work of medieval mathematicians, such as Nicolas
ORESME, who had developed simple graphical techniques
to describe the motion of bodies, whether uniform or ac-
celerating. Using their techniques, GALILEOsucceeded in
deriving the basic equations of motion relating accelera-
tion, time, distance, and velocity. They were, however, ex-
pressed as geometrical ratios rather than the algebraic
equations familiar today. Galileo’s grasp of the nature of
motion was equally limited. Although he was able to break
with tradition in a number of respects, he failed to recog-
nize the essential role of inertia in physics.
Nor was any greater progress made when scholars
turned their attention to the nature of matter. While some
rejected the traditional four-element theory of matter (see
ARISTOTELIANISM, RENAISSANCE), few could agree on its re-
placement. PARACELSUSand his followers argued that bod-
ies were composed of salt, sulfur, and mercury, without
ever making it clear what was meant by these terms. Oth-
ers, however, proposed the existence of two, four, five, or
more elements. With no clear concept of the nature of an
element, and without an authoritative theory, Renaissance
chemistry inevitably lacked cohesion. This condition was
made worse by the secretiveness and suspicion brought
about by the close contact between Renaissance chemistry
and ALCHEMY.
If old disciplines proved hard to reform, more im-
pressive results were achieved in newer areas of research.
Thus William GILBERTin De magnete (1600), with no tra-
ditional constraints to worry about, virtually founded the
scientific study of magnetism. Galileo, too, in his Due
nuove scienze (1638), could achieve similar results on the
cohesion of bodies and the resistance they offer to frac-
ture. Much of this success depended on the growing re-
liance on experiment and observation, exemplified
especially in the works of Gilbert and Galileo. The theory
justifying this approach was presented by Galileo himself
and, even more so, by Francis BACON.
Less progress was made in the study of organic na-
ture. While knowledge, of sorts, was accumulated, and
some fresh attempts were made to systematize that knowl-
edge (see ZOOLOGY), the subject remained too constrained
by its own theological assumptions to develop into new
areas. At a more fundamental level natural philosophy
during the Renaissance found itself under strong attack
from supporters of MAGIC. To an uncommitted 16th-
century witness it cannot have been entirely clear whether
a better understanding of nature could be derived from the
magical techniques of someone such as Cornelius
AGRIPPA, or the work of the young mathematician Galileo.
In the event, the vision of Galileo and Kepler prevailed
over that of FICINOand Agrippa and prepared the way, in
the process, for the science of Descartes and Newton later
in the 17th century.
Further reading: Allen G. Debas and Michael Thom-
son Walton (eds), Reading the Book of Nature: The Other
Side of the Scientific Revolution (Kirksville, Miss.: Truman
State University Press, 1998); James R. Jacob, The Scien-
tific Revolution: Aspirations and Achievements, 1500–1700
(Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity, 1998); Howard Margolis, It
Started with Copernicus: How Turning the World Inside Out
Led to the Scientific Revolution (New York: McGraw–Hill,
2002).Naumburg Convention (1561) A meeting of German
princes and Protestant theologians, designed to achieve
doctrinal unity in accordance with the Confession of
AUGSBURG. It failed because the Lutherans insisted on the
original articles of 1530 (invariata) and the Calvinists pre-
ferred those of 1540 (variata). A papal invitation to send
delegates to the Council of TRENTwas declined.Navagiero, Andrea (1483–1529) Italian scholar,
historian, poet, and diplomat
Navagiero was born into an eminent Venetian family. He
studied in Padua where he learned Greek and particularly
interested himself in the odes of the poet Pindar (518–438
BCE); the Greek editio princeps of Pindar (1513) was dedi-
cated to Navagiero by Aldus MANUTIUS, for whose press
Navagiero edited Latin authors, most notably Cicero. In
1506 Navagiero was appointed to succeed Marcantonio
SABELLICOas librarian of San Marco and this position, to-
gether with his membership of the NEAKADEMIA, placed
him in the center of Venetian intellectual life. Among his
friends was Giralamo FRACASTORO, who made Navagiero
the mouthpiece for his views on poetry in the dialogue
Naugerius (1555); the garden setting for this dialogue re-
calls Navagiero’s own interest in natural science and his
renowned garden at Murano. He was also friendly with
Pietro BEMBO, with whom he visited Rome, with RAPHAEL,
who painted his portrait, and with the geographer
RAMUSIO.
Besides writing a history of Venice, Navagiero served
the republic as ambassador. In 1526 he was in Spain,
where he met BOSCÁNand introduced him to Italian poetic
meters, which Boscán was the first to naturalize in Span-
ish. Navagiero brought back with him from Spain to Italy
the then newly discovered potato and other exotics, in-
cluding possibly a banana. He was next sent on an em-
bassy to Francis I of France, but died while at Blois. His
Orationes duae carminaque nonnulla were published
posthumously at Venice (1530).Navarrete, Juan Fernández de See FERNÁNDEZ DE
NAVARRETE, JUANnavigation Renaissance navigation was fundamentally a
combination of the Arab astronomy that guided medieval
travelers and some latter-day technological developments.
The forerunner of the numerous scientific navigational in-
struments created by Renaissance inventors was the com-33336 6 NNaauummbbuurrgg CCoonnvveennttiioonn