A Seventeenth-Century Physician on God and Atoms: Sebastian Basso

  • Lauge Olaf Nielsen
Part of the Synthese Historical Library book series (SYHL, volume 32)


When in 1621 a French physician by the name of Sebastian Basso published a book entitled Philosophiae Naturalis adversus Aristotelem libri XII In quibus abstrusa Veterum Physiologia restauratur et Aristotelis errores solidis rationibus refelluntur, he cherished the ambitious hope of accomplishing a revolution in natural philosophy. Through the overthrow of Aristotelian physics Basso aimed at reinstating the ancient natural philosophy elaborated by Plato and his predecessors who, in the eyes of Basso, had been firm adherents of atomism. As the prime enemy of atomism was, of course, Aristotle, whose authority had managed to keep atomism well suppressed for close to two millennia, Basso realized that a necessary prerequisite for persuading his contemporaries of the truth of atomism would be a convincing demonstration of the ineptitude of Aristotelian physics. To Basso it was equally evident that, if his coup d’état was to succeed, he also had to show how easily and truthfully natural phenomena could be explained by way of the atomic theory. This he did most thoroughly inasmuch as he not only presented an elaborate refutation of Peripatetic physics but also constructed a whole system of natural and atomistic philosophy accounting for the major, and several minor, phenomena of the natural world stretching from the stars to the depths of the sea.


Natural Agent Substantial Form Elementary Atom Aristotelian Conception Efficient Causality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Philosophia Epicurea, Democritiana, Theophrastica proposita simpliciter, non edocta (Paris, 1601). A second edition appeared in Geneva in 1619. For Hill and his book see Grant McColley, “Nicholas Hill and the Philosophia Epicurea”, Annals of Science, 4 (1939–40), pp. 390–405;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Robert Hugh Kargon, Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  3. Hill’s debt to Giordano Bruno has been emphasized by D. Massa, “Giordano Bruno’s Ideas in Seventeenth-Century England”, Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 38, 1977, pp. 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. For literature on Sennert see the references provided in Tullio Gregory, “Studi suH’atomismo del Seicento. II. David van Goorle e Daniel Sennert”, Giornale critico delia filosofia italiana. Terza serie, vol. 20, 1966, p. 52, note 1; and the article on Sennert by Hans Kangro in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 12 (New York, 1975), edited by Charles G. Gillispie, pp. 310 ft; also Allen G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy. Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, vol. 1 (New York, 1977), pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar
  5. See Anneliese Maier, “Kontinuum, Minima und aktuell Unendliches”, in idem, Die Vorläufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spätscholastik, vol. 1 (Rome, 1949), pp. 155–215.Google Scholar
  6. See K. Lasswitz, op. cit., pp. 436 ff.; and T. Gregory, “Studi… II…” (op. cit.), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar
  7. See K. Lasswitz, op. cit., pp. 455 ff.; and T. Gregory, “Studi… II…” (op. cit.), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar
  8. Cf. A. G. Debus, op. cit., pp. 191–192, note 202.Google Scholar
  9. Oeuvres (Paris 1662), vol. 2, p. 457. Cf. Tommaso Campanella, De Libris Propriis et recta ratione studiendi Syntagma (Paris, 1642), chap. 2, art. 5.Google Scholar
  10. Descartes, Correspondance, vol. 1 (Paris, 1936), pp. 303 ff.; also in Leon Roth (ed.), Correspondence of Descartes and Constantyn Huygens 1635–1647 (Oxford, 1926), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
  11. Joannes Chrysostomus Magnenus, Democritus reviviscens: Sive vita et philosophia Democriti (Leiden, 1648), p. 125 et passim. Google Scholar
  12. Gerard and Arnold Boate, Philosophia naturalis reformata, id est philosophiae Aristotelicae accurata examinatio, ac solida refutatio (Dublin, 1641), pp. 23 and 237–238.Google Scholar
  13. See Carlos Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus. Nouvelle édition, vol. 2 (Brussels — Paris, 1891), cols. 1273 ff.Google Scholar
  14. Cf. Samuel Mours, Le protestantisme en France au XVIIe siécle (1598–1685) (Paris, 1967), pp. 35 and 66.Google Scholar
  15. Cf. Allen G. Debus, “Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries”, Annals of Science, vol. 23, 1967, pp. 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cf. J. R. Partington, A History of Chemistry, vol. 1 (London, 1970), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar
  17. Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in libros de Generatione et Corruptione Aristotelis Stagiritae. Editio tertia (Cologne, 1615), book 1, chap. 10, q. 3, pp. 356–362.Google Scholar
  18. Apparently Basso was the first to enumerate five chemical principles; see K. Lasswitz, op. cit., pp. 339 ff.; as well as G. Zanier, op. cit., p. 83, note 16. For the different versions of the doctrine on chemical principles see A. G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy (op. cit.), passim-, and R. Hooykaas, “Die Elementenlehre der Iatrochemiker”, Janus, vol. 41, 1937, pp. 26–28.Google Scholar
  19. On this central issue Daniel Sennert is in complete agreement with Basso; see K. Lasswitz, op. cit., pp. 445 ff.; as well as A. G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy (op. cit.), pp. 198 ff.Google Scholar
  20. See A. G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy (op. cit.), pp. 23 ff.; 148 ff.; 160 ff.; as well as J. R. Partington, A History of Chemistry, vol. 2 (London, 1961), pp. 244 ff. Cf. below, section 6.a.Google Scholar
  21. Franciscus Toletus, In Libros Aristotelis de Generatione et Corruptione (Cologne, 1585), In Primum Librum, chap. 3, q. 2, fols. 9vb ff.Google Scholar
  22. Commentariorum Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu In Octo Libros Physi-corum Aristotelis Stagiritae (Cologne, 1612), In Primum Librum, chap. 9, q. 12, cols. 242 ff.Google Scholar
  23. 80.
    For seventeenth-century theories on cohesion see in particular E. C. Millington, “Studies in Cohesion from Democritus to Laplace”, Lychnos, 1944–45, pp. 55–78;Google Scholar
  24. E. C. Millington “Theories of Cohesion in the Seventeenth Century”, Annals of Science, vol. 5, 1941–47, pp. 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jean Fernelius, op. cit., book 1, chap. 10; and Piccolomineus, op. cit., Pars Secunda, De coelorum motibus, chap. 23 ff.Google Scholar
  26. For the eclecticism of this work see in particular R. P. Festugière, La révélation de’Hermes Trismégiste, vol. 2 (Paris, 1983), pp. 460 ff.Google Scholar
  27. See A.G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, vol. 1 (op. cit.), pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauge Olaf Nielsen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations