The Early Dutch Reception of L’Homme

  • Tad M. SchmaltzEmail author
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 43)


This is a consideration of the connection of L’Homme to two very different forms of early modern Dutch Cartesianism. On the one hand, this work was central to a dispute between Descartes and his former disciple, Henricus Regius. In particular, Descartes charged that Regius had plagiarized L’Homme in order to distance himself from a form of Cartesian physiology in Regius that is not founded on a proof of the spirituality of the human soul. Despite this repudiation, Regius remained a prominent proponent of Cartesian medicine. On the other hand, Florentius Schuyl published a Latin translation of L’Homme that included a preface in which he defends Descartes’s doctrine of the “beast-machine” by invoking the authority of Augustine. This preface set the stage for the emphasis in the work of Clerselier and other French Cartesians on the presence in Descartes of a kind of Augustinian spiritualism.


Human Mind Human Soul Antagonistic Muscle French Translation Early Modern Period 
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.

Work Cited

  1. Andreae T. Brevis replicatio reposita Brevi explicationi mentis humanae Henrii Regii. Amsterdam: L. Elzevier; 1653.Google Scholar
  2. Baillet A. La vie de monsieur Descartes. 2 vols-in-1. Geneva: Slatkin; [1691] 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Bos E-J. Henricus Regius et les limites de la philosophie cartésienne. In: Kolesnik-Antoine D, editor. Qu’est-ce qu'être cartésien? Lyon: ENS Éditions; 2013. p. 53–68.Google Scholar
  4. Clauberg J. Opera Omnia Philosophicum. 2 vols. Hildesheim-New York: Georg Olms Verlag; [1691] 1968.Google Scholar
  5. de Raey J. Clavis philosophiae naturalis sive Introductio ad contemplationem naturae Aristotelico-Cartesiana. Leiden: J. & D. Elzevier; 1654.Google Scholar
  6. de Raey J. Cogita de interpretatione. Amsterdam: Wetstein; 1692.Google Scholar
  7. Descartes R. In: C. Clerselier, editor. Lettres de Mr Descartes. 3 vols. Paris: Angot; 1657–67.Google Scholar
  8. Descartes R. De homine figuis et latinitate donatus a Florentio Schuyl. Leiden: Moyardum & Leffen; 1662.Google Scholar
  9. Descartes R. L’Homme de René Descartes, et un Traitté de la formation du foetus, du mesme auteur. Avec les Remarques de Louis de la Forge, docteur en medecine. Paris: Angot; 1664.Google Scholar
  10. Descartes R. Œuvres de Descartes. Nouvelle présentation. Edited by Adam C, Tannery P, 11 vols. Paris: J. Vrin; 1964–1974.Google Scholar
  11. Descartes R, Regius H. In: Bos E-J, editor. The correspondence between Descartes and Henricus Regius. Utrecht: Utrecht Department of Philosophy; 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Descartes R, Schoock M. La Querelle d’Utrecht. (trans. and editor Verbeek T). Paris: Les impressions nouvelles, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Dibon P. Regards sur la Hollande du Siècle d’Or. Vivarium: Naples; 1990.Google Scholar
  14. Donaldson IML. The Treatise of man (De Homine) by René Descartes. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2009;39:375–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabricius C. De Antidoto Primirosiano Epistola, Secunda editio, Priori auctior et emendatior. Rotterdam: Isaci; 1648.Google Scholar
  16. Farina P. Sulla formazione scientifica di H. Regius: Santorio e il ‘De statica medicina’. Rivista Critica de Storia della Filosofia. 1975;33:363–99.Google Scholar
  17. Gariepy TP. Mechanism without metaphysics: Henricus Regius and the establishment of Cartesian medicine. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University; 1991.Google Scholar
  18. Gouhier H. Cartésianisme et Augustinisme au XVIIe siècle. Paris: Vrin; 1978.Google Scholar
  19. Grene M. Aristotelico-Cartesian themes in natural philosophy: some seventeenth-century cases. Perspect Sci. 1993;1:66–87.Google Scholar
  20. Hallyn F. La Philosophia naturalis de Regius et l’écriture athée. In: McKenna A et al., editors. Les libertines et la science. Saint-Étienne: University of Saint-Étienne; 2006. p. 37–46.Google Scholar
  21. Harvey W. The anatomical exercises of Dr William Harvey professor of physick, and physician to the Kings Majesty, concerning the motion of the heart and blood … To which is added Dr James De Back his Discourse of the heart, physician in ordinary to the town of Roterdam. London: Leach; 1653.Google Scholar
  22. Kolesnik-Antoine D. Les voies du corps. Schuyl, Clerselier et La Forge lecteurs du traité de L’Homme de Descartes. Conscutio temporum: Rivista critica della postmodernità. 2012;2:118–28.Google Scholar
  23. La Forge L d. In: Clair P, editor. Œuvres philosophique, avec une etude bio-bibliographique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1974.Google Scholar
  24. Le Bossu, R. Parallele des principes de la physique d’Aristote & de celle de René Des Cartes. Paris: Vrin; [1674] 1981.Google Scholar
  25. Lindeboom GA. Florentius Schuyl (1619–1669) en zijn betekenis voor het Cartesianisme in de geneekskunde. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1974.Google Scholar
  26. Manning G. Three biased reminders about hylomorphism in early modern science and philosophy. In: Manning G, editor. Matter and form in early modern science and philosophy. Leiden: Brill; 2012. p. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGahagan TA. Cartesianism in the Netherlands, 1639–1676: the new science and the calvinist counter-reformation. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania; 1976.Google Scholar
  28. Mouy P. Le Développement de la physique cartésienne, 1646–1712. Paris: Vrin; 1934.Google Scholar
  29. Ragland E. Chymistry and taste in the seventeenth century: Franciscus dele Boë Sylvius as a chemical physician between Galenism and Cartesianism. Ambix. 2012;59:1–21.Google Scholar
  30. Regius H. Fundamenta physices. Amsterdam: A. Elzevier; 1646.Google Scholar
  31. Regius H. Brevis explicatio mentis humanae, sive, Animae rationis … a Notis Nobil. Cartesii vindicata. Utrecht: Trajecti ad Rhenum; 1648.Google Scholar
  32. Regius H. Philosophia naturalis. 2nd ed [of Regius 1646]. Amsterdam: L. and D. Elzevier; 1654.Google Scholar
  33. Regius H. Praxis medica medicationum exemplis demonstratur. 2nd ed. Utrecht: Trajecti ad Rhenum; 1657a.Google Scholar
  34. Regius H. Brevis explicatio mentis humanae. 2nd ed. Utrecht: Trajecti ad Rhenum; 1657b.Google Scholar
  35. Regius H. Epistola Henrici Regii ad V. Cl. Clerselierum JCtum Parisiensem. Utrecht: Trajecti ad Rhenum; 1661a.Google Scholar
  36. Regius H. Philosophia naturalis. 3rd ed [of Regius 1646]. Amsterdam: L. and D. Elzevier; 1661b.Google Scholar
  37. Regius H, Wassenaer P. Medicatio viri cachexia leucophlegmatica affecti. Utrecht: Trajecti ad Rhenum; 1647.Google Scholar
  38. Rohault J. Traité de physique. 2 vols. Paris: Savieux; 1671.Google Scholar
  39. Schmaltz TM. Early modern cartesianisms: Dutch and French constructions. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  40. Sylvius F (Franz de le Boë). Opera medica. Amsterdam: Elzevier & Wolfgang; 1679.Google Scholar
  41. van Ruler JA. Substituting Aristotle: platonic themes in Dutch cartesianism. In: Hedley D, Hutton S, editors. Platonism at the origins of modernity: studies on platonism and early modern philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 159–75.Google Scholar
  42. Verbeek T, editor. Descartes et Regius: Autour de l’Explication de l’esprit humain. Amsterdam: Rodolpi; 1993a.Google Scholar
  43. Verbeek T. Tradition and novelty: Descartes and some cartesians. In: Sorell T, editor. The rise of modern philosophy: the tension between the new and traditional philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993b. p. 167–96.Google Scholar
  44. Verbeek T. Les Cartésiens face à Spinoza: l’exemple de Johannes de Raey. In: Cristofolini P, editor. L’Hérésie spinoziste: la discussion sur le Tractatus Theologico Politicus, 1670–1677, et la reception immediate du spinozisme. Amsterdam-Maarssen: Holland University Press; 1995. p. 77–88.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson C. Descartes and the corporeal mind: some implications of the Regius affair. In: Gaukroger S et al., editors. Descartes’ system of natural philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 659–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations