Landi's Provocative Philosophical Approach

To unpack some of the motivations behind Landi’s provocative approach, it is necessary to offer an analysis of the philosophical background of his works, especially the Iatrologia and the Opuscula as illustrated by three private letters9 addressed to him by the nobleman Sebastiano Erizzo (1525–1585), one of Landi’s pupils in Padua during the period 1543–1545. Erizzo’s letters address certain critiques that Landi had made of his pupil’s manuscript, Dell’instrumento et via inventrice degli antichi (“The Instrument and Method of Invention of the Ancients”), eventually published by Erizzo in 1554. Both in his letters and works, Erizzo offers a glimpse into Landi’s approach to method and the influence it had on his pupils. In the first letter (15 November 1551), Erizzo addresses Landi’s criticism that the title is unclear and should be revised to read Della prestantia dell’istrumento divisivo or Dell’eccellenza del metodo divisivo (“On the Efficacy/Excellence of the Divisive Method”). Erizzo praises his master for having introduced him to the importance of division as a method in the arts. Landi had discussed the importance of division as an instrument of discovery in his Iatrologia, while the Opuscula had demonstrated how this method could be used to present complex issues such as the nature of motion and time.10 As we shall see, however, Landi’s use of division was conceived to be used in conjunction with syllogism, not as a substitute for it, which explains why he criticised his pupil for the bold title of his forthcoming book. To defend himself against Landi’s criticism, Erizzo quotes passages from Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus, wherein division is praised for its capacity to lead to the discovery of new truths. In the second letter to Landi (dated 4 March 1552), Erizzo refers to Landi’s manuscript treatise “On Methods and Orders” which discussed the efficacy of division in detail and which Erizzo had consulted. Erizzo praises Landi’s hesitancy in publishing it, because the work would have been met with opposition from poorly-qualified “envious people.”11 Whether or not such a manuscript was in fact part of the promised work on scholastic controversies remains unclear. Landi’s propensity to use division as a method and the extent of his influence on Erizzo’s work is visible in the fact that Erizzo dedicated Dell’instrumento to Landi who, in Erizzo’s words, had first introduced the possibility of thinking of “division” and “order” as methods of equal value to syllogism and apodictic demonstration.