Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minima to Atoms: Sennert

  • Chapter
Elements, Principles and Corpuscles

  • 602 Accesses

Abstract

The traditional view, which continues to have many influential defenders down to the present day, is that the corpuscular theories which flourished in the early seventeenth century have their roots in the rediscovery of ancient atomism. This view is certainly correct, but it fails to understand the complex origins of early modern atomism. During the last decades, however, there has risen a different approach to seventeenth-century atomism which has focused on the importance of minima naturalia. In the paragraphs which follow I shall investigate two distinct doctrines which contributed to the emergence of corpuscular theories of matter in the seventeenth century, namely, minima naturalia and semina verum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cf. the special issue of Early Science and Medicine. “The Fate of Hylomorphism”, eds. C.H. Lüthy and W.R. Newman, 2/3 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See A. Maier, Die Vorläufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert (Rome, 1949), pp. 155–215

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.G. van Meisen, From Atomos to Atom (Pittsburgh, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  4. See van Meisen (n. 2), pp. 59–60 and Maier (n. 2), pp. 183–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Buridan, Questiones totius libri Physicorum, lib. I, q. XIII and Albert of Saxony, Acutissimae Questiones super libros de physica auscultatione..., both texts are quoted in van Meisen (n. 2), pp. 62–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Maier (n. 2). Though Emerton stresses the difference between medieval minima and atoms, she defines the minima naturalia doctrine as the Peripatetic corpuscular theory. See N.E. Emerton, The Scientific Reinterpretation of Form (Ithaca and London, 1984), pp. 88; 91–2. In my opinion, minima (in scholastic philosophy) are not adopted as the foundation of a corpuscular theory.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Hooykaas, ‘Het Begrip’, pp. 37–40 (quote on p. 40). See also W.R. Newman (ed.), The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber (Leiden, 1991) and id., Gehennical Fire, pp. 92–106; and H.H. Kubbinga, ‘La théorie de la matière de Geber’, in Z.W.R.M. van Martels (ed.), Alchemy Revisited (Leiden, 1990), pp. 133–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G.A. Panteo, Ars et Theoria Transmutationis Metallicae..., in Theatrum Chemicum... (Strasbourg, 1619), ii, pp. 528–630 (hereafter TC), quotation from p. 534. On Panteo, see A. Perifano, L’Alchimie à la Cour de Côme I er de Médicis: savoirs, culture et politique (Paris, 1997), pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Nifo, Expositio super octo... libros de Physico Auditu (Venice, 1569), p. 576b, and 476b. Cf. van Meisen (n. 2), pp. 65–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. van Meisen (n. 2), pp. 66. Nifo explains a variety of chemical phenomena by referring them to the different degrees of porosity in natural bodies. For Nifo, unlike the atomists, pores are not void, they contain matter, though more rarefied. See Nifo, In Libris Aristotelis Metereologicis Commentaria (Venice, 1551), pp. 139b–140a.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. C. Scaliger, Exotericarum Exercitationum Libri XV de Subtilitate (Paris, 1557), p. 35r.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For medieval discussions of forma mixti see A. Maier, An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft (Rome, 19522), pp. 3–140.

    Google Scholar 

  13. “Mistio est motus corporum minimorum ad mutuum contactum ut fiat unio. Neque enim velut atomi Epicureae sese contingunt: ita corpuscula nostra, sed ut continuum corpus, atque unum fiat.” Scaliger (n. 10), p. 143v.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid., p. 33v.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., p. 356r.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., pp.25v–26r.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., p. 9r.

    Google Scholar 

  18. On Duclo see L. Principe, ‘Diversity in alchemy. The case of Gaston “Claveus” Duclo, a scholastic mercurialist alchemist’, in A.G. Debus and M.T. Walton (eds.), Reading the Book of Nature. The other Side of the Scientific Revolution (Kirksville, Missouri, 1998), pp. 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Duclo, Apologia chrysopoeiae..., TC, iii, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Principe (n. 17), p. 196–7. Principe describes Duclo’s transmutational theory as “physical, rational, and coherent”.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Duclo, Apologia, TC, iii, p. 25. In De recta..., Duclo affirms that though semina are not sufficient for the generation, they are certainly a necessary agent (TC, iv, pp. 448). Duclo does not refrain from adopting biological notions, like those of concoctio and digestio (ibid., p. 448). It is my contention that the use of vitalistic views was not incompatible with the corpuscular theory, even less in works (like Duclo’s), where the corpuscular theory of matter was not fully developed.

    Google Scholar 

  22. An excellent study of the concept of semina is H. Hirai, ‘Le concept de semence dans les théories de la matière à la Renaissance’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lille, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Zurich and Berlin, 1964ff), fr. 4 and 21a. Cf. G. Vlastos, ‘The Physical Theory of Anaxagoras’, The Philosophical Review 59 (1950), 31–57; and G.E.R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 244–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, in D.L., X, 38 and 74; and A. Alberti, Sensazione e realtà. Epicuro e Gassendi (Florence, 1988), pp. 69–72. Lloyd (n. 22) maintains — mainly on the grounds of Aristotle’s report — that the notion of seed was already associated with atoms by Leuccipus and Democritos: “Like Anaxagoras, and conceivably under his direct influence, the Atomists appear to have used an image of seeds, or rather of a seed-mixture, in connection with the primary substance, the atoms themselves...” (p. 247).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lucretius, De rerum natura, vi, 655–666, 769–830, 1090–1137. Cf. V. Nutton, ‘The seeds of disease: an explanation of contagion and infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance’, Medical History 27 (1983), 1–34, esp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Hirai (n. 21), pp. 23–200.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Ficino, Theologia Platonica, iv, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  28. W. Pagel defines the ontological theory of disease as follows: “Diseases are regarded as entities in themselves distinguishable by specific changes and causes. In this view the main tenet of humoral pathology — that the sick individual determines the nature of disease — is completely reversed: it is now the individual disease that conditions the patient and manifests itself in a characteristic picture.” Pagel, Paracelsus. An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance (Basle, 19822), p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. Fracastoro, De sympathia et antipathia rerum, liber unus. De contagione et contagiosis morbis et eorum curatione, libri III (Venice, 1546). Cf. Nutton (n. 24); and id., ‘The Reception of Fracastoro’s Theory of Contagion. The Seed That Fell among Thorns?’, Osiris, 2nd series, 6 (1990), 196–234. Fracastoro’s adoption of Lucretian atomism is also attested in his poem Syphilis, sive morbus gallicus (Verona, 1530), where he uses two key Lucretian terms, i.e. semina and primordia rerum.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cf. M.L. Bianchi, The visible and the invisible. From alchemy to Paracelsus’, in P. Rattansi and A. Clericuzio (eds.), Alchemy and Chemistry in the 16 th and 17 th Centuries (Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 17–50.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Paracelsus, Das Buch de Mineralibus, in K. Sudhoff (ed.), Sämtliche Werke (Munich and Berlin, 1922–3), I, iii, pp. 41–2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pagel (n. 34), p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Paracelsus (n. 37), I, iii, p. 35. On Paracelsus’s use of the theory of semina in mineralogy see H. Hirai (n. 21), pp. 139–144. Hirai convincingly stresses the analogy between Paracelsus’s and Augustine’s theories of semina. See also D. Oldroyd, ‘Some Neoplatonic and Stoic Influences on Mineralogy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, Ambix 21 (1974), 128–56.

    Google Scholar 

  34. “Semina sunt vincula utriusque naturae, visibilia invisibilibus coniungentia: in quibus motuum leges, temporum praedestinationes, generationum et transplantationum lithurgiae, et universae mundanae anatomiae dispensationes continentur.” P. Severinus, Idea Medicinae Philosophicae (Basle, 1571), p. 58. Severinus unambiguously rejected the atomistic theory of matter as materialistic, see ibid., p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid., pp. 132–6. For Severinus’s view of semina see W. Pagel, Harvey’s Biological Ideas (Basle and New York, 1966), pp. 241–44. Pagel convincingly stresses the anti-materialistic orientation of Severinus’s theory of semina. On Severinus’s seeds see also J. Shackelford, ‘Seed with a mechanical purpose. Severinus’ Semina and Seventeenth-Century Matter Theory’, in A.G. Debus and M.T. Walton (n. 17), pp. 15–44.

    Google Scholar 

  36. For Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), see A.G. Debus, The French Paracelsians. The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 51–9 and Hirai (n. 21), pp. 201–22.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. B. van Helmont, ‘Causae et initia naturalnim’, §§ 20–24, Ortus Medicinae (Amsterdam, 1648), pp. 35–6 [hereafter Ortus].

    Google Scholar 

  38. van Helmont, ‘Ignotus hospes morbus’, §§ 62–3 and 66, Ortus, pp. 497–9. Cf. W. Pagel, Jan Baptista van Helmont Reformer of Science and Medicine (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 141–3 and G. Giglioni, Immaginazione e Malattia. Saggio su Jan Baptiste van Helmont (Milan, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  39. M. Sendivogius, De Lapide Philosophorum (Prague, 1604), repr. in TC, iv, pp. 417–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  41. This was true, among others, in the case of Bernard Palissy. See B. Palissy, Discours Admirable (Paris, 1580), pp. 122; 134.

    Google Scholar 

  42. A.B. de Boodt, Gemmarum et Lapidum Historia (Hannover, 1609), p. 10. On de Boodt see R. Halleux, ‘L’oeuvre minéralogique d’Anselme Boèce de Boodt’, Histoire et Nature 14 (1979), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  43. De Boodt (n. 48), pp. 11–2.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid., p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid., p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cf. Hooykaas, ‘Het Begrip’, pp. 32–40; Newman (ed.), The Summa Perfectionis (n. 6); and id., Gehennical Fire, pp. 92–106.

    Google Scholar 

  47. It is worth noticing that Iacob Schengk, who along with Erastus attacked Paracelsus, maintained that the mixed body was formed from minimae partes. For Schengk, when the body is divided in minutissimas partes, substantial forms do not disappear. See Tractationum Physicarum et Medicarum tomus unus... (Frankfurt, 1585), pp. 9; 80–1.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), De Priscorum Philosophorum verae medicinae materia... (Geneva, 1603), pp. 4–5. Quercetanus quoted Suida’s Lexicon as his source. Though Quercetanus established a link between alchemy/chemistry and Democritus’s philosophy, atomism played no part in his works. See also Jean Riolan (the elder) Ad Libavii Maniam...(Paris, 1606), pp. 13–17. On Libavius see O. Hannaway, The Chemist and the Word (Baltimore and London, 1975); and B.T. Moran, ‘Medicine, Alchemy, and the Control of Language: Andreas Libavius versus the Neoparacelsians”, in O.P. Grell (ed.), Paracelsus: the Man and his Reputation (Leiden, 1998), pp 135–49.

    Google Scholar 

  49. A. Libavius, Alchymia triumphans (Frankfurt, 1607), pp. 150–161.

    Google Scholar 

  50. “Reductio autem est operatio quaedam per quam recolligimus & in unam massam coadunamus rem quampiam quae in minutissimas particulas dispersa & dilatata erat, nee non diffusa et mixta alii cuipiam rei, tamquam amissa & perdita fuisset, & interim tarnen per Reductionem in pristinum suum statum & essentiam revocatur, & reducitur. Veluti videre in Auro: Hoc enim dissolutio in Aqua Regali (aut Regulo reducto; in liquorem clarum & diaphanum usque adeo ut nihil in eo amplius metallici aut duri appareat, praeter colorem quedam flavum instar Croci) si in id frustum aliquod Argenti injiciatur, confestim Aurum exibit ex isto liquore, & adhaerebit affîgetque, se dicto Argento, relinquetque aquam albam & claram: quo facto si quis sumptis hisce duobus ita conjunctis metallis, separet ea a sese mutuo per artem chymicam, inveniemus Aurum istud in pristinam suam formam reductum, ac prorsus tale quale antea exiterat.” Sala, Anatomia Vitrioli (Leiden, 1617), p. 399. “Aqua Regis aurum [...] atomos solvendo uniat”, id., p. 409. On Sala’s chemistry, see Hooykaas, ‘Het Begrip’, pp. 142–8 and Z.G. Gelman, ‘Angelo Sala, an iatrochemist of the late Renaissance’, Ambix 41 (1994), 142–60.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sala, Anatomia (n. 56), pp. 70–3.

    Google Scholar 

  52. “Fermentatio igitur est motus quidam, seu alteratio, a calore interno, in humido agente inducta, qua diversae & inter se pugnantes, substantiae elementares, partim sepafantur, partim in unum nobiliorem mixtionis modum, ac unionem rediguntur, quod rerum fermentantium strepitu, pugna, & humidi turgescentia apparet, hac mediante res, ad subtiliores, spirituosas, & balsamicas, varieque operandi, & penetrandi virtutes exaltantur”, Sala, Hydrelaeologia, in Opera Medico-Chymica, (Frankfurt, 1647), p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  53. C. Meinel, ‘Early seventeenth-Century Atomism. Theory, Epistemology and the Insufficiency of Experiments’, Isis 79 (1988), p. 91, maintains that Sala used chemical experiments to confirm the atomistic theory. In my view, what Sala did is exactly the opposite, namely, he explained chemical reactions in terms of transfer of unchangeable particles of matter.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. On Sennert see Lasswitz, Geschichte, i, pp. 436–54; van Meisen (n. 2), pp. 81–9; T. Gregory, ‘Studi sull’Atomismo del Seicento. II. David van Goorle e Daniel Sennert’, Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 45 (1966), 45–63, esp. 51–63; A.G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy 2 vols. (New York, 1977), i, pp. 191–200; S. Wollgast, Philosophie in Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung 1550–1650 (Berlin, 1988), pp. 438–45; Meinel (n. 59); W.U. Eckart, ‘Antiparacelsismus, okkulte Qualitäten und medizinisch-wissenschaftliches Erkennen im Werk Daniel Sennerts (1572–1637)’, in A. Buck (ed.), Die Occulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 139–57; W.R. Newman, The Alchemical Sources of Robert Boyle’s Corpuscular Philosophy’, Annals of Science 53 (1996), 567–85, esp. 575–6. E. Michael, ‘Daniel Sennert on matter and form: at the juncture of the old and the new’, Early Science and Medicine 2/3 (1997), 272–99.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sennert, Epitome Naturalis Scientiae...(Wittenberg, 1600).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., Disp. XIV, defended by Johannes Schlezerus, on 21 December 1599, see also theses xxii and xxiv.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sennert, Institutionum Medicinae Libri V (Wittenberg, 1611), p. 1032.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid., pp. 1032–3.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid., pp. 35, 75–79. Sennert’s view of spiritus is evidently indebted to Marsilio Ficino, De Vita (Florence, 1489) and Jean Fernel. See Fernel, De Abditis Rerum Causis (Paris, 1548). On Fernel, see D.P. Walker, ‘The Astral Body in Renaissance Medicine’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21 (1958), 19–33 and L.A. Deer, ‘Academic Theories of Generation: the Contemporaries and Successors of Jean Fernel (1497–1558)’, (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of London, The Warburg Institute, 1980); Michael (n. 60), pp. 295–6, maintains that the transmission of the soul per traducem had become a Lutheran dogma in the late sixteenth century.

    Google Scholar 

  60. W.R. Newman, ‘The Alchemical Sources’ (n. 60), 575–6.

    Google Scholar 

  61. “In mistione miscibilia primum in parvas & exiguas partes dividi debent, ideo etiam liquida, fragilia, subtilia, facilius miscentur. Facta sic in portiones exiguas, pro misti natura, Elementorum divisione, eadem per contrarias Qualitates agunt & patiuntur mutuo, se invicem calefaciunt.” Epitome Naturalis Scientiae (Wittenberg, 1618), p. 225.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid., pp. 345; 379–380; 399.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., pp. 381–2, 399.

    Google Scholar 

  64. On Sennert’s view of semina, see Pagel, Paracelsus (n. 34), pp. 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cf. W.U. Eckart, ‘Grundlagen des Medizinisch-Wissenschaftlichen Erkennens bei Daniel Sennert...’, (unpublished Dissertation, Münster, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  66. On Weigel, see A. Koyré, Mystiques, spirituels, alchimistes du XVI e siècle allemand (Paris, 1971). For Khunrath, see DSB. For Croll, see Hannaway (n. 54).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sennert, De Chymicorum (Wittenberg, 1619), pp. 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ibid., pp. 14–34. On the status of alchemy and chemistry see J-M. Mandosio, ‘L’Alchimie dans la classification des sciences et des arts à la Renaissance’, in J-C. Margolin and S. Matton (eds.), Alchimie et Philosophie à la Renaissance (Paris, 1993), pp. 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sennert, De Chymicorum, (n. 73), pp. 264–299.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ibid., p. 316

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ibid., p. 317.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid., p. 358: “Materiam dant elementa, non vero formam. Mistum, qua mistum, formis elementaribus informari, non repugno. Verum cujusque rei formam specificam, quae rei dat suam essentiam & nomen, ab dementis provenire, nego. Est enim in unaquaque re naturali & partibus corporis praeter materiam, quam elementa suppeditant, divinius quoddam principium & Natura quinta.” See also ibid., p. 350–1.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid, p. 361.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid, p. 362.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid, p. 362: “Procul dubio in talibus aquis mineralis & lapidea materia in minimas particulas resoluta fuit, quae postea suo concursu & synkriseis saxeum & durum corpus constituunt.”

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ibid, p. 362: “Si aurum & argentum simul liquescant, ita per minima miscentur, ut visu deprehendi aurum in argento nullo modo possit: si vero postea aqua fortis affundatur, ita solvitur argentum, ut ullum metallum in ea aqua deprehendi visu non possit: cum tarnen revera insit & hine segregatum emergat; & quidem ita, ut aurum & argentum suam naturam retineat; & hoc modo in subtilissimam calcem, quae nihil aliud est, quam congeries aliqua innumerabilium atomorum, redigatur, quae in aurum & argentum purissimum fusione iterum reducitur.” The same experiment occurs in Sennert, Hypomnemata Physica (Frankfurt, 1636), p. 119. This later version is discussed in Meinel (n. 59), 92–3.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sennert, Opera (Lyons, 1650), i, p. 17. Cf. Michael (n. 60), 289–90.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sennert, Hypomnemata (n. 82), pp. 218–9. For Basso, see below, chapter 2, pp. 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  79. According to Sennert, metals “redeunt autem & revertuntur in pristinam naturam sublato illo corpore, seu sale, quod a solvendo adhaesit, quae operatio reductio appellatur”, because their particles remained unchanged in the solution. The recovery of the original ingredients is possible because the atoms of the same metal tend to unite each other: “Ita si Mercurius sublimatus calci vivae misceatur, & Retortae indate, sal vitrioli & communis, qui sublimato inest, calci vivae adhaeret, atque ita argentum vivum in pristinam naturam redit & vivificatur; quomodo etiam cinnabaris in argentum vivum reducitur. Calces metallorum in metalla abeunt fusa, dum nimirum igne forti metallo admistum dissipate, quod tarnen facilius sit, si pulvis aliquis fusorius addatur. Sales enim, e quibus illi pulveres fusiori constant, salem, qui calcinato metallo adhaeret, ad se trahunt; a quo liberatae metallorum atomi ob similitudinem uniuntur, & ita in pristinum corpus abeunt.” Some substances, for instance mercury, can miss their sensible properties, but can be recovered because they keep their substantial form. Ibid., pp. 109–11.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ibid., pp. 78–9.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ibid, pp. 112; and 140–2.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cf. J. Roger, Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française au XVIII siècle (Paris, 19932), pp. 106–11, and W. Pagel, New Light on William Harvey (Basle and New York, 1976), pp. 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Pagel (n. 88), p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sennert, Hypomnemata (n. 82), p. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid., p. 420.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Johann Freitag (or Freytag) (1581–1641) studied in Helmstaedt, where he became professor of medicine and then physician to the bishop of Osnabrück. In 1631 he became Professor of Medicine at the University of Groningen. Freitag’s arguments against Sennert are contained in the following works: Aurora Medicorum Galeno-Chymicorum (Frankfurt, 1630); De Opii Natura (Groningen, 1632); Disputatio Medica de Morbis Substantiae, & Cognatis Quaestionibus Contra hujis tempestatis novatores & paradoxologos (Groningen, 1632); Disputatio Medico-Philosophica de Formarum Origine, quam adversus venerandae antiquitati repugnantem Neotericorum doctrinam Auditoribus suis exhibet Johannes Freytagius. Defendente earn Henrico Welman (Groningen 1633); Disputatio Medico-Philosophica prior De principiis rerum naturalium materialibus in genere, opposita Neotericorum quorandam & Pseudo-chymicorum... proponit Freytagius [praeses], Respondente Wilhelmo Henrico Cras (Groningen, 1633). Detectio et Refutatio novae sectae Sennerto-Paracelsicae, editio nova (Amsterdam 1637, 1st edn: 1636). On Freitag see Partington, ii, p. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See Erastus, Disputationum de medicina nova Philippi Paracelsi, 3 parts, (Basle, 1571–3). On Thomas Erastus (1524–83) see Pagel, Paracelsus (n. 34), pp. 311–333; C.D. Gunnoe Jr., ‘Thomas Erastus and his Circle of Anti-Paracelsians’, in J. Telle (ed.), Analecta Paracelsica. Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart, 1994) pp. 127–48.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Freitag, Aurora Medicorum Galeno-Chymicorum: seu de recta purgandi methodo libri IV (Frankfurt, 1630).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Freitag, Disputatio Medica de Calidi innati essentiam juxta veteris Medicinae & Philosophiae decreta explicans, opposita neotericorum & novatorum paradoxis, Praeses, Freitag, resp. Conrad Walter (Groningen, 1632–3); and id., Detectio et solida refutatio (n. 92), pp. 14; 24–5.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Disputatio medico-philosophica de formarum origine, Praeses Freitag, defend. Henricus Welman (Groningen, 1633). See also Disputatio Medica de Mortis Substantiae, & cognatis quaestionibus, Praeses Freitag, resp. Jacobus Martini (Groningen, 1632).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Freitag, Detectio (n. 92), Disp III, Praeses Freitag, defend. Henricus Magnus Heigel, p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ibid., pp. 126–36.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Johann Sperling was born in Thuringia on 12 July 1603. He studied Theology and Medicine in Wittenberg, where he got his degree of M.D. in 1625. In 1634 he became Professor of Natural Philosophy in the same University.

    Google Scholar 

  94. J. Sperling, Tractatus Physico-Medicus De Origine Formarum (Wittenberg, 1634), p.429.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Sperling, Institutiones Physicae (Wittenberg, 1639), p. 869.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ibid., p. 857. For Basso, see below, chapter 2, pp. 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Antonio Clericuzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clericuzio, A. (2000). Minima to Atoms: Sennert. In: Elements, Principles and Corpuscles. Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 171. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9464-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9464-6_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5640-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9464-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation