![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article studies the theory of animal seeds as purely material entities in the early seventeenth-century medical writings of Antonio Ponce Santacruz, royal physician to the Spanish king Philipp IV. Santacruz adopts the theory of the eduction of substantial forms from the potentiality of matter, according to which new kinds of causal powers can arise out of material composites of a certain complexity. Santacruz stands out among the late Aristotelian defenders of eduction theory because he applies the concept of an instrument of direction developed by the medieval Avicenna commentator Gentile da Foligno and gives a novel turn to this concept by interpreting animal seeds as separate instruments. The article situates Santacruz's theory in the context of early modern debates about the concept of the eduction of forms, as well as in the context of early modern debates about the concept of separate instruments. Particular attention is paid to Santacruz's responses to the biological views of Julius Caesar Scaliger and Thomas Feyens. Santacruz's response to Scaliger turns out to be central for his explication of the eduction relation, and Santacruz's response to Feyens turns out to be central for his explication of the nature of instrumental causation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 This view was accepted, among others, by Girolamo Cardano, Julius Caesar Scaliger and Daniel Sennert; for a detailed exposition of positions before Sennert, see Thomas Feyens, De formatrice foetus (Antwerp: Gulielmus a Tongris, 1620), pp. 44–54; on Sennert, see Michael Stolberg, ‘Particles of the Soul. The Medical and Lutheran Context of Daniel Sennert's Atomism’, Medicina nei secoli, 15 (2003), 177–203; Hiro Hirai, ‘Atomes vivants, origine de l’âme et génération spontanée chez Daniel Sennert’, Bruniana & Campanelliana, 13 (2007), 477–95; on Scaliger, see below section 2.
2 Gómez Pereira, Antoniana Margarita (Medina del Campo [no publisher], 1554); see below, notes 16–17. On Descartes's relation to Pereira, see Gabriel Sanhueza, La pensée biologique de Descartes dans ses rapports avec la philosophie scholastique: Le cas Gómez Pereira (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997).
3 Feyens, De formatrice foetus, p. 91.
4 Feyens, De formatrice foetus, p. 69; Feyens is better known as a proponent of the imagination theory of trait acquisition. On this aspect of his biological thought, see L.J. Rather, ‘Thomas Fienus’ (1567–1631) Dialectical Investigation of the Imagination as Cause and Cure of Bodily Disease’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 41 (1967), 349–67; Jan Papy, ‘The Attitude towards Aristotelian Biological Thought in the Louvain Medical Treatises during the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century: The Case of Embryology’, in Aristotle's Animals in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. by Carlos Steel et al. (Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1999), pp. 317–37.
5 Gallego's and Santacruz's biographical data are not recorded by any of the specialized libraries holding his writings, nor are they documented in Antonio Fernandez Morejon, Historia Bibliográfica de la Medicina Espanola, 4 vols., Madrid: [n.p.], 1846. So, one has to go by the dates of their major publications: Antonio Ponce Santacruz, De Hippocratica Philosophia (Madrid: Iunta, 1622) [henceforth: HP]; Antonio Ponce de Santacruz, Opuscula in Primam Primi Avicennae (Madrid, Iunta, 1624) [henceforth: OP], both published, with separate paginations and, in the case of HP, as separate title page, as parts of Antonio Ponce de Santacruz, Opuscula Medica et Philosophica (Madrid: Iunta, 1624); Juan Gallego de la Serna, Opera physica, medica, ethica, quinque tractatibus comprehensa (Lyon: Iacobus & Petrus Frost, 1634); Juan Gallego de la Serna, De naturali animarum origine (Brussels: Franciscus Vivienus, 1640), published posthumously; Gallego's preface is dated May 1638.
6 For Gallego, see Opera physica, medica, ethica, quinque tractatibus comprehensa, p. 158; for Santacruz, see HP, p. 60, cited below note 49.
7 Andreas Blank, 'Material Causes and Incomplete Entities in Gallego de la Serna's Theory of Animal Generation', in The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy, ed. by Ohad Nachtomy and Justin E. H. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 117–36.
