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.