideas, Qualities and Corpuscles: Locke and Boyle on the External World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alexandrescu, Vlad 2007. “Descartes and Pascal on the Eucharist,” Perspectives on Science 15: 434449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almási, Gábor 2014. “Rethinking Sixteenth-Century ‘Lutheran Astronomy’,” Intellectual History Review 24: 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anfray, Jean-Pascal 2017. “Philosophie de l’esprit,” in Leduc, Christian, Laerke, Mogens, and Rabouin, David (eds.), Leibniz: Lectures et commentaires, Paris: Vrin, pp. 79103.Google Scholar
Anonymous, 1676. Letters and Poems in Honour of the Incomparable Princess, Margaret, Dutchess of Newcastle. London: Thomas Newcombe.Google Scholar
Anonymous, 1890 [1612]. Considerazioni sopra il Discorso del Sig. Galileo Galilei intorno alle cose, che stanno in sù l’acqua, o che in quella si muovono, in Favaro, Antonio (ed.), Le opere di Galileo Galilei, Vol. 4, Florence: Barbéra, pp. 143196.Google Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2000a. “Descartes’ Cardiology and its Reception in English Physiology,” in Gaukroger, Stephen, Schuster, John, and Sutton, John (eds.), Descartes’ Natural Philosophy, London: Routledge, pp. 420444.Google Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2000b. The Philosophy of Robert Boyle. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2002. “Robert Boyle and the Heuristic Value of Mechanism,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33: 157170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2009. “The Experimental History of the Understanding from Locke to Sterne,” Eighteenth Century Thought 4: 143169.Google Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2011a. “The Creation of the English Hippocrates,” Medical History 55: 457478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anstey, Peter R. 2011b. John Locke and Natural Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2014. “Philosophy of Experiment in Early Modern England: The Case of Bacon, Boyle and Hooke,” Early Science and Medicine 19: 103132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anstey, Peter R. 2015. “Experimental Pedagogy and the Eclipse of Robert Boyle in England,” Intellectual History Review 25: 115131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. (ed.) 2017. The Idea of Principles in Early Modern Thought: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge Studies in Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, Peter R. 2018. “Bacon, Experimental Philosophy and French Enlightenment Natural History,” in Garrod, Raphaële and Smith, P. J. (eds.), Natural History in Early Modern France, Boston: Brill, pp. 205240.Google Scholar
Anstey, Peter R., and Vanzo, Alberto 2012. “The Origins of Early Modern Experimental Philosophy,” Intellectual History Review 22: 499518.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas 1963. Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Translated by R. J. Blackwell, R. J. Spath, and W. E. Thirlkel. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arabatzis, Theodore, and Howard, Don 2015. “Special Issue: Integrated History and Philosophy of Science in Practice,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 50: 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argenterio, Giovanni 1550. Varia opera de re medicum. Florence.Google Scholar
Argenterio, Giovanni 1592 [1566]. In Artem medicam Galeni, in Opera. Venice.Google Scholar
Ariew, Roger 1984. “Galileo’s Lunar Observations in the Context of Medieval Lunar Theory,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 15: 213226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger 1986. “Descartes as Critic of Galileo’s Scientific Methodology,” Synthese 67: 7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger 1999. Descartes and the Last Scholastics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ariew, Roger 2001. “The Initial Response to Galileo’s Lunar Observations,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 32: 571581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger 2011. Descartes among the Scholastics. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger 2014. Descartes and the First Cartesians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger 2021. “Descartes and Logic: Perfecting the Ingenium,” in Raphaele, Garrod and Marr, Alexander (eds.), Descartes and the Ingenium: The Embodied Soul in Cartesianism, Leiden: Brill, pp. 3146.Google Scholar
Aristotle, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Armogathe, Jean-Robert 1977. Theologia cartesiana: L’explication physique de l’eucharistie chez Descartes et Dom Robert Desgabets. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnauld, Antoine 1990. On True and False Ideas. Edited by Kremer, E. J.. Lewinston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Arnauld, Antoine, and Nicole, Pierre 1996. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Edited and translated by Buroker, Jill Vance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, Richard T. W. 2006. “Animal Generation and Substance in Sennert and Leibniz,” in Smith, Justin E. H. (ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, Eric H. 2004. Power, Knowledge, and Expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Aubenque, Pierre 2005 [1962]. Le problème de l’être chez Aristote. 5th ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Aubrey, John 1898. Brief Lives, Chiefly of Contemporaries, Set Down by John Aubrey, Between the Years 1669 & 1696. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Aucante, Vincent 2006. La philosophie medicale de Descartes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, William H. 1970. “Isaac Newton on Science and Religion,” Journal of the History of Ideas 31: 521542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Averroës, 1986. De substantia orbis. Cambridge, MA and Jerusalem: The Medieval Academy of America and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Ayers, Michael 1991. Locke. 2 vols. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Babeș, Ovidiu 2018. “Descartes and Roberval: The Composite Pendulum and its Center of Agitation,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 7: 123150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston 1951. L’activité rationaliste de la physique contemporaine. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Backus, Irena 2016. Leibniz: Protestant Theologian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1626. Sylva Sylvarum, or A Naturall Historie. London: J. H. for William Lee.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1674. Of the Advancement and Proficience of Learning, or the Partitions of Sciences. Edited by Wats, Gilbert. London: For Thomas Williams.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1733. The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon. Edited by Shaw, Peter. 3 vols. London: For J. J. & P. Knapton.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1857–1874. The Works of Francis Bacon. Edited by Spedding, John, Ellis, Robert Leslie, and Heath, Douglas Denon. 14 vols. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1859. Sylva Sylvarum, in Spedding, James, Ellis, Robert Leslie, and Heath, Douglas Denon (eds.), The Works of Francis Bacon, Vol. 2, London: Longman, pp. 325680.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 1996–. The Oxford Francis Bacon. Edited by Serjeantson, Richard and Stewart, Alan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 2000 [1620]. The New Organon. Edited by Jardine, Lisa and Silverthorne, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Francis 2004. The Instauratio Magna. Part 2: Novum Organum and Associated Texts. Edited by Rees, Graham and Wakely, Maria. The Oxford Francis Bacon, Vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis 2007. The Instauratio Magna. Part 3: Historia naturalis et experimentalis: Historia ventorum and Historia vitæ & mortis. Edited by Rees, Graham and Wakely, Maria. The Oxford Francis Bacon, Vol. 12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baglivi, Giorgio 1696. De praxi medica. Rome: Typis Dominici Antonii Herculis.Google Scholar
Baker, Thomas 1699. Reflections upon Learning. London: A. Bosvile.Google Scholar
Bakker, Paul J. M. 2007. “Natural Philosophy, Metaphysics, or Something in Between? Agostino Nifo, Pietro Pomponazzi, and Marcantonio Genua on the Nature and Place of the Science of the Soul,” in Bakker, Paul J. J. M. and Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (eds.), Mind, Cognition and Representation: The Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 151178.Google Scholar
Baldini, Ugo 2003. “The Academy of Mathematics of the Collegio Romano from 1553 to 1612,” in Feingold, Mordechai (ed.), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 4798.Google Scholar
Baldini, Ugo, and Napolitani, Pier Daniele 1991. “Per una biografia di Luca Valerio. Fonti edite e inedite per una ricostruzione della sua carriera scientifica,” Bolletino di Storia delle Scienze Mathematiche 11: 3157.Google Scholar
Baliani, Giovanni Battista 1666. “Della Filosofia Naturale, e suoi principii,” in Opere diverse, Genoa.Google Scholar
Barker, Peter 2008. “Stoic Alternatives to Aristotelian Cosmology: Pena, Rothmann, and Brahe,” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 61: 265286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Peter 2011. “The Reality of Peurbach’s Orbs: Cosmological Continuity in Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Astronomy,” in Boner, Patrick J. (ed.), Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Peter, and Ariew, Roger (eds.) 1999. Revolution and Continuity: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Early Modern Science. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Barker, Peter, and Goldstein, Bernard R. 2016. “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy,” Osiris 16: 88113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrera-Osorio, Antonio 2006. Experiencing Nature: The Spanish American Empire and the Early Scientific Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, Isaac 1685. Lectiones mathematicae XXIII, in quibus principia matheseôs generalia exponuntur. London.Google Scholar
Barrow, Isaac 1734. The Usefulness of Mathematical Learning Explained and Demonstrated: Being Mathematical Lectures Read in the Publick Schools at the University of Cambridge. Translated by John Kirkby. London: Stephen Austen.Google Scholar
Basson, Sebastien 1621. Philosophiae naturalis adversus Aristotelem libri XII. Geneva: Pierre de la Rouière.Google Scholar
Bates, Don 1998a. “Closing the Circle: How Harvey and His Contemporaries Played the Game of Truth, Part 1,” History of Science 36: 213232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Don 1998b. “Closing the Circle: How Harvey and His Contemporaries Played the Game of Truth, Part 2,” History of Science 36: 245267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Don 2000. “Machina Ex Deo: William Harvey and the Meaning of Instrument,” Journal of the History of Ideas 61: 577593.Google Scholar
Bayer, Greg 1997. “Coming to Know Principles in Posterior Analytics II 19,” Apeiron 30: 109142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayon, H. P. 1939. “William Harvey, Physician and Biologist: His Precursors, Opponents and Successors,” Annals of Science 4: 329389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayon, H. P. 1947. “William Harvey (1578–1657): His Application of Biological Experiment, Clinical Observation, and Comparative Anatomy to the Problems of Generation,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 2: 5196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeckman, Isaac 1939–1953. Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634. Edited by Cornelis, De Waard. 4 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Bellis, Delphine 2017. “Nos in Diem Vivimus: Gassendi’s Probabilism and Academic Philosophy from Day to Day,” in Charles, Sébastien and Smith, Plínio Junqueira (eds.), Academic Skepticism in the Development of Early Modern Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 125152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellis, Delphine 2018. “Imaginary Spaces and Cosmological Issues in Gassendi’s Philosophy,” in Bakker, Frederik, Bellis, Delphine, and Palmerino, Carla Rita (eds.), Space, Imagination and the Cosmos from Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, Cham: Springer, pp. 233260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellucci, Dino 1998. Science de la nature et Réformation: La physique au service de la Réforme dans l’enseignement de Philippe Mélanchthon. Rome: Edizioni Vivere.Google Scholar
Belot, Gordon 2011. Geometric Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedetti, Giovanni Battista 1554. Demonstratio proportionum motuum localium contra Aristotelem et omnes philosophos. Venice.Google Scholar
Benedetti, Giovanni Battista 1969 [1585]. Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum liber, in Drake, Stillman and Drabkin, I. E. (eds.), Mechanics in Italy: Selections from Tartaglia, Benedetti, Guido Ubaldo & Galileo. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Benedict, Jim 2004. “Carpenter, Nathanael,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, James A. 1980. “Robert Hooke as Mechanic and Natural Philosopher,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 35: 3348.Google Scholar
Bennett, James A. 1986. “The Mechanics’ Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy,” History of Science 24: 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jim 2003. “Knowing and Doing in the Sixteenth Century: What Were Instruments For?,” British Journal for the History of Science 36: 129150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jim 2012. “Cosmography and the Meaning of Sundials,” in Biagioli, Mario and Riskin, Jessica (eds.), Nature Engaged: Science in Practice from the Renaissance to the Present, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 249262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan 1971. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan 1984. A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan, and Remnant, Peter 1978. “How Matter Might at First be Made,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8: 111.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1975. “An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision,” in Philosophical Works; Including the Works on Vision, edited by Michael E. Ayers, London: Dent, pp. 770.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Daniel 1746. “Nouveau problème de mécanique,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences (Berlin) 1: 5470.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Jacob 1695. “Explicationes, annotationes et additiones ad ea quæ in actis sup. anni de curva elastica, isochrona paracentrica, & velaria, hinc inde memorata, & partim controversa leguntur; ubi de linea mediarum directionum, aliisque novis,” Acta Eruditorum: 537553.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Jacob 1703. “Démonstration générale du centre de balancement,” Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences: 7884.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Jean 1727. Discours sur les loix de la communication du mouvement. Paris: Claude Jombert.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Johann 1710. “Extrait de la réponse de M. Bernoulli à M. Herman, datée de Basle le 7 Octobre 1710,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences: 521533.Google Scholar
Berryman, Sylvia 2002. “Galen and the Mechanical Philosophy,” Apeiron 35: 235253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 1992. “Guidobaldo Dal Monte and the Archimedean Revival,” Nuncius 7: 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 1993. Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 2006. Thinking with Objects: The Transformation of Mechanics in the Seventeenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 2008. “The Collaboration between Anatomists and Mathematicians in the Mid-Seventeenth Century,” Early Science and Medicine 13: 665709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 2011. Mechanism, Experiment, Disease: Marcello Malpighi and Seventeenth-Century Anatomy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 2013. “Machines and the Body: Between Anatomy and Pathology,” in Gaillard, Aurélia, Goffi, Jean-Yves, Roukhomovsky, Bernard, and Roux, Sophie (eds.), L’Automate: modèle métaphore machine merveille, Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, pp. 5371.Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico 2019. Mechanism: A Visual, Lexical and Conceptual History. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biagioli, Mario 1989. “The Social Status of Italian Mathematicians, 1450–1600,” History of Science 27: 4194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biagioli, Mario 2003. “Stress in the Book of Nature: the Supplemental Logic of Galileo’s Realism,” MLN 118: 557585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biancani, Giuseppe 1996 [1615]. Aristotelis loca mathematica, translated by G. Klima, in Mancosu, Paolo, Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 178–212.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Lorenzo 1996. Rinascimento e libertinismo: Studi su Gabriel Naudé. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Luca 2007. “Continuity and Change in the Aristotelian Tradition,” in Hankins, James (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biener, Zvi 2004. “Galileo’s First New Science: The Science of Matter,” Perspectives on Science 12: 262287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biener, Zvi 2016. “Hobbes on the Order of Sciences: A Partial Defense of the Mathematization Thesis,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 54: 312332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biener, Zvi 2017. “De gravitatione Reconsidered: The Changing Significance of Experimental Evidence for Newton’s Metaphysics of Space,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 55: 583608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biener, Zvi, and Schliesser, Eric (eds.) 2014. Newton and Empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigotti, Fabrizio 2017. “A Previously Unknown Path to Corpuscularism in the Seventeenth Century: Santorio’s Marginalia to the Commentaria in Primam Fen Primi Libri Canonis Avicennae (1625),” Ambix 64: 2942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Thomas 1756–1757. A History of the Royal Society of London. 4 vols. London: A. Millar.Google Scholar
Biswas, Margaret R., and Biswas, Asit K. 2008. “Palissy, Bernard,” in Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 10, Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 280281.Google Scholar
Bitbol-Hespériès, Annie 1990. Le principe de vie chez Descartes. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Bitbol-Hespériès, Annie 2000. “Descartes, Reader of Harvey: The Discovery of the Circulation of Blood in Context,” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 22: 1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Ann 1993. “Teaching of Natural Philosophy in Seventeenth-Century Paris: The Case of Jean Cécile Frey,” History of Universities 12: 95158.Google Scholar
Blair, Ann 1994. “Tradition and Innovation in Early Modern Natural Philosophy: Jean Bodin and Jean-Cécile Frey,” Perspectives on Science 2: 428–454.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas 2005. Leibniz: Metaphilosophy and Metaphysics, 1666–1686. Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas 2007. “Composite Substance, Common Notions, and Kenelm Digby’s Theory of Animal Generation,” Science in Context 20: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas 2010. Biomedical Ontology and the Metaphysics of Composite Substances: 1540–1670. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
Blay, Michel 1994. “History of Science and History of Mathematization: The Example of the Science of Motion at the Turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries,” in Gavroglu, Kostas, Christianidis, Jean, and Nicolaidis, Efthymios (eds.), Trends in Historiography of Science, Boston: Kluwer, pp. 405420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blay, Michel 1998. Reasoning with the Infinite: From the Closed World to the Mathematical Universe. Translated by M. B. DeBevoise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Olivier-René 1971. La philosophie de Gassendi. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Blum, Paul Richard 1988. “Der Standardkurs Der Katholischen Schulphilosophie im 17. Jahrundert,” in Kessler, Eckhard, Lohr, Charles H., and Sparn, Walter (eds.), Aristotelismus und Renaissance. In Memoriam Charles B. Schmitt, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 127148.Google Scholar
Blum, Paul Richard 1992. “Qualitates occultae: Zur philosophischen Vorgeschichte eines Schlüsselbegriffs zwischen Okkultismus und Wissenschaft,” in Buck, August (ed.), Die okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 4564.Google Scholar
Blum, Paul Richard 2012a. Giordano Bruno: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, Paul Richard 2012b. Studies on Early Modern Aristotelianism. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Marie 1949. “Hero’s Pneumatica: A Study of Its Transmission and Influence,” Isis 40: 3848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Marie 1952. “The Establishment of the Mechanical Philosophy,” Osiris 10: 412541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodéüs, Richard 1991. “Leibniz, Jean de Raey et la physique reformée,” Studia Leibnitiana 23: 103–10.Google Scholar
Bodmer Foundation. MS Bodmer.Google Scholar
Boenke, Michaela 2018. “Bernardino Telesio,” in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/telesio/.Google Scholar
Bondi, Roberto 2018. Il primo dei moderni: Filosofia e scienza in Bernardino Telesio. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar
Boner, Patrick J. 2007. “Kepler v. the Epicureans,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 38: 207221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boner, Patrick J. 2013. Kepler’s Cosmological Synthesis: Astrology, Mechanism and the Soul. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Sara Elizabeth, and Albert, van Helden 2000. “The Virgin and the Telescope: The Moons of Cigoli and Galileo,” Science in Context 13: 463486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordiga, Giovanni 1985. Giovanni Battista Benedetti. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti.Google Scholar
Borel, Pierre 1655. De vero telescopii inventore. The Hague.Google Scholar
Borghero, Carlo 2011. Les Cartésiens face à Newton: philosophie, science et religion dans la première moitié du XVIIIe siècle. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrelli, Arianna 2020. “Giovan Battista Della Porta’s Construction of Pneumatic Phenomena and his Use of Recipes as Heuristic Tools,” Centaurus 62: 406424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Henk J. M. 1974. “Differentials, Higher-Order Differentials and the Derivative in the Leibnizian Calculus,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 14: 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Henk J. M. 1993. Lectures in the History of Mathematics. Providence: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Henk J. M. 1998. “La structure de la Géométrie de Descartes,” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 51: 291318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Henk J. M. 2001. Redefining Geometrical Exactness: Descartes’ Transformation of the Early Modern Concept of Construction. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschiero, Luciano 2007. Experiment and Natural Philosophy in Seventeenth-Century Tuscany. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Boudri, Johann Christiaan 2002. What was Mechanical about Mechanics: The Concept of Force between Metaphysics and Mechanics from Newton to Lagrange. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, William 1578. Inventions or Devices: Very Necessary for all Generalles and Captaines, or Leaders of Men, as well by Sea as by Land. London.Google Scholar
Bowen, Alan C. 2007. “The Demarcation of Physical Theory and Astronomy by Geminus and Ptolemy,” Perspectives on Science 15: 327358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, Carl 1959. The History of the Calculus and Its Conceptual Development. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1672. An Essay about the Origine & Virtues of Gems. London: William Godbid.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1684. Memoirs for the Natural History of Humane Blood. London: Samuel Smith.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1688. A Disquisition about the Final Causes of Natural Things: wherein it is inquir’d, whether, and (if at all) with what cautions, a naturalist should admit them. London: John Taylor.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1772a [1666]. The Origine of Formes and Qualities, in The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, Vol. 3. London: W. Johnston et al., pp. 1112.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1772b. The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. 6 vols. London: Printed for J. and F. Rivington.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1999a [1672]. An Hydrostatic Discourse Occasioned by the Objections of the Learned Dr. Henry More. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Davis, Edward B.. The Works of Robert Boyle, Vol. 7. London: Pickering and Chatto.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1999b [1666–1667]. The Origine of Forms and Qualities. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Davis, Edward B.. The Works of Robert Boyle, Vol. 5. London: Pickering and Chatto.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1999c [1661]. The Sceptical Chymist. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Davis, Edward B.. The Works of Robert Boyle, Vol. 2. London: Pickering and Chatto.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 1999–2000. The Works of Robert Boyle. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Davis, Edward. 14 vols. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 2001. The Correspondence of Robert Boyle. Edited by Hunter, Michael, Clericuzio, Antonio, and Principe, Lawrence M.. 6 vols. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 2004. Royal Society Boyle Papers, in Hunter, Michael (ed.), Boyle Papers Online. http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/papers/introduction.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 2005. Unpublished Material Relating to Robert Boyle’s Memoirs for the Natural History of Human Blood. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Knight, Harriet. London: Birkbeck, University of London.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert 2008. The Text of Robert Boyle’s “Designe about Natural History”. Edited by Hunter, Michael and Anstey, Peter R.. London: Birkbeck, University of London.Google Scholar
Brackenridge, J. Bruce 1995. The Key to Newton’s Dynamics: The Kepler Problem and the Principia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bradbury, S., and Turner, G. l’E. (eds.) 1967. Historical Aspects of Microscopy. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Brading, Katherine 2011. “On Composite Systems: Descartes, Newton, and the Law-Constitutive Approach,” in Jalobeanu, Dana and Anstey, Peter R. (eds.), Vanishing Matter and the Laws of Motion, New York: Routledge, pp. 130152.Google Scholar
Brahe, Tycho 1573. De nova et nullius aevi memoria prius visa stella. Hven.Google Scholar
Breger, Herbert 1986. “Leibniz’ Einführung des Transzendenten,” Studia Leibnitiana 14: 119132.Google Scholar
Breger, Herbert 2008. “The Art of Mathematical Rationality,” in Dascal, Marcelo (ed.), Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?, New York: Springer, pp. 141152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenz, Johannes 1590. Opera. Vol. 8. Tübingen: Gruppenbach.Google Scholar
Brioist, Pascal 2009. “‘Familiar Demonstrations in Geometry’: French and Italian Engineers and Euclid in the Sixteenth Century,” History of Science 47: 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, Jacqueline 2003. Women Philosophers of the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockliss, Lawrence W. B. 1995. “Descartes, Gassendi and the Reception of the Mechanical Philosophy in the French Collèges de Plein Exercice, 1640–1730,” Perspectives on Science 3: 450479.Google Scholar
Brown, Deborah J. 2011. “Cartesian Functional Analysis,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90: 7592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gregory 1984. “‘Quod ostendendum susceperamus?’ What did Leibniz Undertake to Show in Brevis Demonstratio?,” Leibniz’ Dynamica, Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 13: 122137.Google Scholar
Brown, Harcourt 1934. Scientific Organizations in Seventeenth-Century France (1620–1680). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Brown, Theodore M. 1977. “Physiology and the Mechanical Philosophy in Mid-Seventeenth Century England,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 51: 2554.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giordano 1591. “De innumerabilibus, immenso et infigurabili, seu de universo et mundis libri octo,” in De monade, numero et figura liber, Frankfurt: Apud Ioannem Uvechelum et Petrum Fischerum, pp. 147654.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giordano 1879–1891. Opera latine conscripta. Edited by Fiorentino, Francesco, Tocco, Felice, and Vitelli, G.. 3 vols. Naples: Apud Dom. Morano.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giordano 1962 [1588]. Camoeracensis acrotismus, in Opera latine conscripta, Vol. 1–1. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 53190.Google Scholar
Bruno, Giordano 2006. De l’infini, de l’univers et des mondes. Translated by Giovanni Aquilecchia, Jean Seidengart, Pierre Cavaillé, Miguel Ángel Granada, and Zaira Sorrenti. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Bucciantini, Massimo, Camerota, Michele, and Giudice, Franco 2015. Galileo’s Telescope: A European Story. Translated by Catherine Bolton. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buccolini, Claudio 2013. “Mersenne, Translator of Bacon?,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 2: 3359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc 1749–1789. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière. 36 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Burnett, D. Graham 2005. Descartes and the Hyperbolic Quest: Lens Making Machines and their Significance in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Burtt, Edwin Arthur 1924. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Büttner, Jochen 2017. “Shooting with Ink,” in Valleriani, Matteo (ed.), The Structures of Practical Knowledge, Cham: Springer, pp. 115166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büttner, Jochen 2019. Swinging and Rolling: Unveiling Galileo’s Unorthodox Path from a Challenging Problem to a New Science. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büttner, Jochen, Damerow, Peter, Renn, Jürgen, and Schemmel, Matthias 2003. “The Challenging Images of Artillery. Practical Knowledge at the Roots of the Scientific Revolution,” in Wolfgang, Lefèvre, Renn, Jürgen, and Schoepflin, Urs (eds.), The Power of Images in Early Modern Science, Basle: Birkhäuser, pp. 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1973. “The Growth of Harvey’s De motu cordis,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 47: 427470.Google ScholarPubMed
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1977. “De motu cordis: Written in Two Stages: Response,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 51: 140150.Google ScholarPubMed
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1978. “William Harvey: A Conventional Medical Revolutionary,” Journal of the American Medical Association 239: 12951298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1979a. “The Medical Side of Harvey’s Discovery,” in William Harvey and His Age: The Professional and Social Context of the Discovery of the Circulation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 28102.Google Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1979b. “The School of Padua: Humanistic Medicine in the Sixteenth Century,” in Webster, Charles (ed.), Health, Medicine, and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335370.Google Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1981. “Harvey, William,” in Gillispie, Charles Coulston (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 6, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 150162.Google Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J. 1982. “Boyle and Harvey on the Valves in the Veins,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 5: 351357.Google Scholar
Bylebyl, Jerome J., and Pagel, Walter 1971. “The Chequered Career of Galen’s Doctrine on the Pulmonary Veins,” Medical History 15: 211229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabeo, Niccolò 1646. In quatuor libros Meteorologicorum Aristotelis commentaria, et quaestiones. Rome.Google Scholar
Calcagnini, Celio 1544. “Quod caelum stet, Terra moveatur vel de perenni motu Terrae,” in Opera aliquot, Basle: Froben, pp. 388395.Google Scholar
Calder, I. R. F. 1952. John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist. PhD dissertation. London: The Warburg Institute.Google Scholar
Calinger, Ronald S. 2016. Leonhard Euler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cally, Pierre 1683. Primum philosophiae perficiendae rudimentum, anthropologia, sive tractatio de homine. Caen: Jean Cavelier.Google Scholar
Cally, Pierre 1695. Universae philosophiae institutio. Tomus primus. Caen: Jean Cavelier.Google Scholar
Calvin, Jean 1551. Commentarii in Isaiam prophetam. Geneva: Crispinus.Google Scholar
Calvin, Jean 1553. Institutiones Christianae religionis. Geneva: Stephanus.Google Scholar
Camerota, Michele, and Helbing, Mario O. 2000. “Galileo and Pisan Aristotelianism: Galileo’s De motu antiquiora and the Quaestiones de motu elementorum of the Pisan Professors,” Early Science and Medicine 5: 319366.Google Scholar
Campanella, Tommasso 1622. Apologia pro Galileo. Frankfurt: Impensis Godefridi Tampachii, Typis Erasmi Kempfferi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campanella, Tommasso 1637. Dialectica. Paris: Tussan Dubray.Google Scholar
Campanella, Tommasso 1981. La cittá del sole: dialogo poetico/The City of the Sun: A Poetical Dialogue. Translated by Daniel J. Donno. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campanella, Tommasso 1994. A Defense of Galileo The Mathematician from Florence. Translated by Richard J. Blackwell. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Caparrini, Sandro, and Fraser, Craig 2013. “Mechanics in the Eighteenth Century,” in Buchwald, Jed Z. and Fox, Robert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 358405.Google Scholar
Capecchi, Danilo 2018. The Path to Post-Galilean Epistemology. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čapek, Milic (ed.) 1976. The Concepts of Space and Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capivaccio, Girolamo 1603. Opera omnia. Frankfurt: Jona Rhodio.Google Scholar
Capozzi, Mirella, and Roncaglia, Gino 2009. “Logic and Philosophy of Logic from Humanism to Kant,” in Haaparanta, Leila (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardano, Girolamo 1966 [1663]. Opera omnia. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt: Frommann.Google Scholar
Carey, Daniel 1997. “Compiling Nature’s History: Travellers and Travel Narratives in the Early Royal Society,” Annals of Science 54: 269292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriero, John 1990. “Newton on Space and Time: Comments on J. E. McGuire,” in Bricker, Philip and Hughes, R. I. G. (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Newtonian Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109134.Google Scholar
Carriero, John 2009. Between Two Worlds: A Reading of Descartes’s Meditations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Richard B. 1983. Descartes’ Medical Philosophy: The Organic Solution to the Mind-Body Problem. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Carugo, Adriano 1984. “L’insegnamento della matematica all’Università di Padova prima e dopo Galileo,” Storia della Cultura Veneta 4: 151199.Google Scholar
Cassan, Elodie 2015. Les chemins cartésiens du jugement. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Catena, Pietro 1563. Oratio pro idea methodi. Padua: apud Gratiosum Perchacinum.Google Scholar
Cavaillé, Jean-Pierre 2009. “Libérer le libertinage: Une catégorie à l’épreuve des sources,” Annales 46(1): 4578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaillé, Jean-Pierre 2012. “Libertine and Libertinism: Polemic Uses of the Terms in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century English and Scottish Literature,” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 12: 1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavendish, Margaret 1668. Grounds of Natural Philosophy. London.Google Scholar
Cavendish, Margaret 2001. Observations upon Experimental Philosophy. Edited by O’Neill, Eileen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan 1993. “The Lack of Excellency of Boyle’s Mechanical Philosophy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24: 541564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan 2002. “Experiment versus Mechanical Philosophy in the Work of Robert Boyle: A Reply to Anstey and Pyle,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43: 191197.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan 2010. “Boyle and the Origins of Modern Chemistry: Newman Tried in the Fire,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan 2011. “Understanding Science Through Its History: A Response to Newman,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42: 150153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan 2012. “Intermediate Causes and Explanations: The Key to Understanding the Scientific Revolution,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43: 551562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charleton, Walter 1650. A Ternary of Paradoxes of the Magnetick Cure of Wounds. Nativity of Tartar in Wine. Image of God in Man. Written originally by Joh. Bapt. Van Helmont, and Translated, Illustrated and Amplified by Walter Charleton. London.Google Scholar
Charleton, Walter 1654. Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus. London: Thomas Newcomb for Thomas Heath.Google Scholar
Charleton, Walter 1966 [1654]. Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, Or, a Fabrick of Science Natural, Upon the Hypothesis of Atoms. New York: Johnson Reprint Company.Google Scholar
Chauvin, Étienne 1692. Lexicon rationale sive thesaurus philosophicus ordine alphabetico digestus. Rotterdam: Peter Slaart.Google Scholar
Chauvin, Étienne 1713. Lexicon philosophicum … novum opus. Leeuwarden.Google Scholar
Childrey, Joshua 1667. Histoire des singularitéz naturelles, d’Angleterre. Translated by Pierre Briot. Paris: Robert de Ninville.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2009. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, James E. 2019. From Influence to Inhabitation: The Transformation of Astrobiology in the Early Modern Period. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifoletti, Giovanna 1996. “The Creation of the History of Algebra in the Sixteenth Century,” in Goldstein, Catherine, Gray, Jeremy, and Ritter, Jim (eds.), L’Europe mathématique: histoires, mythes, identités, Paris: Edition de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, pp. 123144.Google Scholar
Claessens, Guy 2009. “Clavius, Proclus, and the Limits of Interpretation: Snapshot-Idealization versus Projectionism,” History of Science 47: 317336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Desmond M. 1982. Descartes’ Philosophy of Science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Desmond M. 1989. Occult Powers and Hypotheses: Cartesian Natural Philosophy under Louis XIV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel 1705. A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. London.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel, and Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1717. A Collection of Papers, which passed between the late learned Mr. Leibnitz, and Dr. Clarke, in the years 1715 and 1716. Edited by Clarke, Samuel. London.Google Scholar
Clauberg, Johannes 1691. Opera omnia philosophica. Edited by Schalbruchii, J. T.. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Blaev.Google Scholar
Clave, Estienne de 1635. Paradoxes ou traittez philosophiques des pierres et pierreries contre l’opinion vulgaire. Paris: Pierre Chevalier.Google Scholar
Clavius, Christoph 1585. In sphaeram Ioannis de Sacro Bosco commentarius. 3rd ed. Rome: Basa.Google Scholar
Clericuzio, Antonio 1990. “A Redefinition of Boyle’s Chemistry and Corpuscular Philosophy,” Annals of Science 47: 561589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clericuzio, Antonio 2000. Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clough, David 2009. “The Anxiety of the Human Animal: Martin Luther on Non-human Animals and Human Animality,” in Deane-Drummond, Celia and Clough, David (eds.), Creaturely Theology: On God, Humans and other Animals, London: SCM Press, pp. 4160.Google Scholar
Clucas, Stephen 2001. “Corpuscular Theories in the Northumberland Circle,” in Lüthy, Christoph H., Murdoch, John E., and Newman, William R. (eds.), Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, Leiden: Brill, pp. 181207.Google Scholar
Clucas, Stephen 2005. “Joanna Stephens’s Medicine and the Experimental Philosophy,” in Zinsser, Judith P. (ed.), Men, Women and the Birthing of Modern Science, DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, pp. 141158.Google Scholar
Clucas, Stephen 2010. “Scientia and Inductio Scientifica in the Logica Hamburgensis of Joachim Jungius,” in Sorell, Tom, Rogers, G. A., and Kraye, Jill (eds.), Scientia in Early Modern Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 5270.Google Scholar
Clucas, Stephen (ed.) 2011. Magic, Memory, and Natural Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum.Google Scholar
Clulee, Nicholas H. 1977. “Astrology, Magic, and Optics: Facets of John Dee’s Early Natural Philosophy,” Renaissance Quarterly 30: 632680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clulee, Nicholas H. 1988. John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cockburn, Catharine Trotter 2006. “Remarks upon Some Writers in the Controversy concerning the Foundation of Moral Virtue and Moral Obligation,” in Sheridan, Patricia (ed.), Catharine Trotter Cockburn: Philosophical Writings, Peterborough: Broadview Press, pp. 87146.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. Floris 1994. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard 1966. Franklin and Newton: An Inquiry into Speculative Newtonian Experimental Science and Franklin’s Work in Electricity as an Example Thereof. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard 1985. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard, Duffin, K. E., and Strickland, Stuart (eds.) 1990. Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry 2008. “Actors’ and Analysts’ Categories in the Social Analysis of Science,” in Meusburger, Peter, Welker, Michael, and Wunder, Edgar (eds.), Clashes of Knowledge: Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in Science and Religion, New York: Springer, pp. 101110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, Realdo 1559. De re anatomica libri XV. Venice: Nicolai Beuilacquae.Google Scholar
Commandino, Federico 1558. Archimedis opera non nulla. Venice.Google Scholar
Comte, Auguste 1835. Cours de philosophie positive. Vol. 2: La philosophie astronomique et la philosophie de la physique. Paris: Bachelier.Google Scholar
Conimbricenses 1607. In universam dialecticam Aristotelis Stagirita. Cologne: Bernard Gualther.Google Scholar
Conimbricenses 1616 [1591–1606]. Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu, in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae, prima pars. Cologne.Google Scholar
Conimbricenses 1984 [1594]. Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societas Jesu in octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Edited by Manuel, de Gois. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Contarini, Gasparo 1571. Opera. Paris: Apud Sebastianum Nivellium.Google Scholar
Cook, Harold J. 2011. “The History of Medicine and the Scientific Revolution,” Isis 102: 102108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, Monte 1996. “Descartes and the Dustbin of the Mind,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 13: 1733.Google Scholar
Cooper, Alix 2006. “Homes and Households,” in Park, Katharine and Daston, Lorraine (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 3: Early Modern Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224237.Google Scholar
Copenhaver, Brian 2018. “Against ‘Humanism’: Pico’s Job Description,” in Ossa-Richardson, Anthony and Meserve, Margaret (eds.), Et Amicorum: Essays on Renaissance Humanism and Philosophy, Leiden: Brill, pp. 198240.Google Scholar
Copernicus, Nicolaus 1543. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, libri VI. Nuremburg: Iohannes Petreus.Google Scholar
Copernicus, Nicolaus 1978. On the Revolutions. Translated by Edward Rosen. Vol. 2. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Cormack, Lesley B. 2017. “Handwork and Brainwork: Beyond the Zilsel Thesis,” in Cormack, Lesley B., Walton, Steven A., and Schuster, John A. (eds.), Mathematical Practitioners and the Transformation of Natural Knowledge in Early Modern Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormack, Lesley B., Walton, Steven A., and Schuster, John A. (eds.) 2017. Mathematical Practitioners and the Transformation of Natural Knowledge in Early Modern Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costabel, Pierre 1951. “La mécanique dans l’Encyclopédie,” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications 4: 267293.Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre 1983. La question des forces vives: La signification d’un débat sur trente ans (1728–1758). Paris: Centre de Documentation Sciences Humaines.Google Scholar
Coste, Pierre 1691. “Discours sur la philosophie,” in Régis, Pierre-Sylvain, Cours entier de philosophie, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: Huguetan.Google Scholar
Coudert, Allison 1975. “A Cambridge Platonist’s Cabbalist Nightmare,” Journal of the History of Ideas 36: 633652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Gabriel 1750. Introduction à l’analyse des lignes courbes algébriques. Geneva: Chez les Frères Cramer and Cl. Philibert.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl F., and Darden, Lindley 2013. In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the Life Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespi, A. L. 1931. La vita e le opere di Francesco Patrizi. Milan: Scuola Tip. Artigianelli.Google Scholar
Crockett, Timothy 2005. “Leibniz on Shape and the Cartesian Conception of Body,” in Nelson, Alan (ed.), A Companion to Rationalism, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 262281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, Alistair C., and Carugo, A. 1996. “The Jesuits and Galileo’s Ideas of Science and Nature,” in Science, Art and Nature in Medieval and Modern Thought, London: Hambledon Press, pp. 165230.Google Scholar
Cudworth, Ralph 1678. The True Intellectual System of the Universe. London: R. Royston.Google Scholar
Cudworth, Ralph 1977. The True Intellectual System of the Universe, in Collected Works, Vol. 1. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 1985. “Fabricius and the ‘Aristotle Project’ in Anatomical Teaching and Research at Padua,” in Wear, Andrew, French, Roger K., and Lonie, I. M. (eds.), The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195222.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 1988a. “Getting the Game Right: Some Plain Words on the Identity and Invention of Science,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 19: 365389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 1988b. “William Harvey: The Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood,” in Porter, Roy (ed.), Man Masters Nature: Twenty-Five Centuries of Science, New York: G. Bazillier, pp. 6876.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 1997. The Anatomical Renaissance: The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients. Brookfield, VT: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 2000. “The Identity of Natural Philosophy. A Response to Edward Grant,” Early Science and Medicine 5: 259278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew 2010. The Anatomist Anatomis’d: An Experimental Discipline in Enlightenment Europe. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew, and Williams, Perry 1993. “De-Centering the ‘Big Picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science,” British Journal for the History of Science 26: 407432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Alembert, Jean le Rond 1743. Traité de dynamique. Paris: David.Google Scholar
D’Alembert, Jean Le Rond 1744. Traité de l’équilibre et du mouvement des fluides: pour servir de suite au Traité de dynamique. Paris: David.Google Scholar
D’Alembert, Jean Le Rond 1752. Essai d’une nouvelle théorie de la resistance des fluides. Paris: David.Google Scholar
D’Alembert, Jean Le Rond 1758. “Discours préliminaire,” in Traité de dynamique, Paris: David, pp. ixxxv.Google Scholar
Dales, Richard C. 1980. “The De-Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages,” Journal of the History of Ideas 41: 531550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damerow, Peter, Freudenthal, Gideon, McLaughlin, Peter, and Renn, Jürgen 2004. Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Gabriel 1690. Voiage du monde de Descartes. Paris: Veuve de Simon Bénard.Google Scholar
Daniel, Gabriel 1692. A Voyage to the World of Cartesius. Translated by Thomas Taylor. London: Thomas Bennet.Google Scholar
Darrigol, Olivier 2012. A History of Optics from Greek Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darrigol, Olivier, and Frisch, Uriel 2008. “From Newton’s Mechanics to Euler’s Equations,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 237: 18551869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine 1995a. “Curiosity in Early Modern Science,” Word and Image 11: 391404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine 1995b. “The Moral Economy of Science,” Osiris 2: 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine 2017. “The History of Science and the History of Knowledge,” Know 1: 131154.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Gallison, Peter 1999. Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daumas, Maurice 1953. Les instruments scientifiques au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Davis, A. E. L. 2003. “The Mathematics of the Area Law: Kepler’s Successful Proof in Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (1621),” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 57: 355393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, Simone 2008. “From Text to the Body: Commentaries on De Anima, Anatomical Practice and Authority around 1600,” in Campi, Emidio, De Angelis, Simone, Goeing, Anja-Silvia, and Grafton, Anthony T. (eds.), Scholarly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe, Geneva: Libraries Droz, pp. 205228.Google Scholar
De Angelis, Simone 2010. Anthropologien: Genese und Konfiguration einer “Wissenschaft vom Menschen” in der Frühen Neuzeit. Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Franco, Luigi 1995. Introduzione a Bernardino Telesio. Soveria Manelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
De Pace, Anna 1993. Le matematiche e il mondo: ricerche su un dibattito in Italia nella seconda metà del Cinquecento. Milan: Francoangeli.Google Scholar
De Sallo, Denis 1689. Le journal des sçavans depuis le mois de Juin jusques à la fin de l’année MDCLXXXVIII. Amsterdam: Wolfgang, Waezberge, Boom, and van Someren.Google Scholar
De Waard, Cornelis 1906. Uitvinding der Verrekijkers. ’s-Gravenhage: De Nederl. Boek- en Steendrukkerij voorheen H. L. Smits.Google Scholar
De Waard, Cornelis 1925. “Les objections de Pierre Petit contre le Discours et les Essais de Descartes,” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 32: 5389.Google Scholar
De Wreede, L. C. 2007. Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626): A Humanist Reshaping the Mathematical Sciences. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dear, Peter 1984. “Marin Mersenne and the Probabilistic Roots of ‘Mitigated Scepticism’,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 22: 173205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 1987. “Jesuit Mathematical Science and the Reconstitution of Experience in the Early Seventeenth Century,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18: 133175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 1988. Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 1991. “Narratives, Anecdotes, and Experiments: Turning Experience into Science in the Seventeenth Century,” in Dear, Peter (ed.), The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 135163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 1995. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 1998. “Method and the Study of Nature,” in Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael (eds.), The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147177.Google Scholar
Dear, Peter 2005. “What Is the History of Science the History Of?: Early Modern Roots of the Ideology of Modern Science,” Isis 96: 390406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, Peter 2006. “The Meanings of Experience,” in Park, Katharine and Daston, Lorraine (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 3: Early Modern Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106131.Google Scholar
Debus, Alan G. 1978. Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dee, John 1978. John Dee on Astronomy: Propaedeumata aphoristica (1558 and 1568, Latin and English). Translated by Wayne Shumaker. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Deer, Linda Richardson 2018. Academic Theories of Generation in the Renaissance: The Contemporaries and Successors of Jean Fernel (1497–1558). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitz, Luc 1997. “‘Falsissima est ergo haec de triplici substantia Aristotelis doctrina.’ A Sixteenth-Century Critic of Aristotle – Francesco Patrizi da Cherso on Privation, Form, and Matter,” Early Science and Medicine 2: 227250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitz, Luc 2007. “Francesco Patrizi da Cherso’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Logic,” Vivarium 45: 113124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitz, Luc 2019. “Do We Have Any Genuine Works by Aristotle? Francesco Patrizi da Cherso’s Discussion of the Corpus Aristotelicum,” Intellectual History Review 29: 545560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Prete, Antonella 2001a. “Charles Sorel et l’Italie: une interprétation de la Renaissance,” in Foucault, Didier and Cavaillé, Jean-Pierre (eds.), Sources antiques de l’irréligion moderne, Toulouse: Université Toulouse-Le Mirail, pp. 171–80.Google Scholar
Del Prete, Antonella 2001b. “Explications sur le mystère de l’Eucharistie suivant les principes de la philosophie de Descartes,” La Lettre Clandestine 10: 226260.Google Scholar
Del Soldato, Eva 2010. Simone Porzio: un aristotelico tra natura e grazia. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, Michael 2015. “Interpreting Spinoza: The Real is the Rational,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 53: 523535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis 1996. Physiologia: Natural Philosophy in Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis 2000a. Life’s Form: Late Aristotelian Conceptions of the Soul. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis 2000b. “Life and Health in Cartesian Natural Philosophy,” in Gaukroger, Stephen, Schuster, John, and Sutton, John (eds.), Descartes’ Natural Philosophy, London: Routledge, pp. 723735.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis 2001. Spirits and Clocks: Machine and Organism in Descartes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Des Chene, Dennis 2005. “Mechanisms of Life in the Seventeenth Century: Borelli, Perrault, Régis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 245260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Des Chene, Dennis 2006. “From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science,” in Rutherford, Donald (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René 1637a. Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la verité dans les sciences. Plus la Dioptrique, les Météores, et la Géométrie. Leiden: Ian Maire.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1637b. La Géométrie, in Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la verité dans les sciences. Plus la Dioptrique, les Météores, et la Géométrie, Leiden: Ian Maire, pp. 295413.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1668. Traité de la mechanique. Edited by Poisson, N. J.. Paris: C. Angot.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1964–1974 [1897–1913]. Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. New ed. 11 vols. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1972. Treatise on Man. Translated by Thomas Steele Hall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1982 [1644]. Principles of Philosophy. Edited by Miller, Valentine Rodger and Miller, Reese P.. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1984–1991. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Edited and translated by Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, Murdoch, Dugald, and Kenny, Anthony. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René 1989. The Passions of the Soul. Translated by Stephen H. Voss. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1996. Oeuvres de Descartes. Edited by Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. Reprint ed. 11 vols. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Descartes, René 1998. The World and Other Writings. Translated by Stephen Gaukroger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René 2001. Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology. Edited by Olscamp, P. J.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Detlefsen, Karen 2013. “Teleology and Natures in Descartes’ Sixth Meditation,” in Detlefsen, Karen (ed.), Descartes’ Meditations: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Bono, Mario 1990. Le sfere omocentriche di Giovan Battista Amico nell’astronomia del Cinquecento. Genoa: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.Google Scholar
Di Liscia, Daniel 2014. “A tract De maximo et minimo according to Albert of Saxony,” SCIAMVS 15: 57–14.Google Scholar
Di Liscia, Daniel A., Kessler, Eckhard, and Methuen, Charlotte (eds.) 1997. Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dibon, Paul 1990. Regards sur la Hollande du Siècle d’or. Naples: Vivarium.Google Scholar
Diderot, Denis, and D’Alembert, Jean le Rond (eds.) 1751–1772. Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. 28 vols. Paris: Briasson et al.Google Scholar
Digby, Kenelm 1644. Two Treatises. In the one of which, the Nature of Bodies; in the other, the Nature of Mans Soule; is looked into: in way of discovery, of the Immortality of Reasonable Soules. Paris: Gilles Blaizot.Google Scholar
Digby, Kenelm 1658. Discours fait en une célèbre assemblée, par le chevalier Digby … touchant la guérison des playes par la poudre de sympathie. Paris: Ch. Osmond.Google Scholar
Digges, Leonard, and Digges, Thomas 1571. A Geometrical Practice, Named Pantometria. London: Henrie Bynneman.Google Scholar
Digges, Leonard, and Digges, Thomas 1590. An Arithmetical Warlike Treatise Named Stratioticos. London: Richard Field.Google Scholar
Digges, Leonard, and Digges, Thomas 1591. A Geometrical Practical Treatize Named Pantometria. London: Abell Jeffes.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, E. J. 1961. The Mechanization of the World Picture. Translated by C. Dikshoorn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Distelzweig, Peter 2013. “The Intersection of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences: The Subordinate Sciences in Aristotle,” Apeiron 46: 85105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distelzweig, Peter 2014a. “Fabricius’s Galeno-Aristotelian Teleomechanics of Muscle,” in Nachtomy, Ohad and Smith, Justin E. H. (eds.), The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6584.Google Scholar
Distelzweig, Peter 2014b. “Meam de motu & usu cordis, & ciruitu sanguinis sententiam: Teleology in William Harvey’s De Motu Cordis,” Gesnerus: Swiss Journal of the History of Medicine and Science 71: 258–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Distelzweig, Peter 2015. “The Use of Usus and the Function of Functio: Teleology and Its Limits in Descartes’s Physiology,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 53: 377399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distelzweig, Peter 2016. “‘Mechanics’ and Mechanism in William Harvey’s Anatomy: Varieties and Limits,” in Distelzweig, Peter, Goldberg, Benjamin, and Ragland, Evan R. (eds.), Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 117140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distelzweig, Peter, Goldberg, Benjamin, and Ragland, Evan R. (eds.) 2016. Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbs, B. J. T. 2000. “Newton as Final Cause and First Mover,” in Osler, Margaret J. (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobre, Mihnea 2011. “The Vanishing Nature of Body in Descartes’s Natural Philosophy,” in Jalobeanu, Dana and Anstey, Peter R. (eds.), Vanishing Matter and the Laws of Physics, New York: Routledge, pp. 1130.Google Scholar
Dobre, Mihnea 2013a. “On Glass-Drops: A Case Study of the Interplay between Experimentation and Explanation in Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 2: 105124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobre, Mihnea 2013b. “Rohault’s Cartesian Physics,” in Dobre, Mihnea and Nyden, Tammy (eds.), Cartesian Empiricisms, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 203226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobre, Mihnea, and Nyden, Tammy (eds.) 2013. Cartesian Empiricisms. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domski, Mary 2009. “The Intelligibility of Motion and Construction: Descartes’ Early Mathematics and Metaphysics, 1619–1637,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40: 119130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domski, Mary 2019. “Newton and Descartes,” in Jalobeanu, Dana and Wolfe, Charles T. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences, Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_113-1.Google Scholar
Domski, Mary 2020. “Descartes, Mathematics and the Science of Motion,” in Jalobeanu, Dana and Wolfe, Charles T. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences, Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20791-9_29-2.Google Scholar
Domski, Mary, and Dickson, Michael (eds.) 2010. Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Downing, Lisa 2002. “Robert Boyle,” in Nadler, Steven (ed.), A Companion to Early Modern Philosophy, Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 338353.Google Scholar
Downing, Lisa 2014. “Locke’s Metaphysics and Newtonian Metaphysics,” in Biener, Zvi and Schliesser, Eric (eds.), Newton and Empiricism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, Stillman 1957. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Drake, Stillman 1970a. “The Dispute over Bodies in Water,” in Galileo Studies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 159176.Google Scholar
Drake, Stillman 1970b. Galileo Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Drake, Stillman 1976a. “Galileo’s First Telescopic Observations,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 7: 153168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, Stillman 1976b. Galileo Against the Philosophers. Los Angeles: Zeitlin & Ver Brugge.Google Scholar
Drake, Stillman, and Drabkin, I. E. 1969. Mechanics in Sixteenth-Century Italy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. 1953. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Du Châtelet, Emilie 1740. Institutions de physique. Paris: Prault Fils.Google Scholar
Du Châtelet, Emilie 1741. Réponse de Madame la Marquise du Chastelley à la lettre que M. de Mairan, Secrétaire Perpétuel de l’Académie royale des sciences, lui a écrite le 18 février 1741 sur la question des forces vives. Brussels: Foppens.Google Scholar
Du Châtelet, Emilie 1742. Institutions de physique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Aux Depens de la Compagnie.Google Scholar
Du Châtelet, Emilie 2009. Selected Philosophical and Scientific Writings. Translated by Judith P. Zinsser and Isabel Bour. Edited by Zinsser, Judith P.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchesneau, François 1994. La dynamique de Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Duchesneau, François 1998. Les modéles du vivant de Descartes à Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen 2005. “Joan Baptiste Van Helmont and the Question of Experimental Modernism,” Physis 43: 305332.Google Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen 2011. “Newton on Action at a Distance and the Cause of Gravity,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42: 154159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen 2012. The Main Business of Natural Philosophy: Isaac Newton’s Natural-Philosophical Methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen 2013. “The Status of Theory and Hypotheses,” in Anstey, Peter R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169191.Google Scholar
Dumitru, Claudia 2013. “Crucial Instances and Crucial Experiments in Bacon, Boyle and Hooke,” Societate şi Politică 7: 4561.Google Scholar
Duncan, Stewart 2005. “Hobbes’s Materialism in the Early 1640s,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 13: 437448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, Katherine 2012. “What Geometry Postulates: Newton and Barrow on the Relationship of Mathematics to Nature,” in Janiak, Andrew and Schliesser, Eric (eds.), Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69101.Google Scholar
Dunn, John M. 1968. “The Identity of the History of Ideas,” Philosophy 43: 85104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, Sven 2002. Galileo, the Telescope, and the Science of Optics in the Sixteenth Century. PhD dissertation. Ghent: Universiteit Ghent.Google Scholar
Dupré, Sven 2010. “William Bourne’s Invention. Projecting a Telescope and Optical Speculation in Elizabethan England,” in Van Helden, Albert, Dupré, Sven, van Gent, Rob, and Zuidervaart, Huib J. (eds.), The Origins of the Telescope, Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, pp. 129146.Google Scholar
Dupré, Sven 2012. “Kepler’s Optics Without Hypotheses,” Synthese 185: 501525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eamon, William 1994. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eamon, William 2011. “How to Read a Book of Secrets,” in Rankin, Alisha and Leong, Elaine (eds.), Secrets and Knowledge in Medicine and Science, 1500–1800, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 3558.Google Scholar
Earman, John 1989. World Enough and Spacetime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Florian 2005. Das Geheimnis des Hermes Trismegistos. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Florian 2007. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Edelstein, Dan 2010. The Enlightenment: A Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Clinton R. 1969. “Mapping by Questionnaire: An Early Spanish Attempt to Determine New World Geographical Positions,” Imago Mundi 23: 1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Michael 2005. “Aristotelianism, Descartes, and Hobbes,” Historical Journal 50: 449464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egmond, Florike 2010. The World of Carolus Clusius: Natural History in the Making, 1550–1610. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
Eichstadius, Laurentius 1644. Tabulae harmonicae coelestium motuum. Stettin: Typis Georgii Rhetii.Google Scholar
Ekholm, Karin 2008. “Harvey’s and Highmore’s Accounts of Chick Generation,” Early Science and Medicine 13: 568614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ent, Georgio 1641. Apologia pro circulatione sanguinis: qua respondetur Aemilio Parisano medico Veneto. London: R. Young.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Christoffer Basse 2018. Beneath the Visible Nature and the Sub-Visible World in Early Modern Microscopy. PhD dissertation. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Ernst, Germana 2010. Tommaso Campanella: The Book and the Body of Nature. Translated by David L. Marshall. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Germana 2014. “Tommaso Campanella,” in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/campanella/.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1736. Mechanica: sive, motus scientia analytice exposita. Saint Petersburg: ex Typographia Academiae Scientiarum.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1744. Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate gaudente. Lausanne and Geneva: Bousquet.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1745. “Dissertation sur la meilleure construction du cabestan,” in Pièces qui ont remporté le prix de l’Académie royale des sciences en 1741, Paris, pp. 2987.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1748. Introductio in analysin infinitorum. Lausanne: Bousquet.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1750. “Reflexions sur L’Espace et Le Tems,” Memoires de L’Académie des Sciences de Berlin: 324333.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1755. Institutiones calculi differentialis. St. Petersburg: Academiae Imperialis Scientiarum.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1765. Theoria motus corporum solidorum seu rigidorum. Rostock and Greifswald: A. F. Röse.Google Scholar
Euler, Leonhard 1824. Institutiones calculi integralis. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Evans, James 1998. The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fabri, Honoré 1669. Physica, id est, scientia rerum corporearum. Lyons: Anisson.Google Scholar
Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Hieronymus 1603. De venarum ostiolis. Padua: L. Pasquati.Google Scholar
Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Hieronymus 1600. De visione. De voce. De auditu. Venice: Per Francisum Bolzettam.Google Scholar
Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Hieronymus 1615. De respiratione et eius instrumentis. Padua: P. Meglietti.Google Scholar
Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Hieronymus 1942. The Embryological Treatises of Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente. Translated by Howard Adelmann. 2 vols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, Benjamin 1964. The Philosophy of Francis Bacon; An Essay on Its Development from 1603 to 1609 with New Translations of Fundamental Texts. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Feingold, Mordechai 2001. “Mathematicians and Naturalists: Sir Isaac Newton and the Royal Society,” in Buchwald, Jed Z. and Cohen, I. Bernard (eds.), Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 76102.Google Scholar
Feingold, Mordechai 2010. “The War on Newton,” Isis 101: 175186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, Mordechai 2016. “‘Experimental Philosophy’: Invention and Rebirth of a Seventeenth-Century Concept,” Early Science and Medicine 21: 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felden, Johannes 1642. Tractatus de enunciationibus et syllogismis. Helmaestad: Muller.Google Scholar
Feldhay, Rivka 1998. “The Use and Abuse of Mathematical Entities,” in Machamer, Peter (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, James P. 1974. The Philosophy of Dr. Samuel Clarke and Its Critics. New York: Vantage Press.Google Scholar
Fermat, Pierre de 1679. “Ad locos planos et solidos isagoge,” in Varia opera mathematica, Toulouse.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernel, Jean 1555. Medicina. Venice: Apud Balthassarem.Google Scholar
Fernel, Jean 2003. The Physiologia of Jean Fernel (1567). Edited and translated by Forrester, J. M.. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichant, Michel 1998. Science et métaphysique dans Descartes et Leibniz. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficino, Marsilio 1989. Three Books on Life: A Critical Edition and Translation. Translated by Carol V. Kaske and John R. Clark. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.Google Scholar
Field, J. V. 1984. “A Lutheran Astrologer: Johannes Kepler,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 31: 189272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. V., and James, Frank A. J. L. 1993. “Introduction,” in Field, J. V. and James, Frank A. J. L. (eds.), Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen, and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 114.Google Scholar
Findlen, Paula 1994. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Findlen, Paula 2006. “Natural History,” in Park, Katharine and Daston, Lorraine (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 3: Early Modern Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 435469.Google Scholar
Fisher, Saul 2005. Pierre Gassendi’s Philosophy and Science: Atomism for Empiricists. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, James Dougal 2011. “‘The Undiscoverable Country: Occult Qualities, Scholasticism, and the End of Nescience,” in Fleming, James Dougal (ed.), The Invention of Discovery, 1500–1700, London: Routledge, pp. 6178.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de 1731. Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences. Année M. DCCXXIX. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de 1737 [1686]. A Week’s Conversation on the Plurality of Worlds. Translated by Aphra Behn, Joseph Addison, Joseph Glanvill, and John Hughes. 6th ed. London: A. Bettesworth.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de 1740. Éloges des académiciens, avec l’Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences. 2 vols. La Haye: I. van der Kloot.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de 1752. Oeuvres. 8 vols. Paris: Brunet.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de 1766. “Digression sur les Anciens et les Modernes,” in Oeuvres, Vol. 4, Paris: Libraires Associés, pp. 169198.Google Scholar
Force, James E., and Popkin, Richard H. (eds.) 2013. Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Fors, Hjalmar, Principe, Lawrence M., and Sibum, H. Otto 2016. “From the Library to the Laboratory and Back Again: Experiment as a Tool for Historians of Science,” Ambix 63: 8597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foucher, Simon 1995. “Critique [of Nicolas Malebranche’s] Of the Search for the Truth,” in Watson, Richard A. and Grene, Marjorie (eds.), Malebranche’s First and Last Critics: Simon Foucher and Dortous de Mairan, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 160.Google Scholar
Fournier, Marian 1996. The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the 17th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fracastoro, Girolamo 1574. Opera omnia. Venice: Giunta.Google Scholar
France, Catherine Ann 2014. Gunnery and the Struggle for the New Science (1537–1687). Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Frank, Günter 2003. Die Vernunft des Gottesgedankens Religionsphilosophische Studien zur frühen Neuzeit. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert G. 1972. “Harvey Redux,” Journal of the History of Biology 5: 189204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, Robert G. 1976. “Institutional Structure and Scientific Activity in the Early Royal Society,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the History of Science, Vol. 4, Tokyo, pp. 82101.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert G. 1980. Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists: Scientific Ideas and Social Interaction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Craig 1983. “Lagrange’s Early Contributions to the Principles and Methods of Mechanics,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 28: 197241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Craig 1989. “The Calculus as Algebraic Analysis: Some Observations on Mathematical Analysis in the 18th Century,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 39: 317335.Google Scholar
Fraser, Craig 1990. “Lagrange’s Analytical Mathematics, Its Cartesian Origins and Reception in Comte’s Positive Philosophy,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21: 243256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Craig 1997. Calculus and Analytical Mechanics in the Age of Enlightenment. Brookfield: Variorum.Google Scholar
Fredette, Raymond 2001. “Galileo’s De motu antiquiora: Notes for a Reappraisal,” in Montesinos, José and Santos, Carlos Solis (eds.), Largo campo di filosofare, La Orotava: Fundacion Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, pp. 165181.Google Scholar
French, Peter J. 1972. John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
French, Roger K. 1985. “Berengario da Carpi and the Use of Commentary in Anatomical Teaching,” in Wear, Andrew, French, Roger K., and Lonie, I. M. (eds.), The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4274.Google Scholar
French, Roger K. 1989. “Harvey in Holland: Circulation and the Calvinists,” in French, Roger K. and Wear, Andrew (eds.), The Medical Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Roger K. 1994. William Harvey’s Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, Roger K. 1999. Dissection and Vivisection in the European Renaissance: The History of Medicine in Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Frey, Ianus Caecilius 1646. Opuscula varia nusquam edita. Paris: Apud Petrum David.Google Scholar
Frey, Ianus Caecilius 2003. Cribrum philosophorum. Edited by Ariew, Roger and Garber, Daniel. Lecce: Conte Editore.Google Scholar
Fromondus, Libertus 1631. Ant-Aristarchus, sive: Orbis-terrae immobilis liber unicus … Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Thomas 2001. Mechanization of the Heart: Harvey and Descartes. Translated by Marjorie Grene. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Furetière, Antoine 1690. Dictionaire universel. 3 vols. The Hague, Rotterdam: Arnout & Renier Leers.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1971. “Force and Inertia in Seventeenth-Century Dynamics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2: 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1980. “Force and Inertia in the Seventeenth Century: Descartes and Newton,” in Gaukroger, Stephen (ed.), Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, Sussex: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 230320.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1982. “Philosophia Cartesiana Triumphata: Henry More (1646–1671),” in Lennon, Thomas M., Nicholas, John M., and Davis, John W. (eds.), Problems of Cartesianism, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, pp. 171250.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1984. “The Bourdelot Academy and the Mechanical Philosophy,” Seventeenth-Century French Studies 6: 92103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1985. “The Mechanical Philosophy and Its Problems: Mechanical Explanations, Impenetrability, and Perpetual Motion,” in Pitt, Joseph C. (ed.), Change and Progress in Modern Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1990a. “Explanatory Structures and Models in Descartes’ Physics,” in Belgioioso, Giulia, Cimino, G., Costabel, Pierre, and Papuli, G. (eds.), Descartes: il metodo e i saggi, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, pp. 273286.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1990b. “Henry More and the Limits of Mechanism,” in Hutton, Sarah (ed.), Henry More (1614–1687): Tercentenary Studies, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 1992. “Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: A Treatise in Mechanics?,” in Harman, Peter M. and Shapiro, Alan E. (eds.), The Investigation of Difficult Things: Essays on Newton and the History of Exact Sciences in Honour of D. T. Whiteside, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 305322.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 2001. “Mechanical Philosophies and their Explanations,” in Lüthy, Christoph H., Murdoch, John E., and Newman, William R. (eds.), Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, Leiden: Brill, pp. 441466.Google Scholar
Gabbey, Alan 2004. “What was ‘Mechanical’ about ‘The Mechanical Philosophy’?,” in Palmerino, Carla Rita and Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H. (eds.), The Reception of the Galilean Science of Motion in Seventeenth-Century Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadroys, Claude 1671. Discours sur les influences des astres selon les principes de M. Descartes. Paris: Jean-Baptiste Coignard.Google Scholar
Gadroys, Claude 1675. Le système du monde, selon les trois hypothèses. Paris: Guillaume Desprez.Google Scholar
Galen, 1916. On the Natural Faculties. Edited and translated by Brock, Arthur John. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galen, 1956. On Anatomical Procedures. Edited and translated by Singer, Charles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galen, 1968. On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. Edited and translated by May, Margaret T.. 2 vols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Galen, 1984. On Respiration and the Arteries. Edited and translated by Furley, David J. and Wilkie, James S.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1610. Sidereus nuncius. Venice: Tommaso Baglioni.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1638. Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze. Leiden: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 18901909. Le opere di Galileo Galilei. Edited by Favaro, Antonio. 20 vols. Florence: Barbéra.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1957. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Edited and translated by Drake, Stillman. New York: Doubleday & Co.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1967 [1632]. Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Translated by Stillman Drake. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1977 [1606]. Operations of the Geometric and Military Compass. Translated by Stillman Drake. Florence: Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1989 [1638]. Two New Sciences. Translated by Stillman Drake. Toronto: Wall & Emerson.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 1992 [1610]. Sidereus nuncius. Edited and translated by Pantin, Isabelle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo 2004 [1610]. Sidereus nuncius. Translated by Peter Barker and Edward Stafford Carlos. Oklahoma City: Byzantium Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo, Grassi, Horatio, Guiducci, Mario, and Kepler, Johannes 1960. The Controversy on the Comets of 1618. Translated by Stillman Drake and Charles Donald O’Malley. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gallavotti, Giovanni 1983. The Elements of Mechanics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galluzzi, Paolo 1973. “Il ‘Platonismo’ del tardo cinquecento e la filosofia di Galileo,” in Zambelli, Paola (ed.), Ricerche sulla cultura dell’Italia moderna, Bari: Laterza, pp. 3979.Google Scholar
Galluzzi, Paolo 1979. Momento: studi Galileiani. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo e Bizzarri.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 1992. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 1998. “Soul and Mind: Life and Thought in the Seventeenth Century,” in Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael (eds.), The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 759795.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2002a. “Defending Aristotle/Defending Society in Early 17th C Paris,” in Zittel, Claus and Detel, Wolfgang (eds.), Wissensideale und Wissenskulturen in der frühen Neuzeit (Ideals and Culture of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 135160.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2002b. “Descartes, Mechanics, and the Mechanical Philosophy,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 26: 185204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2004. “On the Frontlines of the Scientific Revolution: How Mersenne Learned to Love Galileo,” Perspectives on Science 12: 135163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2009. Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2010. “Philosophia, Historia, Mathematica: Shifting Sands in the Disciplinary Geography of the Seventeenth Century,” in Sorrell, Tom, Rogers, G. A., and Kraye, Jill (eds.), Scientia in Early Modern Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 117.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2011. “Leibniz, Body and Monads,” in Jalobeanu, Dana and Anstey, Peter R. (eds.), Vanishing Matter and the Laws of Physics, London: Routledge, pp. 195215.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2013a. “Descartes against the Materialists: How Descartes’ Confrontation with Materialism Shaped His Metaphysics,” in Detlefsen, Karen (ed.), Descartes’ Meditations: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2013b. “Does History Have a Future? Some Reflections on Bennett and Doing Philosophy Historically,” in Duncan, Stewart and LoLordo, Antonia (eds.), Debates in Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary Responses, New York: Routledge, pp. 347362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2013c. “Remarks on the Pre-History of the Mechanical Philosophy,” in Garber, Daniel and Roux, Sophie (eds.), The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy, New York: Springer, pp. 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2015a. “Descartes among the Novatores,” Res Philosophica 92: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2015b. “Superheroes in the History of Philosophy: Spinoza, Super-Rationalist,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 53: 507521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2016a. “Telesio among the Novatores: Telesio’s Reception in the Seventeenth Century,” in Muratori, C. and Paganini, G. (eds.), Early Modern Philosophers and the Renaissance Legacy, Cham: Springer, pp. 119–133.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel 2016b. “Why the Scientific Revolution Wasn’t a Scientific Revolution, and Why it Matters,” in Richards, Robert J. and Daston, Lorraine (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 133–148.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel, and Ayers, Michael (eds.) 1998. The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel, and Roux, Sophie (eds.) 2013. The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gascoigne, John 1990. “A Reappraisal of the Role of Universities in the Scientific Revolution,” in Lindberg, David C. and Westman, Robert S. (eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207260.Google Scholar
Gasparri, Giuliano 2016. Étienne Chauvin (1640–1725) and his Lexicon philosophicum. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre 1649 [1624]. Exercitationes paradoxicae adversus Aristoteleos. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre 1658a. Opera omnia. 6 vols. Lyon: Laurent Anisson and Jean-Baptiste Devenet.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre 1658b. Syntagma philosophicum. Opera omnia, Vol. 1. Lyon: Laurent Anisson and Jean-Baptiste Devenet.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre 1962. Disquisitio metaphysica seu dubitationes et instantiae adversus Renati Cartesii metaphysicam et responsa. Edited by Rochot, Bernard. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre 1972. The Selected Works. Edited by Brush, Craig B.. New York: Johnson Reprint Company.Google Scholar
Gatti, Hilary 1999. Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 1997. Descartes’ System of Natural Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 2000. “The Resources of a Mechanist Physiology and the Problem of Goal-Directed Processes,” in Gaukroger, Stephen, Schuster, John, and Sutton, John (eds.), Descartes’ Natural Philosophy, London: Routledge, pp. 383400.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 2001. Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 2002. Cartesian Logic: An Essay on Descartes’s Conception of Inference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 2006. The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen 2014. “Empiricism as a Development of Experimental Natural Philosophy,” in Biener, Zvi and Schliesser, Eric (eds.), Newton and Empiricism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen, Schuster, John, and Sutton, John (eds.) 2000. Descartes’ Natural Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gellera, Giovanni 2013. “Calvinist Metaphysics and the Eucharist in the Early Seventeenth Century,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21: 10911110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemelli, Benedino 2013. “Isaac Beeckman as a Reader of Francis Bacon’s Sylva Sylvarum,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 2: 6181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgescu, Laura, and Giurgea, Madalina 2012. “Redefining the Role of Experiment in Bacon’s Natural History: How Baconian was Descartes before Emerging from His Cocoon?,” Early Science and Medicine 17: 158180.Google ScholarPubMed
Gesner, Conrad 1551. Historiae animalium lib. I: De quadrupedibus viviparis. Zurich: Froschauer.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, Giulio Cesare 1972. “Il Commentarium de certitudine mathematicarum disciplinarum di Alessandro Piccolomini,” Physis 14: 162193.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, Giulio Cesare 1973. “La riflessione metamatematica di Pietro Catena,” Physis 15: 178196.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, Giulio Cesare 1976. “Epigoni nel seicento della Quaestio de certitudine mathematicarum: Giuseppe Biancani,” Physis: Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza 18: 540.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, Giulio Cesare 1981. Alle radici della rivoluzione scientifica rinascimentale: le opere di Pietro Catena sui rapporti tra matematica e logica. Pisa: Domus Galilaeana.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido 2002. The Genesis of Francis Glisson’s Philosophy of Life. PhD dissertation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Giglioni, Guido 2013. “How Bacon Became Baconian,” in Daniel Garber and Sophie Roux (eds.), The Mechanization of Natural Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Neal Ward 1960. Renaissance Concepts of Method. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, William 1600. De magnete, magnetisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure; physiologia noua, plurimis et argumentis, & experimentis demonstrata. London: Peter Short.Google Scholar
Gilbert, William 1958. On the Magnet. Edited by Thompson, Silvanus Phillips. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gilson, Étienne 1930. Études sur le rôle de la pensée médiévale dans la formation du système cartésien. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Gilson, Étienne 1951. “Descartes, Harvey et la scolastique,” in Études sur le rôle de la pensée médiévale dans la formation du système cartésien, Revised ed., Paris: Vrin, pp. 51100.Google Scholar
Gingerich, Owen 1975. “Dissertatio cum Professore Righini et Sidereo Nuncio,” in Righini Bonelli, M. L. and Shea, William R. (eds.), Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution, New York: Science History Publications, pp. 7788.Google Scholar
Gingras, Yves 2001. “What Did Mathematics Do to Physics?,” History of Science 39: 383416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingras, Yves 2002. “La substance évanescente de la physique,” in Neuenschwander, E. and Bouquiaux, Laurence (eds.), Science, Philosophy and Music. Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of History of Science, Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 157164.Google Scholar
Glanvill, Joseph 1661. The Vanity of Dogmatizing. London: Printed by E. C. for H. Eversden.Google Scholar
Glanvill, Joseph 1665. Scepsis scientifica: or, Confest ignorance, the way to science. London.Google Scholar
Goclenius, Rudolph 1964 [1613]. Lexicon philosophicum, quo tanquam clave philosophiae fores aperiuntur. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Benjamin 2013. “A Dark Business, Full of Shadows: Analogy and Theology in William Harvey,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44: 419432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Benjamin 2016. “William Harvey on Anatomy and Experience,” Perspectives on Science 24: 305323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenbaum, Ursula 1998. “Leibniz as a Lutheran,” in Coudert, Allison P., Popkin, Richard H., and Weiner, Gordon M. (eds.), Leibniz, Mysticism and Religion, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 169192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Bernard R., and Barker, Peter 1995. “The Role of Rothmann in the Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres,” British Journal for the History of Science 28: 385403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Catherine 2013. “Routine Controversies: Mathematical Challenges in Mersenne’s Correspondence,” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 66: 249273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinski, Jan 2005. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Revised ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorham, Geoffrey 1994. “Mind–Body Dualism and the Harvey–Descartes Controversy,” Journal of the History of Ideas 55: 211234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorham, Geoffrey 2020. “Locke on Space, Time and God,” Ergo 7.Google Scholar
Gorham, Geoffrey, Hill, Benjamin, Slowik, Edward, and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.) 2016. The Language of Nature: Reassessing the Mathematization of Natural Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorham, Geoffrey, and Slowik, Edward 2014. “Locke and Newton on Space and Time and Their Sensible Measures,” in Biener, Zvi and Schliesser, Eric (eds.), Newton and Empiricism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorlaeus, David 1620. Exercitationes philosophicae quibus universa fere discutitur philosophia theoretica et plurima et praecipua peripateticorum dogmata evertuntur. Leiden: Iohannis Ganne & Harmanni à Westerhuysen.Google Scholar
Goulding, Robert 2010. Defending Hypatia: Ramus, Savile, and the Renaissance Rediscovery of Mathematical History. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granada, Miguel A. 2007. “Synodi ex mundis,” Bruniana & Campanelliana 13: 149156.Google Scholar
Granada, Miguel A. 2010. “‘A quo moventur planetae?’ Kepler et la question de l’agent du mouvement planétaire après la disparition des orbes solides,” Galilaeana: Journal of Galilean Studies 7: 111141.Google Scholar
Granada, Miguel Angel, and Tessicini, Dario (eds.) 2020. Giordano Bruno, De immenso: letture critiche. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra editore.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 1974. A Source Book in Mediaeval Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 1981. Much Ado about Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Edward 1987a. “Celestial Orbs in the Latin Middle Ages,” Isis 78: 153173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Edward 1987b. “Medieval and Renaissance Scholastic Conception of the Influence of the Celestial Region on the Terrestrial,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 17: 123.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 1987c. “Ways to Interpret the Terms ‘Aristotelian’ and ‘Aristotelianism’ in Medieval and Renaissance Natural Philosophy,” History of Science 25: 335358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Edward 1994. Planets, Stars, & Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200–1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 1999. “God, Science, and Natural Philosophy in the Late Middle Ages,” in Nauta, Lodi and Vanderjagt, Arjo (eds.), Between Demonstration and Imagination: Essays in the History of Science and Philosophy Presented to John D. North, Leiden: Brill, pp. 243267.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 2003. “The Partial Transformation of Medieval Cosmology by Jesuits in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Feingold, Mordechai (ed.), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 127156.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward 2007. A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravesande, Willem Jacob ’s 1720. Physices elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata, sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam. 2 vols. Leiden: Petrus van der Aa.Google Scholar
Gravesande, Willem Jacob ’s 1722. “Essai d’une nouvelle theorie du choc des corps,” Journal Litéraire 12: 153.Google Scholar
Gravesande, Willem Jacob ’s 1774. “Remarques sur la force des corps en mouvement, et sur le choc, précédées de quelques réflexions sur la manière d’écrire de Monsieur le Docteur Samuel Clarke,” in Allamand, Jean N. S. (ed.), Oeuvres philosophiques et mathematiques, Amsterdam: Marc Michel Rey, pp. 251268.Google Scholar
Gregory, Andrew 2001. Harvey’s Heart: The Discovery of Blood Circulation. Cambridge: Icon Books.Google Scholar
Gregory, Tulio 1964. “Studi sull’atomismo del Seicento. I. Sebastiano Basson,” Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 43: 3865.Google Scholar
Grene, Marjorie 1993. “The Heart and Blood: Descartes, Plemp, and Harvey,” in Voss, Stephen H. (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy and Science of René Descartes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 324336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grene, Marjorie 2005. “Descartes and the Heart Beat: A Conservative Innovation,” in Buchwald, Jed Z. and Franklin, Allan (eds.), Wrong for the Right Reasons, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 9197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grew, Nehemiah 1678. Experiments in Consort of the Luctation Arising from the Affusion of Several Menstruums upon all sorts of Bodies exhibited to the Royal Society. London: John Martyn.Google Scholar
Grew, Nehemiah 1682. The Anatomy of Plants with an Idea of a Philosophical History of Plants. London.Google Scholar
Grmek, M. D. 2008. “Santorio, Santorio,” in Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 12, Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 101104.Google Scholar
Grosseteste, Robert 1503. De phisicis lineis angulis et figuris per quas omnes acciones naturales complentur. Nuremberg: Andreas Stiborius.Google Scholar
Grosseteste, Robert 1912 [1572]. Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
Grosslight, Justin 2013. “Small Skills, Big Networks: Marin Mersenne as Mathematical Intelligencer,” History of Science 51: 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gueroult, Martial 1939. Leibniz: dynamique et métaphysique. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.Google Scholar
Guerrini, Anita 2003. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Guerrini, Anita 2013. “Experiments, Causation, and the Uses of Vivisection in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the History of Biology 46: 227254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerrini, Anita 2015. The Courtiers’ Anatomists: Animals and Humans in Louis XIV’s Paris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guicciardini, Niccolò 1994. “Three Traditions in the Calculus: Newton, Leibniz and Lagrange,” in Grattan-Guinness, Ivor (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences, New York: Routledge, pp. 308317.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Niccolò 1999. Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Mathematical Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guicciardini, Niccolò 2007. “‘Mechanica rationalis’ and ‘philosophia naturalis’ in the Auctoris Praefatio to Newton’s Principia,” in Bucciantini, Massimo, Camerota, Michele, and Roux, Sophie (eds.), Mechanics and Cosmology in the Medieval and Early Modern Period, Florence: Olschki, pp. 169186.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Niccolò 2013. “Mathematics and the New Sciences,” in Buchwald, Jed Z. and Fox, Robert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 226266.Google Scholar
Guiffart, Pierre 1647. Discours du vuide, sur les experiences de monsieur Paschal, et le traicté de Mr Pierius. Paris.Google Scholar
Haga, Joar 2012. Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagengruber, Ruth (ed.) 2012. Emilie Du Châtelet between Leibniz and Newton. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. Rupert 1956. The Scientific Revolution 1500–1800: The Formation of the Modern Scientific Attitude. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hall, A. Rupert 1959. “The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution,” in Clagett, Marshall (ed.), Critical Problems in the History of Science, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 323.Google Scholar
Hall, A. Rupert 1980. Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halleux, Robert 1980. “La controverse sur les origines de la chimie, de Paracelse à Borrichius,” in Margolin, J. C. (ed.), Acta conventus neo-latini Turonensis, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 807819.Google Scholar
Hamou, Philippe 1999. La mutation du visible. Essai sur la portée épistémologique des instruments d’optique au XVIIe siècle. Vol. 1: Du Sidereus Nuncius de Galilée à la Dioptrique cartésienne. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Hamou, Philippe 2001. La mutation du visible. Vol. 2: Télescopes et microscopes en Angleterre, de Bacon à Hooke. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Hamou, Philippe 2004. “Microscopes et minima visuels: Berkeley critique de l’autopsie instrumentale,” in Charles, Sébastien (ed.), Science et epistémologie chez Berkeley, Quebec: Presses de l’Université de Laval, pp. 103126.Google Scholar
Hamou, Philippe 2018. “On Selves and Thinking Substances,” in Hamou, Philippe and Pécharman, Martine (eds.), Locke and Cartesian Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 120143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamou, Philippe 2019. “Locke and the Experimental Philosophy of the Human Mind,” in Vanzo, Alberto and Anstey, Peter R. (eds.), Experiment, Speculation and Religion in Early Modern Philosophy, New York: Routledge, pp. 101125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, James 1999. “The Study of the Timaeus in Early Renaissance Italy,” in Grafton, Anthony and Siraisi, Nancy (eds.), Natural Particulars: Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77119.Google Scholar
Hankins, James 2007. “Humanism, Scholasticism, and Renaissance Philosophy,” in Hankins, James (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, James, and Palmer, Ada 2008. The Recovery of Ancient Philosophy in the Renaissance. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. 1965. “Eighteenth-Century Attempts to Resolve the Vis Viva Controversy,” Isis 56: 281297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. 1970. Jean D’Alembert: Science and the Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hankinson, Robert J. 1987. “Causes and Empiricism: A Problem in the Interpretation of Later Greek Medical Method,” Phronesis 32: 329348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. “Technology as a Practical Art,” in Franssen, Maarten, Vermaas, Pieter E., Kroes, Peter, and Meijers, Anthonie W. M. (eds.), Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn, Cham: Springer, pp. 6381.Google Scholar
Harkness, Deborah 2007. The Jewel House: Elizabethan London and the Scientific Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Harper, William L. 2011. Isaac Newton’s Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence About Gravity and Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. R. S. 1973. The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine from Alcmaeon to Galen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Peter 1998. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Peter 2001. “Curiosity, Forbidden Knowledge, and the Reformation of Natural Philosophy in Early Modern England,” Isis 92: 265–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, Peter 2002. “Original Sin and the Problem of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe,” Journal of the History of Ideas 63: 239259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Peter 2007. “Was There a Scientific Revolution?,” European Review 15: 445457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Peter 2011. “Experimental Religion and Experimental Science in Early Modern England,” Intellectual History Review 21: 413433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, David 1740. Supplement to a Pamphlet Intitled: A View of the Present Evidence for and Against Mrs Stephens’s Medicines, in Hales, Stephen, An Account of Some Experiments and Observations on Mrs. Stephens’s Medicines for Dissolving the Stone. London: printed for T. Woodward, pp. 3766.Google Scholar
Hartner, Willy 1975. “Terrestrial Interpretations of Lunar Spots,” in Righini Bonelli, M. L. and Shea, William R. (eds.), Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution, New York: Science History Publications, pp. 8994.Google Scholar
Harvey, William 1639. Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus. Leiden: J. Maire.Google Scholar
Harvey, William 1649. Exercitatio anatomica de circulatione sanguinis. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Harvey, William 1651. Exercitationes de generatione animalium. London: Du-Gardianis.Google Scholar
Harvey, William 1653. Anatomical Exercitations concerning the Generation of Living Creatures. London: Octavian Pulleyn.Google Scholar
Harvey, William 1993. The Circulation of the Blood and Other Writings. Edited and translated by Franklin, Kenneth J.. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
Harwood, John T. 1989. “Rhetoric and Graphic in Micrographia,” in Hunter, Michael and Schaffer, S. (eds.), Robert Hooke: New Studies, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 119147.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Takehito 1989. “Huygens, Dioptrics, and the Improvement of the Telescope,” Historia Scientiarum 37: 5190.Google Scholar
Hasse, Dag Nikolaus 2016. Success and Suppression: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy in the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 1990. “Metaphysics and the New Science,” in Lindberg, David C. and Westman, Robert S. (eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93166.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 1995. “Remaking the Science of Mind. Psychology as Natural Science,” in Fox, Christopher, Porter, Roy, and Wokler, Robert (eds.), Inventing Human Science: Eighteenth-Century Domains, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 184231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 1996. “Was the Scientific Revolution Really a Revolution in Science?,” in Ragep, F. Jamil and Ragep, Sally R. (eds.), Tradition, Transmission, Transformation, Leiden: Brill, pp. 489525.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 2007. “The Passions of the Soul and Descartes’ Machine Psychology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38: 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 2019. “Mind and Psychology in Descartes,” in Nadler, Steven, Schmaltz, Tad M., and Antoine-Mahut, Delphine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 106123.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2000. “The Problem of Secondary Causation in Descartes: A Response to Des Chene,” Perspectives on Science 8: 93118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2005. “From Mechanics to Mechanism: The Quaestiones Mechanicae and Descartes’ Physics,” in Anstey, Peter R. and Schuster, John A. (eds.), The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 99129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2009. Descartes on Forms and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2011a. “The Mechanical Philosophy,” in Clarke, Desmond M. and Wilson, Catherine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7195.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2011b. “Suárez and Descartes: A Priori Arguments Against Substantial Forms and the Decline of the Formal Cause,” Studia Neoaristotelica 8: 143162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2012. “Suárez’s Last Stand for the Substantial Form,” in Hill, Benjamin and Langerlund, Henrik (eds.), The Philosophy of Francisco Suárez, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 101118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2014. “Hobbes’s and Zabarella’s Methods: A Missing Link,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 52: 461485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2016. “Aristotelianism and Atomism Combined: Gorlaeus on Knowledge of Universals,” Perspectives on Science 24: 285304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2017. “The Metaphysics of Substantial Forms,” in Hill, Benjamin and Langerlund, Henrik (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sixteenth Century Philosophy, New York: Routledge, pp. 436457.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2019. “Descartes’ Mechanical but not Mechanistic Physics,” in Nadler, Steven, Schmaltz, Tad M., and Antoine-Mahut, Delphine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 124137.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen 2021. “Creation and Subsistence: 17th Century Commentaries on the Subsistence of Prime Matter,” in Lanza, Lidia and Tosta, Marco (eds.), Summistae: The Commentary Tradition on Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae (15th–18th Century), Leuven: University of Leuven Press, pp. 267281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headley, John M. 1997. Tommaso Campanella and the Transformation of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hearne, Thomas 1709. “A letter from Mr Thomas Hearne M. A. of Oxford, to Mr Ralph Thoresby, F. R. S. occasion’d by some antiquities lately discover’d near Bramham-Moor,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 26: 395412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedesan, Georgiana D. 2016. An Alchemical Quest for Universal Knowledge: The ‘Christian Philosophy’ of Jan Baptist Van Helmont (1579–1644). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heeffer, Albrecht 2017. “Using Invariances in Geometrical Diagrams: Della Porta, Kepler and Descartes on Refraction,” in Borrelli, Arianna, Hon, Giora, and Zik, Yaakov (eds.), The Optics of Giambattista Della Porta (ca. 1535–1615): A Reassessment, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 145168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heereboord, Adriaan 1654. Meletemata philosophica, maximam partem, metaphysica. Leiden: ex officina Francisci Moyardi.Google Scholar
Heereboord, Adriaan 1680 [1654]. Meletemata philosophica. Amsterdam and London.Google Scholar
Heilbron, John 2013. “Was There a Scientific Revolution?,” in Buchwald, Jed Z. and Fox, Robert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The History of Physics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 724.Google Scholar
Hellyer, Marcus 2005. Catholic Physics: Jesuit Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.