DOCSLIB.ORG

Living Atoms, Hylomorphism and Spontaneous Generation in Daniel Sennert

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Living Atoms, Hylomorphism and Spontaneous Generation in Daniel Sennert LIVING ATOMS, HYLOMORPHISM AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN DANIEL SENNERT Hiro Hirai* 1. Introduction The professor of medicine at the Lutheran University of Wittenberg, Daniel Sennert (1572–1637), has recently drawn the keen attention of his- torians. Going beyond the traditional treatment, which consists in seeing him simply as one of the fijirst proponents of early modern atomism, a careful revision of his entire work has begun.1 In the context of seven- teenth-century “chymistry” (chemistry/alchemy) and corpuscular philoso- phy, his role as a major source for the Christian virtuoso, Robert Boyle (1627–1691), has been set in a fresh light.2 His theory of the soul, where Aristotelian hylomorphism and Democritean atomism intersect, has also been the subject of recent studies.3 The relationship of embryological pre- formationism with the theory of monads has made some specialists of * I acknowledge the generous support of the Chemical Heritage Foundation and the help of Christoph Lüthy, Richard Arthur and Kuni Sakamoto in the preparation of the present study, whose shorter version is: “Atomes vivants, origine de l’âme et génération spontanée chez Sennert,” Bruniana & Campanelliana, 13 (2007), pp. 477–495. 1 See Christoph Meinel, “Early Seventeenth-Century Atomism: Theory, Epistemology, and the Insufffijiciency of Experiment,” Isis, 79 (1988), pp. 68–103; Antonio Clericuzio, Ele- ments, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 23–33; Christoph Lüthy and William R. Newman, “Daniel Sennert’s Earliest Writings (1599–1600) and their Debt to Giordano Bruno,” Bruni- ana & Campanelliana, 6 (2000), pp. 261–279. See also my Le concept de semence dans les théories de la matière à la Renaissance: de Marsile Ficin à Pierre Gassendi (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 401–406. 2 See William R. Newman, “The Alchemical Sources of Robert Boyle’s Corpuscular Phi- losophy,” Annals of Science, 53 (1996), pp. 567–585; idem, “Experimental Corpuscular The- ory in Aristotelian Alchemy: From Geber to Sennert,” in Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, ed. Christoph Lüthy et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 291–329; idem, Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientifijic Revolu- tion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 85–153. 3 See Emily Michael, “Daniel Sennert on Matter and Form: At the Juncture of the Old and the New,” Early Science and Medicine, 2 (1997), pp. 272–299; eadem, “Sennert’s Sea Change: Atoms and Causes,” in Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theo- ries, pp. 331–362; Michael Stolberg, “Particles of the Soul: The Medical and Lutheran Con- text of Daniel Sennert’s Atomism,” Medicina nei Secoli, 15 (2003), pp. 177–203. 777-98_Manning_F4.indd7-98_Manning_F4.indd 7777 44/12/2012/12/2012 33:15:36:15:36 PMPM 78 hiro hirai G.W. Leibniz (1646–1716) consider Sennert seriously as a key fijigure, other- wise very little explored in the history of philosophy.4 Sennert’s work encompasses the cluster of problems occurring in the seventeenth century between matter theories and the life sciences. The question of the origin of the activity of matter and its animation is with- out doubt one of the most important issues in this domain. The idea of “abiogenesis” or “spontaneous generation”, that is, the belief in the gen- eration of living beings from lifeless matter, seems particularly pertinent. Sennert wrote a treatise precisely on this subject, entitled De spontaneo viventium ortu, which he published at the end of his masterpiece Hypom- nemata physica (Frankfurt, 1636). Notably, he developed a corpuscular interpretation of the origin of life in order to explain spontaneous gen- eration, while biological generation provided the foundational model for his philosophical reflections in general. In the present study, I shall fijirst analyze Sennert’s discussions on the “normal” generation of living beings, plants, animals and humans, which gives the basis of his doctrine on the origin of souls. I shall then, properly speaking, examine his theory of spon- taneous generation. Before starting the analysis, let us fijirst look at what Sennert declares in a passage of the book designed to explain atoms and mixture: Now there are atoms not only of inanimate bodies, but also of certain ani- mate ones; and the soul itself can sometimes lie hidden in its integrity and preserve itself in such minute corpuscles, as will be related below regarding the mixture and spontaneous generation of living beings. And it is upon this doctrine of atoms that the most learned Fortunio Liceti has built almost the whole of his opinion on spontaneous generation.5 What do the atoms of living beings mean for Sennert? How can the soul lie hidden in these atoms? What is the doctrine of this Fortunio Liceti (1577–1657) whom he calls upon here?6 What is the real contribution of 4 See Richard T.W. Arthur, “Animal Generation and Substance in Sennert and Leibniz,” in The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy, ed. Justin E.H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 147–174. 5 I have used the edition of Opera omnia (Lyon, 1650), I, pp. 132–242. Sennert, Hypom- nemata physica (hereafter HP), book 3, chapter 1, page 162: “Immo dantur atomi non solum corporum inanimatorum, sed et animatorum quorundam: et ipsa anima interdum in tali- bus minimis corpusculis integra latere et sese conservare potest; ut postea, de mistione et spontaneo viventium ortu, dicetur: et huic de atomis doctrinae totam pene suam de spontaneo viventium ortu sententiam superstruxit doctissimus Fortunius Licetus.” 6 On Liceti, see Dizionario biografijico degli italiani, 65 (2005), pp. 69–73; Giuseppe Ongaro, “La generazione e il ‘moto’ del sangue nel pensiero di F. Liceti,” Castalia, 20 (1964), pp. 75–94; idem, “L’opera medica di Fortunio Liceti (nota preliminare),” in Atti del XX° 777-98_Manning_F4.indd7-98_Manning_F4.indd 7878 44/12/2012/12/2012 33:15:36:15:36 PMPM living atoms, hylomorphism and spontaneous generation 79 Sennert himself ? How far does the biological model afffect his atomism and hylomorphism? These are the questions that I shall tackle in the pres- ent study. 2. The Origin of the Soul in Normal Generation Sennert’s work, Hypomnemata physica (Physical Memoirs), is composed of fijive books, treating respectively: 1) the principles of natural things; 2) occult qualities; 3) atoms and mixtures; 4) the generation of living beings; and 5) spontaneous generation. His discussion of the origin of souls is deployed in the fourth book, after the book devoted to the theory of atoms. In this fourth book on the “normal” or “non-spontaneous” gen- eration of living beings, Sennert fijirst asks whether souls can be produced. Against those who hold the doctrine of the “eduction” (eductio) of forms, according to which all forms, including souls, are drawn from the potenti- ality of matter, he afffijirms that souls are multiplied rather than produced. In fact, the defense of the theory of the form’s “multiplication” (multipli- catio), by rejecting eduction, is the Leitmotiv of his discussions. 2.1. The Giver of Forms and Astral Causality Next, Sennert calls to mind a theory attributed to Avicenna that forms come from a celestial and superior intelligence, called “the Giver of Forms” (dator formarum).7 According to this theory, relates Sennert, the superior congresso nazionale di storia della medicina (Roma, 1964) (Rome: Società italiana di storia della medicina, 1965), pp. 235–244; Hiro Hirai, “Interprétation chymique de la création et origine corpusculaire de la vie chez Athanasius Kircher,” Annals of Science, 64 (2007), pp. 217–234; idem, “Âme de la terre, génération spontanée et origine de la vie: Fortunio Liceti critique de Marsile Ficin,” Bruniana & Campanelliana, 12 (2006), pp. 451–469; idem, “Earth’s Soul and Spontaneous Generation: Fortunio Liceti’s Criticism against Ficino’s Ideas on the Origin of Life,” in Laus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino and his Influence, ed. Stephen Clucas et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 273–299. 7 On the Giver of Forms, see Alfonso Nallino, “La Colcodea d’Avicenna e Campanella,” Giornale critico della fijilosofijia italiana, 6 (1925), pp. 84–91; Amélie-Marie Goichon, La dis- tinction de l’essence et de l’existence d’après Ibn Sînâ (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1937), pp. 301–303; eadem, Lexique de la langue philosophique d’Ibn Sînâ (Paris: Desclée de Brou- wer, 1938), pp. 440–441; Bruno Nardi, Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi (Florence, Le Monnier, 1965), pp. 233–235, 313–314; Herbert A. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intel- lect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), passim; Helen T. Goldstein, “Dator Formarum: Ibn Rushd, Levi ben Gerson, and Moses ben Joshua of Narbonne,” in Islamic Thought and Culture, ed. Ismail al-Faruqi (Washington DC: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1982), pp. 107–121; Jules Janssens, “The Notions of Wâhib al-Suwar (Giver of Forms) and 777-98_Manning_F4.indd7-98_Manning_F4.indd 7979 44/12/2012/12/2012 33:15:36:15:36 PMPM 80 hiro hirai intelligence, also called “Colcodea,” uses seeds as instruments to produce the vegetative and sensitive soul, and when this soul informs the body appropriately, the rational soul is introduced by itself without the aid of matter. But judging this metaphysical theory unfounded, Sennert rejects it in the realm of natural philosophy. To him, although the astral causality promoted by this kind of idea is widely difffused, it should be considered a remote cause. Even if this superior intelligence can be identifijied with the Creator God, since the question here concerns generation and not Creation, Sennert regards this doctrine false. For him, after the Creation of the world, God created nothing but miracles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Vision of the Senses in the Work of Galileo Galilei
    Perception, 2008, volume 37, pages 1312 ^ 1340 doi:10.1068/p6011 Galileo's eye: A new vision of the senses in the work of Galileo Galilei Marco Piccolino Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita© di Ferrara, I 44100 Ferrara, Italy; e-mail: [email protected] Nicholas J Wade University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK Received 4 December 2007 Abstract. Reflections on the senses, and particularly on vision, permeate the writings of Galileo Galilei, one of the main protagonists of the scientific revolution. This aspect of his work has received scant attention by historians, in spite of its importance for his achievements in astron- omy, and also for the significance in the innovative scientific methodology he fostered. Galileo's vision pursued a different path from the main stream of the then contemporary studies in the field; these were concerned with the dioptrics and anatomy of the eye, as elaborated mainly by Johannes Kepler and Christoph Scheiner. Galileo was more concerned with the phenomenology rather than with the mechanisms of the visual process. His general interest in the senses was psychological and philosophical; it reflected the fallacies and limits of the senses and the ways in which scientific knowledge of the world could be gathered from potentially deceptive appearances. Galileo's innovative conception of the relation between the senses and external reality contrasted with the classical tradition dominated by Aristotle; it paved the way for the modern understanding of sensory processing, culminating two centuries later in Johannes Mu« ller's elaboration of the doctrine of specific nerve energies and in Helmholtz's general theory of perception.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo in Early Modern Denmark, 1600-1650
    1 Galileo in early modern Denmark, 1600-1650 Helge Kragh Abstract: The scientific revolution in the first half of the seventeenth century, pioneered by figures such as Harvey, Galileo, Gassendi, Kepler and Descartes, was disseminated to the northernmost countries in Europe with considerable delay. In this essay I examine how and when Galileo’s new ideas in physics and astronomy became known in Denmark, and I compare the reception with the one in Sweden. It turns out that Galileo was almost exclusively known for his sensational use of the telescope to unravel the secrets of the heavens, meaning that he was predominantly seen as an astronomical innovator and advocate of the Copernican world system. Danish astronomy at the time was however based on Tycho Brahe’s view of the universe and therefore hostile to Copernican and, by implication, Galilean cosmology. Although Galileo’s telescope attracted much attention, it took about thirty years until a Danish astronomer actually used the instrument for observations. By the 1640s Galileo was generally admired for his astronomical discoveries, but no one in Denmark drew the consequence that the dogma of the central Earth, a fundamental feature of the Tychonian world picture, was therefore incorrect. 1. Introduction In the early 1940s the Swedish scholar Henrik Sandblad (1912-1992), later a professor of history of science and ideas at the University of Gothenburg, published a series of works in which he examined in detail the reception of Copernicanism in Sweden [Sandblad 1943; Sandblad 1944-1945]. Apart from a later summary account [Sandblad 1972], this investigation was published in Swedish and hence not accessible to most readers outside Scandinavia.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction 1Aristotle Accordingtothe Oxford English Dictionary (online version), in contemporary English usagethe word ‘nutrition’ carries four meanings: 1. The action or process of supplying,orofreceiving,nourishment or food. 2. That which nourishes; food,nourishment. 3. The state or condition of being (well or badly) nourished;aperson’sstate of health considered as aresultorindicator of (good or bad) nourishment. 4. The branch of science that deals with nutrition (sense 1)and nutrients, esp. in humans;the studyoffood and diet. In light of the abovedefinitions, ‘nutrition’ seems an appropriate English render- ing for the Greek words τροφή or τὸ τρέφειν/τρέφεσθαι,which are used by au- thors of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE to refer to processes, activities or functions related to nourishment,oreventokinds of food or nutriment that are able to nourish or procuresustenance. The term θρέψις is not attested before the 2nd cen- tury CE. In Galen θρέψις is acknowledgedasone of the three main activities (ἐνέργειαι)ofnature – the othertwo being growth and generation (De facultati- bus naturalibus I,5, K. II,10). Specifically, rendering 4resonates with what in Hippocratic texts is some- times referredtoasdietetics, that is, that part of the medicalart (and not science) which dealswith diet (δίαιτα). The gradual development of dietetics into acor- nerstone of medicine wasset off by medical ideas of that time which are closely akin to rendering3,most notablythe belief that aperson’sstate of health de- pends heavilyonthe food (s)he consumes.Inone of its two main meanings (the other being ‘rearing’, ‘bringingup’), τὸ τρέφειν,apart from the act of nour- ishing,refers to the substances thatare able to nourish (so, rendering 2).Now concerning nutrition as abodilyfunctionrelated to aset of individual physiolog- ical activities of certain bodyparts, Aristotle seems to deserve, at least to acer- tain degree, credit for being the first to explicitlymake such aprogress (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo E Liceti, Ovvero Genio E Mediocrità
    LA COSCIENZA: TRA FILOSOFIA E NEUROSCIENZE 239 GALILEO E LICETI, OVVERO GENIO E MEDIOCRITÀ MARIAPIERA MARENZANA già Docente di Lettere presso l’Accademia Nazionale di Danza, Roma 1. Fortunio Liceti Fortunio Liceti, chi era costui? Era, proprio come il Carneade di manzoniana memoria, un filosofo aristotelico, il quale tuttavia, a differenza dell’antico Carneade, ebbe la ventura di essere contemporaneo di Galileo e suo corrispondente. A questo egli deve, assai più che alla vasta cultura libresca e alla iperprolifica attività di scrittore, l’aver consegnato il suo nome alla storia. Emerge infatti, dalla trentennale corrispondenza tra i due, oltre al ritratto a tutto tondo di due personalità tanto diverse, un quadro vivace dei rapporti conflittuali e drammatici fra la cultura tradizionale fondata su «un mondo di carta» e quella nuova, basata sull’esperimento e sul dubbio. C’è inoltre molto Liceti ritratto nel Simplicio del Dialogo, e anche nel più rispettabile Simplicio dei Discorsi, ed è da una polemica con Liceti che ha origine l’ultima opera scientifica di Galileo. Sullo sfondo dell’epistolario sono le vicende biografiche dei due corrispondenti, i principali allievi dello scienziato pisano, le dispute accademiche, i contatti culturali in Italia e in Europa, l’ombra minacciosa dell’Inquisizione, la peste, ma anche aspetti minuti della vita quotidiana del ‘600. Liceti deve il suo nome, Fortunio, alla nascita prematura e avventurosa avvenuta, nel 1577, su una nave sbattuta da una tempesta nel tratto di mare fra Recco e Rapallo; il padre, medico, avrebbe assicurato la sopravvivenza del bimbo ponendolo in una scatola tenuta in caldo. Il fortunoso ingresso nel mondo, e i racconti che certamente gliene vennero fatti, influirono senza dubbio sul gusto per il meraviglioso e l’insolito che avrebbe caratterizzato la vita di Liceti.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Philosophy of Nature 1St Edition
    PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Paul K Feyerabend | 9780745651590 | | | | | Philosophy of Nature 1st edition PDF Book Shop by category. Got one to sell? Even after it was superseded by Book 3 of the Principia , it survived complete, in more than one manuscript. Park, K. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. Kessler, and C. From this textual evolution, it appears that Newton wanted by the later headings "Rules" and "Phenomena" to clarify for his readers his view of the roles to be played by these various statements. It was a superfluous notion. BBC News. In , at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Michael Scriven read a paper that implicitly distinguished between Laws of Nature and Laws of Science. About Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Sometimes this is referred to as the Jesuit edition : it was much used, and reprinted more than once in Scotland during the 19th century. It is only when one imports from other theories Necessitarianism, Prescriptivism, etc. Language see all. The theme has since been picked up and advanced by Nancy Cartwright. Skip to main content. What, in experience, provided evidence of the existence of the property? Random House, Inc. Newton compares the resistance offered by a medium against motions of globes with different properties material, weight, size. Twentieth-century empiricists are far more concerned with the justification of our concepts than with their origins. While Pomponazzi reached these conclusions drawing on multiple sources, other authors, such as Gerardus Bucoldianus, Simone Porzio, and Ludovico Boccadiferro preferred to rely solely on Aristotle in order to explain wondrous events like cataclysms or the appearance of monstrous creatures, like those described by Ulisse Aldrovandi — , who interpreted them as deviations from the course of nature, or Fortunio Liceti — , who preferred to link the appearance of monsters to ingenious experiments of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • De Felici1371.Pm4
    Int. J. Dev. Biol. 44: 515-521 (2000) The rise of Italian embryology 515 The rise of embryology in Italy: from the Renaissance to the early 20th century MASSIMO DE FELICI* and GREGORIO SIRACUSA Department of Public Health and Cell Biology, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy. In the present paper, the Italian embryologists and their main the history of developmental biology were performed (see contributions to this science before 1900 will be shortly reviewed. "Molecularising embryology: Alberto Monroy and the origins of During the twentieth century, embryology became progressively Developmental Biology in Italy" by B. Fantini, in the present issue). integrated with cytology and histology and the new sciences of genetics and molecular biology, so that the new discipline of Embryology in the XV and XVI centuries developmental biology arose. The number of investigators directly or indirectly involved in problems concerning developmental biol- After the first embryological observations and theories by the ogy, the variety of problems and experimental models investi- great ancient Greeks Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen, embryol- gated, became too extensive to be conveniently handled in the ogy remained asleep for almost two thousand years. In Italy at the present short review (see "Molecularising embryology: Alberto beginning of Renaissance, the embryology of Aristotle and Galen Monroy and the origins of Developmental Biology in Italy" by B. was largely accepted and quoted in books like De Generatione Fantini, in the present issue). Animalium and De Animalibus by Alberto Magno (1206-1280), in There is no doubt that from the Renaissance to the early 20th one of the books of the Summa Theologica (De propagatione century, Italian scientists made important contributions to estab- hominis quantum ad corpus) by Tommaso d’Aquino (1227-1274) lishing the morphological bases of human and comparative embry- and even in the Divina Commedia (in canto XXV of Purgatorio) by ology and to the rise of experimental embryology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Order of Nature: Early Modern Views on Classification and Generation, and Their Theological, Ideological and Empirical Background