8 See especially the pioneering work in Hiro Hirai, Le concept de semence dans les théories de la matière à la Renaissance (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005); The Problem of Animal Generation in Modern Philosophy, ed. by Justin E. H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Hiro Hirai, Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy: Renaissance Debates on Matter, Life and the Soul (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011); The Life Sciences in Early Modern Philosophy, ed. by Ohad Nachtomy and Justin E. H. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
9 See Olaf Pluta, ‘How Matter Becomes Mind: Late-Medieval Theories of Emergence’, in Forming the Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment, ed. by Henrik Lagerlund (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), pp. 149–67.
10 Antonio Ruvio, Commentarii in octo libros Aristotelis de Physico auditu (Lyon: Antoine Pillehotte, 1620), p. 135.
11 Collegium Conimbricensis, In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae (Lyon: Buysson, 1604), vol. 1, p. 193 (lib. 1, cap. 9, quaest. 12, art. 5).
12 Benedictus Pererius, De communibus omnium rerum naturalibus principiis & affectionibus (Paris: Michael Sonnius, 1579), p. 338: ‘1. est, quod tales formae, producuntur ab agentibus materialibus, per actiones materiales, & per dispositiones materiales, hoc est haerentes & infixas in ipsa materia. 2. est, quod tales formae pendent in fieri a materia, hoc est non possunt gigni nisi intra materiam, eique penitus copulatae, non enim per se producuntur & extrinsecus adveniunt & adiunguntur materiae. 3. est, quod pendent a materia in esse; nam extra eam materiam in qua ab initio productae sunt, ne puncto quidem temporis aut per se subsistere, aut in alia materia existere possunt; sed plane idem est eas separari a sua materia, quod ipsas penitus interire. 4. est, quod pendent a materia in operationibus suis, ex quo fit, ut operationes huiusmodi formarum, subiective non sint in forma, sed in toto composito. 5. est, quod pendent a materia quidditative, quamobrem sine ea nequeunt, aut definiri, aut perfecte intelligi’.
13 Ibid., p. 364: ‘nomen quiditatis significant totum id quod pertinet ad integritatem substantiae & naturae ipsius compositi … ’
14 Domingo de Soto, Super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis subtilissimae quaestiones (Venice: Franciscus Zilettus, 1582), p. 73: ‘materia sustinet quidem, consevatque formam, at non proprie dando illi esse: sed tanquam potentia ad esse per formam’.
15 Ibid., p. 90: ‘formam esse in potentia materiae, nihil aliud est quam dependere in fieri et esse a materia in genere causae receptivae et passivae’.
16 Gómez Pereira, Antoniana Margarita, col. 460: ‘Implicat … idem respectu eiusdem dici agens et passum’.
17 Ibid., cols. 461–462: ‘Quo enim modo concipi potest, id, quod recipit esse ab ullo, conservare illud: cum recipiens esse, posterius necessario futurum est conferente illud, etsi non tempore, saltim natura?’
18 Pedro da Fonseca, In Metaphysicorum Aristotelis libros (Cologne: Zetzner, 1615), vol. 2, col. 74 (lib. 5, cap. 2, quaest. 1, sect. 3): ‘eius actus pendeat ab illa ut sustinente (neque enim aliter actus potest pendere a potentia passiva, ut passiva est) … ’
19 Ibid., vol. 2, col. 97 (lib. 5, cap. 2, quaest. 4, sect. 1).
20 Ibid., vol. 2, cols. 98–99 (lib. 5, cap. 2, quaest. 4, sect. 2).
21 Franciscus Toletus, In octo libros Aristotelis de Physica auscultatione: Item in libros Aristotelis de generatione et corruptione (Cologne: Mylius, 1603), fol. 41v (lib. 1, cap. 9, text. 83, quaest. 19).
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., fol. 271r (lib. 1, cap. 5, quaest. 9).
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., fol. 271v.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Julius Caesar Scaliger, Exotericarum exercitationum liber XV. De subtilitate, ad Hieronymum Cardanum (Paris: Vascovani, 1557) [henceforth: EE], fol. 13v.
29 On this interpretation, see Sascha Salatowsky, De anima. Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Amsterdam: Grüner, 2006), pp. 80–84, 186–89.
30 EE, fol. 13v.
31 EE, fol. 340r: ‘Forma enim cum sit simplex, & indivisibilis, ex duobus componi non potest’. On Scaliger's biological views, see Kuni Sakamoto, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Renaissance Reformer of Aristotelianism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016), Chapters 6–7.
32 EE, fol. 339v: ‘Species non miscentur … Si miscerentur, fieret: ut essentiae intenderentur, ac remitterentur. At essentia omnis impartibilis’.
33 See David L. Hull, ‘The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy—Two Thousand Years of Stasis. Part I’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15 (1965), 314–26; Scott Atran, Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 138–42.
34 EE, fol. 323v-324r: ‘Muscam, nisi per Muscae essentiam esse non posse. Essentia vero hoc proprium in ea ponit, atque constituit, ut alatur suctu’.
35 On the medieval origins of this principle, see Jean-Luc Solère, ‘Les degrés de la forme selon Henri de Grand’, in Henry of Gent and the Transformation of Scholastic Thought, ed. by Guy Oldentops and Carlos Steel (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), pp. 127–56.
36 EE, fol. 324r: ‘semen est potens dare formam, quam in se continet. Educitur autem de ea potentia remota, qui est actus primus, ad potentiam propinquam, qui est actus secundus … ’
37 See Aristotle, De anima II, 2, 412b1-4.
38 EE, fol. 324r.
39 Ibid.: ‘Ipsa … sibi & alterat totum, & disponit partes. Ipsa igitur educeret se’.
40 EE, fol. 15r.
41 EE, fol. 354r: ‘movetur corpus, quia animatum est. Non enim movetur ab externo, sed ab interno principio. Spiritus ipsos quoque & internos esse: & ipsis internum principium motionis. Quare sequetur: ut membri pars sint. Dicuntur autem instrumenta, per similitudinem. Propterea quod a motionis principio motus exiens ad ipsum corpus, spiritus habet tanquam medios’.
42 EE, fol. 15r-v.
43 On this work, see Hynek Bartoš, Philosophy and Dietetics in the Hippocratic On Regimen: A Delicate Balance of Health (Leiden and Boston: Brill), 2015.
44 HP, p. 57: ‘Primum quidem undequaque similiter, dum adhuc valde rarum est, a motu autem & igne siccatur, & solidum redditur. Et ignis inclusus non amplius sufficiens alimentum attrahere potest, neque spiritum expellit, propter ambientis densitatem; consumit enim humorem intus existentem’. The second sentence follows the Latin translation in Hippocratis Coi medicorum omnium longe principis Opera quae ad nos extant omnia, translated by Janus Cornarius (Basel: Froben, 1558), p. 156; the first sentence seems to be Santacruz's own translation.
45 HP, p. 57.
46 Santacruz uses ‘faculty’ synonymously with ‘power’ [virtus] and ‘potency’ [potentia], understood as the ‘proximate principle of acting, connatural to a created agent’ (principium proximum agendi, connaturale agenti creato); OP, p. 184.
47 HP, p. 58: ‘aliquando naturam vocat istam facultatem, aliquando temperamentum ex igne & aqua, aliquando spiritum, aliquando ignem; diversis certe rationibus. Naturam, quia pricipium motus; temperiem ex igne & aqua, propter rationes superius explicatas; spiritum, propter subtilitatem agendi, aut ob partes tenues quibus calor insidet; ignem propter calorem, qui proximum est & immediatum instrumentum quo materia disponitur’.
48 HP, p. 59: ‘Idem intellexit Hippocrates philosophandum esse in semine, quod spiritu mire temperato gubernatur; ita ut merito omnem actionem in illum refundat’.
49 HP, p. 60: ‘[Hippocrates] solum docet instrumentum hoc seminale constare spiritu, & calore mire proportionato, & haec operari, ad generantis similitudinem actione quadam mere naturali, scilicet, calefaciendo, exsiccando illas partes magis, has minus, prout respectu finis conveniebat, & prout materiae exposcebat dispositio’.
50 HP, p. 59: ‘dicamus sufficere taliter directum calorem, & taliter temperatum, ad ista munia exercenda’.
51 Ibid.: ‘Hunc spiritum, hoc calidum, prout operatur in virtute generantis, voca tu potentia generativa praeditum; prout efformat ex diversa dispositione materiae varia membra, voca formatrice exornatum; prout similatur caelesti qualitati, voca caelestem; prout a vivente decisum, voca animae portiunculam; prout omnia agit in virtute principalis agentis, voca instrumentum separatum’.
