Abstract
René Descartes’ mechanization of living activities lays bare a glaring lacuna that concerns vegetative functions, such as nutrition, generation, and growth: his cardiovascular framework affects any exhaustive explanation of these activities. When he mentions a mechanical vegetative power in his 1641 correspondence with Henricus Regius, this definition is unspecified, although it may be correlated to a few posthumous bio-medical notes. Descartes’ mechanization of the vegetative soul remains puzzling. Early Cartesian scholars were thus obliged to fill this lacuna to produce a more exhaustive physiology. In this chapter, after reconstructing Descartes’ own position in L’Homme and in his manuscripts, I explore the positions of Regius, Louis de La Forge, and Florent Schuyl, who dealt with Descartes’ medical texts and physiological doctrine through various perspectives. Yet, while building a mechanization of vegetation upon Descartes’ philosophy, their interpretations of a mechanical vegetative power uncover shortcomings, weaknesses, and failures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
See also Descartes to Mersenne November or December 1632: ‘[…] j’entreprends d’expliquer toutes ses principales fonctions. J’ai déjà écrit celles qui appartiennent à la vie, comme la digestion des viandes, le battement du pouls, la distribution de l’aliment etc., et les cinq sens. J’anatomise maintenant les têtes de divers animaux, pour expliquer en quoi consistent l’imagination, la mémoire etc.’ (Descartes 1964–1974, I, 263). See Antoine-Mahut and Gaukroger 2016. Cf Schouten 1974.
- 4.
- 5.
Stephen Gaukroger acknowledges the limitations of Descartes’ explanation of vegetative activities, but also takes for granted this account: ‘Of the functions traditionally ascribed to the vegetative soul, Descartes has little to say on digestion, respiration, and reproduction’; ‘[Descartes] has a deep interest in the movement of the blood (Gaukroger 2002, 182; 186; 192–196). See Des Chene 2000, 133–138 and Aucante 2006, 152–162. For a different interpretation, see Bertoloni Meli 2011, 132.
- 6.
Discours de la Méthode, in Descartes 1964–1974, VI, 45: ‘je n’en avois pas encore assez de connaissance, pour en parler du mesme style que du reste […] en démontrant les effets par les causes, et faisant voir de quelles semences et en quelle façon la nature les doit produire.’
- 7.
This text has been known since Louis-Alexandre Foucher de Careil (1826–1891) published it from some notes discovered in the manuscripts of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), who copied them in 1676 from the manuscripts Claude Clerselier (1614–1684) possessed and circulated among his contemporaries. This text is now edited in several editions of Descartes’ and Leibniz’s works. A critical study of this manuscript is still to be done. See Baldassarri 2018b, 63.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Ibid., 596: ‘Accretio duplex est: alia mortuorum et quae non nutriuntur, fitque per simplicem partium appositionem, sine ulla earum immutatione […] Et fit etiam transmutatio ligni vel alterius corporis in lapidem per modum talis accretionis, dum partes lapidis poros ligni ingrediuntur, et praecendentes vel sibi assimilant, vel extrudunt, vel partim hoc partim illud. Alia accretio est viventium, sive eorum quae nutriuntur, et fit semper cum aliqua partium immutatione.’
- 11.
- 12.
On this correspondence, see Bos 2002.
- 13.
See also Descartes to Regius, May 1641, Descartes to Regius, May 1641, in Descartes 1964–1974, XI, III, 371: ‘Hæc autem vis motrix a vi vegetativa ne specie quidem differt; utraque autem toto genere a mente distat.’ [Emphasis in the text.] Ibid., 372: ‘Vis autem vegetativa … nihil aliud est quam certa partium corporis constitutio.’ [Emphasis in the text.] Cf. Regius 1641a, ‘XI. Vis vegetativa est certa corporis constitutio, qua substantiæ corporeæ calorifique perpetuam dissipationem […] conservamus, & ex semine nostri simile procreamus.’
- 14.
See Descartes to Plemp, 23 March 1638, in Descartes 1964–1974, II, 65.
- 15.
Descartes to Mersenne, 5 October 1646, in Descartes 1964–1974, IV, 510–511; Descartes to Mersenne, 23 November 1646, in Descartes 1964–1974, IV, 566–567. Lettre-Préface, in Descartes 1964–1974, IX-2, 19. See Schmaltz 2016, 73–4. On some possible collaborations between Descartes and Regius, see Baldassarri 2020.
- 16.
Descartes to Regius, November 1641, in Descartes 1964–1974, III, 443: ‘Sed sane multa sunt in Thesibus tuis, quæ fateor me ignorare, ac multa etiam, de quibus si forte quid sciam, longe aliter explicarem quam ibi explicueris. Quod tamen non miror; longe enim difficilius est, de omnibus quæ ad rem medicam pertinent suam sententiam exponere, quod docentis officium est, quam cognitu faciliora seligere, ac de reliquis prorsus tacere, quod ego in omnibus scientiis facere consuevi.’ See Bos 2017, 95–111.
- 17.
Regius 1641a, Theses 11: ‘Vis vegetativa est certa corporis constitutio, qua substantiae corporeae calorisque perpetuam dissipationem, per succum à Corde praeparatum, & in partes impulsum, conservamus, & ex semine nostri simile procreamus.’ [Italics in the text.][Translation mine.] See Verbeek 1992, 15–16.
- 18.
Ibid., Theses 12: ‘Succi illius apta ad corpus caloremque conservandum à Corde distributio est Vita; uti distributionis istius privatio Mors dicenda.’ [Italics in the text.]
- 19.
Regius 1641b, 15: ‘16. Vis autem vegetativa in homine nihil aliud est, quam certa partium corporis constitutione, qua substantiae corporeae calorisque perpetuam dissipationem per succum à corde praeparatum, et in partes impulsum, conservamus, et ex semine nostri simile procreamus. Succi illius apta ad cordus caloremque conservandum à corde distributio, vita dicenda est: uti distributionis istius privatio, Mors.’ (Italics in the text.)
- 20.
Ibid., 15–16: ‘18. Hae duae itaque (quae Natura corporis alleppari possunt) nihil aliud sunt, quam corporis humani apte conformati apta temperies: quandoquidem omnes illarum operationes ab hac ita fieri queunt, ut in horologio et aliis automatis plurimae actiones admirandae a sola partium conformatione peraguntur: ita ut non opus sit aliquam substantialem incognitamque formam hic vel alibi in similibus fingere, entiaque contra verissimum Philosophiae dictatum, multiplicare absque necessitate.’ (Italics in the text.)
- 21.
- 22.
Regius 1641b, 15: ‘Actiones sunt operationes ab homine vi animae humanae, vel corporis, vel utriusque factae. 14. Anima humana est actionum humanarum primum in homine principium …’ (Italics in the text.)
- 23.
‘Non etiam tibi assentior, cum definis actiones esse operationes ab homine vi animæ et corporis factas; sum enim unus ex illis qui negant hominem corpore intelligere.’ (Italics in the text.)
- 24.
‘Vis autem vegetandi, et corporis movendi, quæ in plantis et brutis anima vegetativa et sensitiva appellantur, sunt quidem etiam in homine, sed non debent in eo animæ appellari, quia non sunt primum ejus actionum principium, et toto genere differunt ab anima rationali.’ (Italics in the text.)
- 25.
- 26.
‘Corpora viva sunt, quorum partes ita sunt temperatae & conformatae, ut corporea eorum substantia, quae perpetuo dissipatur, per succum praeparatum & in interiora impulsum, secundum temperiem & partium conformationem, conservetur.’ [Translation is mine.]
- 27.
‘Haec partium dispositio est istorum corporum anima vegetativa: est enim principium, quo corpora viva actiones suas vitales perficiunt.’ [Translation is mine.] The text has this writing in the margin: ‘Anima eorum vegetativa.’
- 28.
Ibid., 148: ‘Stirps est corpus vivum sola anima vegetativa praeditum.’ Ibid., 154.
- 29.
See Mersenne to Huygens, end of September 1646, in Mersenne 1932–1988, 14, 496–497. Translation is from Fowler 1999, 150: Mersenne rhetorically asked Constantijn Huygens (1596–1688) whether ‘he believes that Mr. Regius explains the movements of plants and animals without giving them souls, as the principles of Descartes seem to require?’ While Fowler interprets this text as a confirmation of Regius’ eradication of souls, I think this letter is much more problematic.
- 30.
Regius 1646, 226; 241: ‘Bestia est animal merum, seu tale, quod actiones suas sensitivas et motivas, per solam partium dispositionem, citra ullam cognitionem vel intellectum […] perfecit.’
- 31.
Regius 1648, 7: ‘mens possit esse vel substantia; vel quidam substantia corporea modus; vel, […] Mens possit esse attributum quoddam eidem subjecto cum extensione in homine conveniens…’
- 32.
‘Eaque potissimum in calore nativo consistit; qui est ignis tantum calidus, in corporibus vivis a prima eorum productione genitus, cujus ope succus alimentarius, ad eorum conservationem, praecipue praeparatur, & per totum corpus distribuitur, eique agglutinatur.’ (Translation mine.)
- 33.
‘Ipse autem ille praeparatus succus, quia est immediatum istius conservationis instrumentum, quodammodo etiam anima vegetativa dicit potest. Succi vero istius apta, ad corpus conservandum, distributio, vita est dicenda; & provatio istius dispositionis, mors.’ (Translation mine.)
- 34.
Andrea Strazzoni has recently unearthed Regius’ references to Jean Fernel and Vopiscus Plempius in his section on innate heat, but has failed to grasp its traditional reach; see Strazzoni 2018, 409.
- 35.
‘Itaque hic nulla intercedit substantialis transmutatio: cum substantia alimentorum, quae est ipsa materia, hic & ubique semper eadem maneat; sed accidentia essentialia, quibus, ex:gr: cibus à chylo, & chylus à sanguine differunt, in conctione tantum immutentur.’
- 36.
- 37.
It is to be remembered that Descartes conceived L’Homme as a treatise in three main sections, the one on the human body, the second on the soul or mind, and the third on the union. Only the first is achieved, though partially. The Meditations could embody this second part. Reading L’Homme in 1664 cannot be isolated from the entire work. Cf. L’Homme, in Descartes 1964–1974, XI, 119–120; Discours de la Méthode, in Descartes 1964–1974, VI, 59.
- 38.
La Forge 1664, 178: ‘Mais parce que nous voyons que nous ne digerons pas toutes sortes de choses avec une égale facilité, l’on peut demander pourquoy toutes sortes de menstruës (pour parler en Chymique) n’ont pas la Faculté de dissoudre toutes sortes de Corps.’
- 39.
‘Cette liqueur acide, à laquelle nous avons attribué la dissolution des viandes […] nostre estomac dissout quelquefois le biscuit & le pain, sans que nous bevuions, ny le trempions, il faut qu’il y ait quelque liqueur dans son fond, qui s’insinuant dans les pores des viandes solides qua nous avons avalées, en separe les parties […] Il y a grande apparence que leur entiere dissolution dépend d’une semblable liqueur […] Et de plus les observations du docte Wallaeus [or de Waleus] font voir que cette liqueur vient des arteres.’
- 40.
‘[e]st ce bein expliquer la cause d’une Diarrhée, par exemple, que de dire qu’elle vient, ou de ce que la faculté expultrice est irrité, ou de ce que la faculté retentrice des intestins est affoiblie; N’est ce pas en bon François dire je n’en say rien?’
- 41.
Cf. ibid. 19: ‘the human mind is not the principle of vegetative and nutritive functions.’
- 42.
- 43.
Cf. Descartes to Regius, May 1641, in Descartes 1964–1974, III, 371.
- 44.
On Schuyl, see Lindeboom 1974.
- 45.
‘[Q]uia veram illarum motus causam ignorans, […] putat motum illum, fallax vitae indicium, ab anima pariter ac in hominibus determinari.’
- 46.
‘Haud dispari imprudentia & prodigalitate Peripatismus praeter Creatoris intentionem, plantas anima vitaque donavit. Non ea. tantum, quae in partium dispiositione consistens, vegetationis causa est: sed & alia quam verae causae ignorantia, velut mentem, sive substantiam a plantarum materia sive corpore plane diversam, iss affinxit ex arbitrio.’
- 47.
‘Omnium enim Plantarum facultatum exercitia, nulla istiusmodi anima considerata, facile concipiuntur.’
- 48.
‘Etenim non est, quod quempiam lateat, qua ratione pro tempestatis, dierum noctiumque vicissitudine, succus sive alimentum in plantas ante calore rarefactas, subsequente frigore, non aliter quam sanguis in cucurbitulas, quod vel vitrea arbuscula ad oculum demonstrari potest, per poros radicum adigatur, sursum pellatur atque attollatur, quaqua versum distribuatur, fermentetur, & redeunte calore effervescat, & elaboretur.’
- 49.
‘Unde planta distendatur, & tandem oculi folia, rami, flores, semina, fructus ebulliant, condesentur, & velut crystallizentur. Diversa quidem pro diversitate succi, & pororum, per quos illi transitus est.’
- 50.
‘Quae quidem pororum diversitas, singulis plantarum speciebus propria, oritur ex diversitate pororum matris cujusque seminis, atque plantae: et succi materni illos perforantis, quemadmodum illos Naturae Fabricator primum condidit.’