    The Order of Nature: Early Modern Views on Classification and Generation, and Their Theological, Ideological and Empirical Background ∵ chapter 2 The Species and Beyond: Classification and the Place of Hybrids in Early Modern Zoology Karl A.E. Enenkel Introduction In the history of science it is always a bit seductive to follow a teleological approach—to assess the achievements of the past with respect to the present status quo of scientific knowledge.1 If one does so, lines of linear and progres- sive development inevitably appear. This has also happened with the history of early modern zoology. In the 16th and 17th centuries zoology brought forth monumental works, including those by Conrad Gessner (1551–1560),2 Edward Wotton (1552),3 Ulisse Aldrovandi (1599 ff.),4 Wolfgang Franzius (Frantze; 1 Cf. my first draft on the topic in Dutch, for a popular audience, “Mengwezens. Hybridisatie in vroegmoderne zoölogische werken”, in Rikken M. (ed.), Veranderlijke dieren van Conrad Gesner, in De boekenwereld 29.1 (2012) 44–51. In the present contribution, however, only small parts go back to this first draft. 2 Historiae animalium [. .] 4 vols. (Zurich, Christoffel Froschauer: 1551–1558); Icones anima- lium [. .] editio secunda (ibidem, idem: 1560). 3 De differentiis animalium (Paris, Michel de Vascosan: 1552). 4 Ornithologiae, hoc est de avibus historia libri XII (Bologna, Franciscus de Franciscis: 1599; Bologna, Antonio Bernia: 1637); Ornithologiae tomus alter cum indice copiosissimo (Bologna, Giovanni Battista Bellagamba: 1600; Bologna, Antonio Bernia: 1637); Ornithologiae tomus ter- tius, ac postremus (Bologna, Antonio Bernia: 1603; 1637); De animalibus insectis libri septem, cum singulorum iconibus ad vivum expressis (Bologna, Giovanni Battista Bellagamba: 1602; Bologna, Clemente Ferronio: 1638); Quadrupedum omnium bisulcorum historia [.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
    GALILEO'S LOGIC OF DISCOVERY AND PROOF BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Editor ROBERT S. COHEN, Boston University Editorial Advisory Board ADOLF GRUNBAUM, University of Pittsburgh SYLVAN S. SCHWEBER, Brandeis University JOHN J. STACHEL, Boston University MARX W. WARTOFSKY, Baruch College of the City University ofNew York VOLUME 137 WILLIAM A. WALLACE University of Maryland at College Park GALILEO'S LOGIC OF DISCOVERY AND PROOF The Background, Content, and Use 0/ His Appropriated Treatises on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wallace, William A. Ga I i I eo' slog i c of discovery and of proof : the background, content, and use of his appropriated treatises on Aristotle's Posterior analytics I William A. Wallace. p. cm. -- (Boston studies in the phi losophy of science v. 137. ) Inc I udes index. ISBN 978-90-481-4115-9 ISBN 978-94-015-8040-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-8040-3 1. Science--Methodology--History--16th century. 2. Logic, Modern--16th century. 3. Knowledge, Theory of. 4. EVidence­ -History--16th century. 5. Galilei, Galileo, 1564-1642. 6. Aristotle. Posterior analytics. I. Title. II. Series. 0174.B67 vol. 137 [0174.81 001' .01s--dc20 [501 J 91-45044 Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved @ 1992 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1992 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1992 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • De Monstruorum Causis, Natura Et Differentiis (On the Reasons, Nature and Differences of Monsters) (1616), by Fortunio Liceti [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) De Monstruorum Causis, Natura et Differentiis (On the Reasons, Nature and Differences of Monsters) (1616), by Fortunio Liceti [1] By: Guerrero, Anna Keywords: monsters [2] De monstruorum [3] Fortunio Liceti [4] birth abnormalities [5] supernatural [6] In 1616 in Padua, Italy, Fortunio Liceti, a professor of natural philosophy and medicine, wrote and published the first edition of De Monstruorum Causis, Natura et Differentiis (On the Reasons, Nature, and Differences of Monsters), hereafterD e monstruorum. In De monstruorum, Liceti chronologically documented cases of human and animal monsters from antiquity to the seventeenth century. During the seventeenth century, many people considered such monsters as frightening signs of evil cursed by spiritual or supernatural entities. Liceti categorized monsters based on their potential causes, several of which he claimed were unrelated to the supernatural. Historians later noted that some documented monsters were infants with birth defects [7]. In De monstruorum, Liceti elevated the status of monsters to potential subjects of scientific inquiry and provided an early model for the study of birth defects [7], a field later called teratology [8]. In the seventeenth century, when Liceti publishedD e monstruorum, many people classified infants with birth defects [7] as monsters. According to historians Lawrence Longo and Lawrence Reynolds, humans [9] have a fascination with abnormal body form, depicting anatomical anomalies on ancient rock carvings. By the late Middle Ages, people understood physical abnormalities in a religious context. Therefore, during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, many people considered monsters, or those with physical abnormalities, to be signs of evil caused by supernatural beings.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (787Kb)
    Original citation: Muratori, Cecilia (2017) The body speaks Italian : Giuseppe Liceti and the conflict of philosophy and medicine in the Renaissance. Intellectual History Review, 27 (4). pp. 473-492. doi:10.1080/17496977.2017.1294848 Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/93710 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Intellectual History Review on 03/05/2017 available online: http://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2017.1294848 A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the ‘permanent WRAP URL’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications THE BODY SPEAKS ITALIAN: GIUSEPPE LICETI AND THE CONFLICT OF PHILOSOPHY AND MEDICINE IN THE RENAISSANCE I.
    [Show full text]
  • Earth's Soul and Spontaneous Generation
    EARTH’S SOUL AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION: FORTUNIO LICETI’S CRITICISM OF FICINO’S IDEAS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE Hiro Hirai* If it is important to evaluate the impact of the thought of Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) on the Scientific Revolution, the detailed analysis of the application of his metaphysical ideas to natural questions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries becomes a matter of considerable interest. In spite of some recent studies devoted to Ficino’s cosmology, his views on matter theory and the life sciences remain largely unexplored by historians. One of the most crucial problems of these domains is without doubt the origin of life. In this regard, the question of spontaneous generation or ‘abiogenesis’, that is, the birth of living beings from lifeless matter, illustrates the cause of matter’s activity or its animation.1 Ficino actually used this phenomenon as crucial evi- dence for his thesis of the world’s universal animation. I shall thus focus the present study on his theory of spontaneous generation. For this purpose, the criticism formulated by a Paduan professor of philos- ophy, Fortunio Liceti (1577–1657), seems to serve as the best guide.2 * I would like to thank S. Clucas, V. Rees and M. Iwata for their help in the realiza- tion of the present study. A shorter version of this essay has been published in French as ‘Âme de la terre, génération spontanée et origine de la vie: Fortunio Liceti critique de Marsile Ficin’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, 12 (2006): 451–69, and it is reprised in my book, Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, the Netherlands (ISBN: 9789004188976)
    © 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands (ISBN: 9789004188976) EARTH’S SOUL AND SPONTANEOUS GENERATION: FORTUNIO LICETI’S CRITICISM OF FICINO’S IDEAS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE Hiro Hirai* If it is important to evaluate the impact of the thought of Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) on the Scientific Revolution, the detailed analysis of the application of his metaphysical ideas to natural questions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries becomes a matter of considerable interest. In spite of some recent studies devoted to Ficino’s cosmology, his views on matter theory and the life sciences remain largely unexplored by historians. One of the most crucial problems of these domains is without doubt the origin of life. In this regard, the question of spontaneous generation or ‘abiogenesis’, that is, the birth of living beings from lifeless matter, illustrates the cause of matter’s activity or its animation.1 Ficino actually used this phenomenon as crucial evi- dence for his thesis of the world’s universal animation. I shall thus focus the present study on his theory of spontaneous generation. For this purpose, the criticism formulated by a Paduan professor of philos- ophy, Fortunio Liceti (1577–1657), seems to serve as the best guide.2 * I would like to thank S. Clucas, V. Rees and M. Iwata for their help in the realiza- tion of the present study. A shorter version of this essay has been published in French as ‘Âme de la terre, génération spontanée et origine de la vie: Fortunio Liceti critique de Marsile Ficin’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, 12 (2006): 451–69, and it is reprised in my book, Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
    [Show full text]