Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T15:58:14.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nicolaus Taurellus on Forms and Elements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2014

Andreas Blank*
University of Paderborn E-mail:


This article examines the conception of elements in the natural philosophy of Nicolaus Taurellus (1547–1606) and explores the theological motivation that stands behind this conception. By some of his early modern readers, Taurellus may have been understood as a proponent of material atoms. By contrast, I argue that considerations concerning the substantiality of the ultimate constituents of composites led Taurellus to an immaterialist ontology, according to which elements are immaterial forms that possess active and passive potencies as well as motion and extension. In Taurellus's view, immaterialism about elements provides support for the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. As he argues, the ontology of immaterial forms helps to explicate a sense in which creatures are substances, not accidents of the divine substance. In particular, he maintains that immaterial forms stand in suitable relations of ontological dependence to God: creation dependence (since forms would not exist without the divine act of creation), but neither subsistence dependence (since forms continue to exist without continued divine agency) nor activity dependence (since forms are active without requiring divine concurrence).

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Anon. 1611. Bedenckingen. Over de Beroepinghe D.D. Conradi Vorstii Bedenckingen. Over de Beroepinghe D.D. Conradi Vorstii tot de Professie der H. Theologie in de Universiteyt tot Leyden, By tenighe Dienaren des Godlicken Woorts Opt begeern/ ende uptlast ban de E. Mog. Heeren Staaten/ von Hollandt/ ende West = Fieslandt/ voorghestelt/ ende hare E. Mog. overghelevert op den 29. Aprilis Anno 1611.Google Scholar
Alexander of Aphrodisias. [1495] 1559. De anima liber primus. Translated by Girolamo Donato. In Alexander of Aphrodisias. Quaestiones naturales et morales . . . De anima liber primus . . . De anima liber secundus, 71102. Venice: Octavianus Scotus.Google Scholar
Alexander of Aphrodisias. 2008. De l’âme. Edited and translated by Bergeron, M. and Dufour, R.. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Arnaldus of Villanova. 1585. Opera Omnia. Cum Nicolai Taurelli Medici & Philosophi in quosdam libros annotationes. Basel: Conrad Waldkirch.Google Scholar
Baier, Johann Jacob. 1728. Biographiae professorum medicinae qui in Academia Altorfiana unquam vixerunt. Nürnberg and Altdorf: Tauber.Google Scholar
Bayle, Pierre. 1730. Dictionnaire historique et critique. Amsterdam: Brunel.Google Scholar
Bernhard, Reinhard. 2008. Was heißt ‘Handeln Gottes’? Eine Rekonstruktion der Lehre von der Vorsehung. Zürich and Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2009. “Existential Dependence and the Question of Emanative Causation in Protestant Metaphysics, 1570–1620.” Intellectual History Review 19:113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovillus, Carolus. [1509] 1510. “Libellus de Nihilo.” In Bovillus, Carolus, Liber de intellectu. Liber de sensu. Liber de nichilo . . ., fol. 63v-74r. Paris: Stephanus.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1927] 2013. Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Caston, Victor. 1997. “Epiphenomenalisms, Ancient and Modern.” Philosophical Review 106:309363.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew. 2001. “Protestant Anatomy.” In Religious Confessions and the Sciences in the Sixteenth Century. Edited by Helm, J. and Winkelmann, A., 4450. Leiden, Boston and Köln: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haas, Frans A. J. 1997. John Philoponus’ New Definition of Prime Matter. Aspects of its Background in Neoplatonism and the Ancient Commentary Tradition. Leiden, New York and Cologne: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Emerton, Norma. 1984. The Scientific Reinterpretation of Form. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuerlein, Jacob Wilhelm. 1734. Taurellus Defensus. Nürnberg: Adam Schmid.Google Scholar
Frank, Günter. 2003. Die Vernunft des Gottesgedankens. Religionsphilosophische Studien zur frühen Neuzeit. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Galenus, Claudius. 1553. In Hippocratis De natura hominis commentarius. Translated by Andernacus, I. G.. Lyon: Guilielmus Rovillus.Google Scholar
Gorlaeus, David. 1620. Exercitationes philosophicae. [no place]: Comelinus.Google Scholar
Gregory, Tullio. 1966. “Studi sull’atomismo del seicento.” Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana 45:4463.Google Scholar
Harrison, Peter. 1998. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hattab, Helen. 2009. Descartes on Forms and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirai, Hiro. 2007. “The Invisible Hand of God in Seeds: Jacob Schegk's Theory of Plastic Faculty.” Early Science and Medicine 12:377404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 1995. The Transformation of Natural Philosophy: The Case of Philip Melanchthon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 1997. “Vinculum concordiae: Lutheran Method by Philip Melanchthon.” In Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition, edited by Di Liscia, D. A., Kessler, E., and Methuen, C., 337354. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 1999. “Lutheran Uses of Aristotle: A Comparison between Jacob Schegk and Philip Melanchthon.” In Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Conversations with Aristotle, edited by Blackwell, C. and Kusukawa, S., 169188. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lasswitz, Kurd. 1890. Geschichte der Atomistik vom Mittelalter bis Newton. 2 vols. Hamburg and Leipzig: Voss.Google Scholar
Leinsle, Ulrich Gottfried. 1985. Das Ding und die Methode. Methodische Konstitution und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik. 2 vols. Augsburg: Maro Verlag.Google Scholar
Lüthy, Christoph. 2001. “David Gorlaeus’ Atomism, or: The Marriage of Protestant Metaphysics with Italian Natural Philosophy.” In Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, edited by Lüthy, C., Murdoch, J. E., and Newman, W. R., 245290. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Lüthy, Christoph. 2012. David Gorlaeus (1591–1612): An Enigmatic Figure in the History of Philosophy and Science. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Margolin, Jean-Claude. 1986. “La function de modèle dans la pensée créatrice de Bovelles.” In Le modèle à la Renaissance, edited by Balavoine, C., Lafond, J. and Laurens, P., 5175. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Mayer, H. C. 1959. Nikolaus Taurellus, der erste Philosoph im Luthertum. Ein Beitrag zum Problem von Vernunft und Offenbarung. Dissertation, University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Mayer, H. C. 1960. “Ein Altdorfer Philosophenporträt.” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte 29:75190.Google Scholar
Melanchthon, Philip. [1549] 1555. Initia Doctrinae Physicae. Wittenberg: Johannes Lufft.Google Scholar
Methuen, Charlotte. 1998. Kepler's Tübingen. Stimulus to a Theological Mathematics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Methuen, Charlotte. 2008. “On the Problem of Defining Lutheran Natural Philosophy.” In Science and Theology in the Reformation. Studies in Theological Interpretation and Astronomical Observation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, edited by Methuen, Charlotte, 94111. Aldershot: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Newman, William Royal. 2006. Atoms and Alchemy. Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nutton, Vivian. 1993. “Wittenberg Anatomy.” In Medicine and the Reformation. Edited by Grell, O. P. and Cunningham, A., 1132. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pico della Mirandola, Gianfranceso. [1520] 1573. Examen vanitatis doctrinae Gentium, & veritatis Christianae disciplinae. In Opera Omnia, vol. 2, edited by Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni and Pico della Mirandola, Gianfrancesco, 7101264. Basel: Henricpetri.Google Scholar
Petersen, Peter. 1921. Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutschland. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Philoponus, Johannes. 1554. Physicorum, hoc est, De naturali auscultatione primi quatuor Aristotelis libri, cum Ioannis Grammatici cognomento Philoponi eruditissimis commentariis. Translated by Dorotheus, Guilelmus. Venice: Octavianus Scotus.Google Scholar
Philoponus, Johannes. 1888. In Aristotelis Physicorum libri quinque posteriores commentaria, edited by Vitelli, H.. Berlin: Georg Reimer.Google Scholar
Schegk, Jacob. 1540. De causa continente. Eodem interprete Alexandri Aphrodisaei De mixtione libellus. Tübingen: Ulrich Morhard.Google Scholar
Schegk, Jacob. 1570. Jacobi Schegkii Schorndorffensis Hyperaspistes Responsi, ad quatuor epistolas Petri Rami contra se aeditas. Tübingen [no publisher].Google Scholar
Schegk, Jacob. 1580. De plastica seminis facultate. Augsburg: Bernardus Iobinus.Google Scholar
Schegk, Jacob. 1585. Tractationum physicarum et medicarum tomus unus. Frankfurt: Johannes Wechel.Google Scholar
Schmid, Xaver. 1860. Nikolaus Taurellus, der erste deutsche Philosoph. Erlangen: Bläsing.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Charles B. 1967. Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (1469–1533) and his Critique of Aristotle. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriver, Frederick. 1970. “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy: James I and the Vorstius Affair.” English Historical Review 336:449474.Google Scholar
Taurellus, Nicolaus. [1573] 2012. Philosophiae triumphus, hoc est, Metaphysica philosophandi methodus [cited as PT]. Edited and translated by Wels, Henrik. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Taurellus, Nicolaus. 1597. Alpes caesae, Hoc est, Andreae Caesalpini Itali, monstrosa & superba dogmata, discussa & excussa. Frankfurt: Palthenius.Google Scholar
Taurellus, Nicolaus. 1603. Kosmologia, hoc est physicarum et metaphysicarum discussionum de mundo. Amberg: Clain.Google Scholar
Taurellus, Nicolaus. 1604. De rerum aeternitate. Marburg: Egenolph.Google Scholar
Todd, Robert B. 1976. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A Study of the De Mixtione with preliminary essays, text, translation, and commentary. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Voetius, Gisbert. 1643. Testimonium Academiae Ultrajectinae et narratio historica quae defensae, quae exterminatae novae philosophiae. Utrecht: Strickius.Google Scholar
Vorstius, Conrad. 1610. Tractatus theologicus de Deo, sive de natura & attributa Dei. Steinfurt: Theophilus Caesar.Google Scholar
Vorstius, Conrad. 1611. Christiana & modesta responsio ad articulos quosdam, nuper ex Anglia transmissos. Leiden: Thomas Basson.Google Scholar
White Beck, Louis. 1969. Early German Philosophy. Kant and His Predecessors. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wollgast, Siegfried. 1988. Philosophie in Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung, 1550–1650. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Zedler, H. H. 1732–1754. Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, 68 vols. Leipzig and Halle: Zedler.Google Scholar