Typical diseases that the general population sought remedies for were "dropsy, pox, worms, rickets, scurvy, numerous skin problems and gout..." Despite her use of this title in the intro to her published work, Erculiani was not an officially listed member of the apothecaries guild. Erculiani worked alongside both of her husbands as a practicing female apothecary. In the early modern period, it was customary for the wives of merchants to learn their husbands' trade, as they played an integral role in the running of family businesses. She herself claimed that her knowledge did not come from any university, but was a result of innate understanding and experience. Erculiani was very educated, despite her claims otherwise—in her works, she often cites Galen and Aristotle. The early modern pharmacy was a popular location to spread new ideas, including religious dissent, and it was frequently on watch lists during the Inquisition. This indicates the atmosphere of freedom Erculiani likely experienced in her life as an apothecary and the access she had to new ideas. Being an apothecary was associated with practicing within a particular division of medicine. Since the majority of women in this era were denied access to university training, apprenticeship was one way to acquire the skills needed to practice. In addition, like Erculiani, widows had the option to keep their shops running as long as another man assumed proprietorship. She used the methods of a typical apothecary of the 16th century. Medieval apothecaries were the original "general practitioner." They were heavily involved in both dispensing medications and providing medical advice. These methods reflect practices passed on to the field of Pharmacy as the Modern Period. In her work "Principia Philosophia," Erculiani addresses several topics, all the while repeatedly hitting on the intelligence and true equality of ability possessed by women. No effort is ever made to hide the gender of the person whose work this is—it is in fact noted very early on in the text. Although she claimed early in the text to be unlearned and to focus on "innate" reasoning, she exhibits her understanding of important writers such as Galen and Aristotle and suggest well-crafted reasons to deviate from their long accepted teachings. She is also inconsistent in her work because she continually supports a separation between theology and natural philosophy, while she frequently comes close to connecting the two. The format on this work as a series of letters perhaps had the effect of cushioning the reality of the (anti-religious) statements she was making.