- 51.
‘Nec est, quod quemquam forte remoretur abstrusior plantarum generatio, si nulla prorsus ratio ejusmodi animae habeatur. Etenim plantarum semn omnino nihil aliud esse, quam ramusculum, pulpa quadam, velut capsula, conclusum, autopsia constat. Unde sequitur eodem plane modo, quo rami, & semina produci, nutriri, atque crescere.’
- 52.
On Descartes’ study of plants, see Baldassarri 2019.
- 53.
‘Hac Tulipa, licet omni propria cognitione destituta, folia sua matutino Soli explicat, quae, ne a nocturno frigore semini fiat ignuria, vesperi colligit, atque constringit.’ [Translation is mine.]
- 54.
The text is reprinted with separate pagination in Lindeboom 1974, 125 ff: ‘Creditum quoque fuit plantas quibusdam fuis animulis vivere & vegetari, jam vero, quicquid illis nutritionis, auctionis & generationis accidit, a sola fermentatione atque effervescentia oriri, non dicitud modo: sed etiam arte factis ex multiplici materia seminibus ad oculum demonstratur.’
References
Antoine-Mahut, Delphine. 2016. The Story of L’Homme. In Descartes’ Treatise on Man and its Reception, ed. Delphine Antoine-Mahut and Stephen Gaukroger, 1–29. Cham: Springer.
Antoine-Mahut, Delphine, and Stephen Gaukroger, eds. 2016. Descartes’ Treatise on Man and its Reception. Cham: Springer.
Aucante, Vincent. 2006. La philosophie médicale de Descartes. Paris: PUF.
Baldassarri, Fabrizio. 2018a. Descartes’ Bio-Medical Study of Plants: Vegetative Activities, Soul, and Power. Early Science and Medicine 23 (5–6): 509–529.
———. 2018b. I moti circolari nella meccanica della vita in Descartes: embriologia e nutrizione nella medicina e nella botanica. Physis 53: 57–74.
———. 2019. The Mechanical Life of Plants: Descartes on Botany. British Journal for the History of Science 52 (1): 41–63.
———. 2020. Descartes and the Dutch: Botanical Experimentation in the Early Modern Period. Perspectives on Sciencie, 28/6: 657–683.
Baldassarri, Fabrizio. 2021a. Il metodo al tavolo anatomico: Descartes e la medicina. Rome: Aracne.
———. 2021b. Immutatio. In Nouvel Index Scolastico-Cartésien, ed. Igor Agostini et al., forthcoming. Paris.
———. 2021c. Anima vegetativa. In Nouvel Index Scolastico-Cartésien, ed. Igor Agostini et al., forthcoming. Paris.
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 2011. Mechanism, Experiment, Disease: Marcello Malpighi and Seventeenth-Century Anatomy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bos, Erik-Jan. 2002. The Correspondence between Descartes and Henricus Regius. Utrecht: Zeno.
———. 2017. Descartes and Regius on the Pineal Gland and Animal Spirits, and a Letter of Regius on the True Seat of the Soul. In Descartes and Cartesianism: Essays in Honour of Desmond Clarke, ed. Stephen Gaukroger and Catherine Wilson, 95–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carraud, Vincent. 2002. Causa sive ratio: la raison de la cause de Suarez à Leibniz. Paris: PUF.
Clarke, Desmond M. 1989. Occult Powers and Hypotheses: Cartesian Natural Philosophy under Louis XIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1997. Introduction. In Treatise on the Human Mind (1664). Trans. and Ed. Desmond M. Clarke, xiii–xxv. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Des Chene, Dennis. 2000. Life’s Form. Late Aristotelian Conceptions of the Soul. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
———. 2001. Spirits & Clocks: Machines and Automata in Descartes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Descartes, René. 1964–1974. In Œuvres complètes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, vol. 11. Paris: Vrin-CNRS.
———. 1984. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Trans. and Ed. John Cottingham et al., 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2003 [1972]. Treatise of Man. Trans. and Ed. Thomas S. Hall. New York: Prometheus Book.
———. 2004. The Worlds and Other Writings. Trans. and Ed. Stephen Gaukroger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drieux, Philippe. 2019. Louis de La Forge on Mind, Causality, and Union. In Oxford Handbook on Descartes and Cartesianism, ed. S. Nadler et al., 319–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, C.F. 1999. Descartes on the Human Soul: Philosophy and the Demands of Christian Doctrine. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gaukroger, Stephen. 2002. Descartes System of Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grene, Marjorie. 1986. Die Einheit des Menschen: Descartes unter den Scholastikern. Dialectica 40 (4): 309–322.
Hattab, Helen. 2009. Descartes on Forms and Mechanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
La Forge, Louis de. 1664. L’Homme de René Descartes et un traité de la Formation du fœtus … Avec les Remarques de Louys de La Forge. Paris.
———. 1997. Treatise on the Human Mind (1664). Trans. and Ed. Desmond M. Clarke. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
———. 1999. In L’Homme de René Descartes et un traité de la Formation du fœtus … Avec les Remarques de Louys de La Forge, ed. Thierry Gontier. Paris: Fayard.
Lindeboom, Gerrit A. 1974. Florentius Schuyl (1619–1669). En zijn betekenis voor het Cartesianisme in de geneeskunde. Den Haag: Nijhoff.
Manning, Gideon. 2012. When the Mind Became Un-Natural: De La Forge and Psychology in the Cartesian Aftermath. In Psychology and other Disciplines: A Case of Cross-Disciplinary Interaction (1250–1750), ed. Paul J.J.M. Bakker, Sander W. Boer, and Cees Leijenhorst, 131–153. Leiden: Brill.
Mersenne, Marin. 1932–1988. Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne, ed. Corneliis de Waard et al., 16 vols. Paris: CNRS.
Meschini, Franco Aurelio. 2015. La dottrina della digestione secondo Descartes. Itinerari tra testi, contesti e intertesti. Physis 50: 113–164.
Nadler, Steven. 2011. Occasionalism: Causation among the Cartesians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nadler, Steven, Tad M. Schmaltz, and Delphine Antoine-Mahut, eds. 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Regius, Henricus. 1641a. Disputatio medica prima, De Illustribus aliquot Quæstionibus Physiologicis. Utrecht.
———. 1641b. Physiologia sive Cognitio Sanitatis. Utrecht.
———. 1646. Fundamenta physices. Utrecht.
———. 1648. Brevis explicatio mentis humanae sive Animae rationalis. Utrecht.
Ruler, Han van. 2008. Substituting Aristotle: Platonic Themes in Dutch Cartesianism. In Platonism at the Originis of Modernity: Studies on Platonism and Early Modern Philosophy, ed. David Hedley and Sarah Hutton, 159–175. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sangiacomo, Andrea. 2014. Louis de La Forge and the ‘Non-Transfer Argument’ for Occasionalism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (1): 60–80.
Schmaltz, Tad M. 2016. The Early Dutch Reception of L’Homme. In Descartes’ Treatise on Man and its Reception, ed. Delphine Antoine-Mahut and Stephen Gaukroger, 71–90. Cham: Springer.
———. 2019. The Curious Case of Henricus Regius. In Oxford Handbook on Descartes and Cartesianism, ed. S. Nadler et al., 434–449. Oxford: OUP.
Schouten, J. 1974. Johannes Walaeus (1604–1649) and his Experiments on the Circulation of the Blood. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 29: 259–279.
Schuyl, Florent. 1662. Ad Lectorem. In De Homine. Leiden, Unpaged.
———. 1672. De veritate scientiarum et artium academicarum. Qua, demonstrata mentis & dei opt. Max existentia… Leiden.
Strazzoni, Andrea. 2018. How Did Regius Become Regius? The Early Doctrinal Evolution of a Heterodox Cartesian. Early Science and Medicine 23: 362–412.
Vanni Rovighi, Sofia. 2007. Filosofia della conoscenza. Bologna: ESD.
Verbeek, Theo. 1992. Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy, 1637–1650. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
———, ed. 1994. Descartes et Regius. Autour de l’Explication de l’esprit humain. Dordrecht: Brill.
Acknowledgments
Research for this chapter has been carried out with the support of the Land Niedersachsen Herzog August Bibliothek fellowship and by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation (CNCS – UEFISCDI), project number PN-III-P1-1.1-PD-2016-1496, “The Overlooked History of Vegetal Life. From the Vegetative Soul to Metabolism in Early Modern Philosophy and Biomedicine.” I would like to thank Igor Agostini, Vlad Alexandrescu, Delphine Antoine-Mahut, Gideon Manning, Steven Nadler, Michael Pickering, and Theo Verbeek for their helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baldassarri, F. (2021). Failures of Mechanization: Vegetative Powers and the Early Cartesians, Regius, La Forge, and Schuyl. In: Baldassarri, F., Blank, A. (eds) Vegetative Powers. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 234. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69709-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69709-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69708-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69709-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)