52 OP, p. 125.
53 HP, p. 59: ‘quia … semen ex se imperfectum quid est, indiguit multiplici causarum concursu, eius mutilam actionem supplentium … ’
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 HP, p. 61: ‘cum operatio seminis naturalis sit, & non vitalis, non opus erat ponere animam in ipso, sed docere actionem illam caloris in spiritu contenti, qui est instrumentum generantis, & a generante motum’.
57 OP, p. 14: ‘qualitas, quae provenit ex mutua actione & passione contrariarum qualitatum in elementis inventarum’. See Avicenna (1595), liber 1, fen 1, doctrina 3, cap. 1.
58 Ibid.: ‘Pugnam elementorum eo usque progredi, donec abiectis contrariarum qualitatum excessibus, per quas inter se diversa erant, unam ex omnibus facultatibus gignant qualitatem’. See Robert B. Todd, Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics: A Study of the De Mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1976), p. 158 (De mixtione 233.2–5).
59 OP, p. 14; see Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 4, ad 4.
60 OP, p. 17.
61 On Fernel's biological views, see James J. Bono, ‘The Languages of Life: Jean Femel (1497–1558) and Spiritus in Pre-Harveian Bio-Medical Thought’, Harvard University Ph.D. thesis, 1981; Antonio Clericuzio, ‘Spiritus vitalis: Studio sulle teorie fisiologiche da Femel a Boyle’, Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, 8 (1988), 33–84; James J. Bono, ‘Reform and the Languages of Renaissance Theoretical Medicine: Harvey versus Femel’, Journal of the History of Biology, 23 (1990), 341–87; Cristina Dessi, ‘Marsilio Ficino, Jean Femel e lo spiritus’, in Filosofia, scienza, storia, ed. by A. Cadeddu (Milan: FrancoAngeli, 1995), pp. 203–19; Vicent Aucante, ‘La théorie de l'âme de Jean Femel’, Corpus, 41 (2002), 9–42; Hirai, Le concept de semence, pp. 88–96.
62 John M. Forrester and John Henry, Jean Fernel’s on the Hidden Causes of Things: Forms, Souls, and Occult Diseases in Renaissance Medicine (Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 404.
63 John M. Forrester and John Henry, Jean Fernel’s on the Hidden Causes of Things, p. 165.
64 Ibid., p. 234.
65 OP, p. 19.
66 OP, p. 20.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid., citing Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I. q. 76, a. 4, ad 4: ‘huiusmodi qualitas mixtionis est propria dispositio ad formam substantialem mixti, puta lapidis, vel animae cuiuscumque’.
70 OP, p. 16.
71 Ibid.
72 OP, p. 228: [E]isdem dispositionibus quibus una forma conservatur in materia, potest alia similis forma introduci de novo in sua materia. Hoc antecedens declaratur: Ignis conservatur calore et siccitate; ergo calore et siccitate poterit induci forma ignis in ligno citra aliam superadditam dispositionem … Sed anima conservatur in sua materia per solam temperiem primarum, et secundarum qualitatum; ergo per solam temperiem inducetur in materia nutrimenti per actionem nutritivam.
73 OP, p. 129.
74 On Telesio's account of celestial heat, see Hiro Hirai, ‘Il calore cosmico in Telesio fra il De generatione animalium di Aristotele e il De carnibus di Ippocrate’, in Bernardino Telesio tra filosofia naturale e scienza moderna, ed. by Guiliana Mocchi et al. (Rome: Serra, 2012), pp. 71–83.
75 OP, p. 232: ‘magis … requiritur ad conservandam formam in materia. Nam ad conservandam formam nulla advertitur resistentia passi; ad transmutandam vero materiam intervenit aliqua resistentia passi: & sic maior virtus requiritur ad transmutandum. Et haec est ratio quare corpora inanimata, ut lapides, &c. non transmutent materiam sibi proximam, quia limitatam habent virtutem ad se conservanda tantummodo. Quare corpora viventia habent facultates, ut augeantur virtus suarum primarum qualitatum’.
76 OP, p. 231: ‘Illa autem qualitas, quae dimanat ab anima, media potentia, est aliquid superadditum ipsi temperamento per modum actus & formae perfectioris, Neque est necessarium, ut sit eiusdem specificae naturae cum primis, sed eminentialis cuiusdam rationis, quae respicat temperamentum unitum ut sic, & illam unionem conservet & confirmet’.
77 Santacruz (1624), 10: ‘Sola … temperies naturalis conservatur a forma substantiali membri per se: & si amittitur talis temperies (ut per morbos fit) potest a principio interno emanare, semoto prohibente’.
78 OP, p. 12.
79 OP, p. 231.
80 HP, p. 61: ‘quantum attinet ad ipsum esse actionum, omnes sunt naturales, neque in sua ratione includunt vitalitatem: at vero vitales erunt ex peculiari habitudine ad animam, ut ad principium coniunctum in eodem supposito se movente’.
81 HP, p. 62: ‘cum non sit anima, tenemur dicere esse quamdam formam mixti, quam eruditi vocant formam mediam, quia ordinatur in aliam; igitur forma haec media & suum temperamentum, rationem induunt instrumenti, servato tamen ordine; ita, ut immediata qualitas, qua materia disponitur sit calor temperatus, passibiles enim qualitates sunt accidentia, quae proprie ad generandas substantias assumuntur. Et ob id dicebat Aristoteles: Generatio & corruptio primarum qualitatum est opus. Istae enim penetrant, & disponunt intime materiam usque ad inductionem formae. Quod si motus localis necessarius est (ut formatio fiat, & diversa positio partium in loco) etiam a primis qualitatibus secundario proficiscitur; ita ut virtus alterativa, & loco motiva, tanto inserviant operi’. The quotation that Santacruz ascribes to Aristotle is, as far as I can see, not found in the Latin version of De generatione et corruptione; cf. Aristotle, De generatione & interitu … , Meteoron … , De mundo … , De animalibus … Translated by Petrus Alcyonius (Venice: Bernardus Vitalis, 1521). On the scholastic doctrine of forma media, see Annelise Meier, ‘Die Struktur der materiellen Substanz’, in An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft, ed. Annelise Meier, 2nd edn (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1952), pp. 1–140.
82 HP, p. 63: ‘ad actiones vitales creatas … non requiritur, ut omnia instrumenta vivant; sed requiritur, ut omnia dirigantur a principio vitali’.
83 Ibid.: ‘ut sit instrumentum, sufficit sola directio: & ut sit actio vitalis, sufficit directio connexa principio viventi’.
84 HP, pp. 63–64: ‘Anima est intrinseca forma musculi, ibi exercet suam potentiam motivam intrinsecam. In musculo, ut in propria & disposita materia, invenies componentes partes spiritum implantatum, nervum, carnem, & movet igitur anima per musculum viventem; & hoc sufficit (ut aliquid demus Scaligero), sed non omnia, quae ibi concurrunt, vivere oportet: spiritus per nervum delatus non vivit, licet vicat nervus: ita similiter spiritus vitalis cordis; sed diriguntur ad actiones vitales modo quo possunt dirigi ab anima; non tamen est necessarium ut vivent … ’
85 On the origins of two-seed theories of animal generation, see Michael Boylan, ‘The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle's Conception Theory’, Journal of the History of Biology, 17 (1984), 83–112.
86 HP, p. 160: ‘Probaret certe Scaliger, si unumquodque semen perfectum quoddam esset, & adaequatum rei producendae exordium’.
87 Ibid.: ‘Non sunt appellanda duo semina, species distinctae, sed duae partes, quae unum conficiunt integrum instrumentum, distantque a vera ratione, & natura speciei, quantum distant a fine. Uniuntur ergo, ut entia partialia, in unum, ad unum formam adquirendam … ’
88 Ibid.: ‘[L]icet patrem, & matrem adaequatas causas eiusdem ordinis esse aliquis putet, quantum ad productionem prolis, hoc intelligendum substantialiter, & radicaliter, inspiciendo animas, quae sunt eiusdem prorsus naturae, & principia formalia quo, non vero quantum ad instrumenta immediata. Sic enim alter alterius indiget adminiculo, & semina emittunt partialia’.
89 HP, pp. 61–62.
90 Feyens, De formatrice foetus, p. 94.
91 Ibid., p. 97; see Aristotle, Physics, 256a22–256b2.
92 Ibid.: ‘instrumentum non potest agere, nisi prius motum ab agente principali’.
93 Ibid., p. 99.
94 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 62, a. 5, co.
95 Feyens, De formatrice foetus, p. 99.
96 Ibid., p. 100.
97 Ibid., p. 102.
98 Ibid., p. 103: ‘Agere in ratione instrumenti, est agere per virtutem aliquam sibi propriam, sed adiutam ac directam influxu actuali agentis principalis; quo attollitur ad producendum effectum multo nobiliorem, quam virtute propria assequi posset’.
99 HP, p. 71: ‘[S]i tunc istae machinae et horologia moventur absente artifice et gubernante; signum est certissimum, praecessisse contactum illius, et reliquisse impressam motus directionem, per impressionem virtutis artificialis factam in principio … ’
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.: ‘semen recepit virtutem a generante per verum contactum physicum et mathematicum … ’
102 E.g. OP, pp. 23–24, 26–27, 38 [erroneously paginated as 44], 41, 44, 46, 48, 55, 58, 126, 130, 143–44. On the philosophical aspects of Gentile's work, see Roger French, Canonic Medicine: Gentile da Foligno and Scholasticism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001).
103 Gentile da Foligno, Primus Avi[cennae] Canon. Avicenne medicorum principis canonum liber. Una cum lucidissima Gentilis Fulgi[nei] expositione ([Venice], 1520), fol. 83v: ‘[D]ico quod spiritus defert virtutem sicut instrumentum motum defert principale movens: sed spiritus est huiusmodi, est enim animae instrumentum … Sed tu dices quis modus delationis est iste? Dicendum quod si spiritus defert virtutem, non defert ipsam: quia virtus & anima spiritui dat suam formam: sed quia virtus dat illi spiritui modum motus per quem spiritus ad membra perveniens possunt membra formaliter in eorum operationes: et est sicut videmus quod ars que est in anima fabri non dat suam formam igni & malleo; sed bene dat illi modum motus per quem possunt ad actum deducere formam cultelli de potentia materie ferri’.
104 OP, p. 285: ‘sicut spiritus recepit modum motus a corde & cerebro, ita ipse spiritus postea active dirigit ipsa membra ad motum. In generatione spiritus illius materia suscepit formam ad movendum, seu ipsam motionem, postea vero in membris ipsis communicavit illam’.
105 Ibid.: ‘si coniunctum, ut verba Gentilis explicare videntur, & exempla artificis declarant, magnae oriuntur difficultates: nam si spiritus in cerebro acquirit istam motionem, ut malleus a fabro, quo pacto ipsemet Gentilis cum Avicenna contendit spiritum in partibus dearticulari ad proprios motus obeundos? Ita enim dicendum est, non esse instrumentum cerebri coniunctum, vel cordis, siquidem non operatur per illamet formam, quam recepit, sed per aliam partialem’.
106 Ibid.: ‘ego, qui nunc recipio influxum caeli, non illum destruo, sed ad modum recipientis recipio. Ita similiter spiritus qualitatem istam recepit a cerebro, & corde, motionem, scilicet ad opera. Rursus cum in partes singulares inciderit, non amittit modum illum, sed in talem motionem membra ipsa disponit; quantumvis determinetur a temperie, & forma partis’.
107 OP, p. 72; pp. 284–85.
108 OP, p. 285.
109 Thomas Feyens, Pro sua de animatione foetus tertia die apologia (Louvain: Apud Vidua Henrici Hasteni, 1629), p. 73.
110 HP, p. 77.
111 HP, p. 113.
112 HP, p. 72.
113 HP, p. 69.
114 HP, p. 74; OP, p. 290.
115 OP, p. 284.
116 OP, p. 285.
117 Toletus, In octo libros Aristotelis de Physica auscultatione. Item in libros Aristotelis de generatione et corruptione, fol. 271v; OP, p. 280; on the doctrine of the whole soul being as a whole in each part of the body, see Marleen Rozemond, ‘Descartes, Mind-Body Union, and Holenmerism’, Philosophical Topics, 31 (2003), 343–67.
118 OP, pp. 13; 58.
119 OP, p. 129.
120 OP, p. 218.
121 See Andreas Blank, ‘Protestant Natural Philosophy and the Question of Emergence, 1540–1615’, Hungarian Philosophical Review, 61 (2017), 7–22.
122 See Andreas Blank, ‘Zabarella and the Early Leibniz on the Diachronic Identity of Living Beings’, Studia Leibnitiana, 47 (2015), 86–102.
123 OP, p. 284.