The Forgotten Seicento: Thinkers of the 1600s You Can't Read

The seventeenth century was the age of the Scientific Revolution. Descartes, Kepler, Harvey, Boyle—names we know. But behind them stood hundreds of Latin scholars whose works shaped the new science—and remain untranslated.

The Century in Numbers

The USTC records 1.18 million works printed in the 1600s. Of these,324,690 were in Latin—still the language of science, medicine, and philosophy across Europe. Even as vernacular publishing grew, Latin remained the international medium for serious scholarly work.

We analyzed 12,000+ Latin works in philosophy, science, mathematics, and medicine from this period. The results reveal a rich intellectual landscape largely invisible to modern readers.

The Untranslated Seicento

Here are 20 important 17th-century thinkers whose Latin work remains largely inaccessible:

Key Figures in Detail

Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680)

The “last man who knew everything.” Kircher was a Jesuit polymath whose 40+ books covered magnetism, geology, Egyptology (he attempted to decipher hieroglyphics), music theory, optics, Chinese studies, and the underground world. His Mundus Subterraneus(1665) was a landmark in geology. His Musurgia Universalis (1650) theorized the physics of sound. His Oedipus Aegyptiacus (1652-54) was the first major European study of hieroglyphics (largely wrong, but foundational). 113 editions in the USTC; almost nothing translated into English.

Daniel Sennert (1572-1637)

Professor of medicine at Wittenberg who pioneered the atomic theory of matter in chemistry. His De chymicorum cum Aristotelicis et Galenicis consensu ac dissensu (1619) attempted to reconcile Paracelsian chemistry with Aristotelian natural philosophy. Robert Boyle read and cited him extensively. 101 Latin works on medicine, chemistry, and natural philosophy—fundamental to understanding the transition from alchemy to chemistry. No modern translations.

Johann Weyer (1515-1588)

Court physician who wrote the first major critique of the witch trials. HisDe praestigiis daemonum (1563) argued that accused witches were mentally ill, not possessed—an early work of psychiatric thinking. He catalogued demons not to encourage belief but to show the absurdity of demonological claims. 137 editions across Latin, German, and French. The Latin originals remain untranslated, though they're crucial for understanding early modern attitudes toward mental illness and witch persecution.

Fortunio Liceti (1577-1657)

Paduan philosopher who wrote on everything from the origin of the soul to phosphorescent stones. His Litheosphorus (1640) was the first scientific study of the Bologna Stone—a phosphorescent mineral that fascinated 17th-century natural philosophers. His De monstris (1616) was a foundational work in teratology (the study of abnormalities). A key figure in late Aristotelianism who engaged with Galileo. 27 Latin works in philosophy and science; almost entirely untranslated.

Kaspar Schott (1608-1666)

Kircher's student and intellectual heir, who systematized and extended his teacher's work. His Magia Universalis Naturae et Artis (1657-59) was an encyclopedia of natural wonders and mechanical devices. His Mechanica Hydraulico-Pneumatica(1657) documented Otto von Guericke's air pump experiments—crucial for the history of experimental physics. 32 works on mathematics, mechanics, and natural philosophy. Virtually nothing in English.

Rudolph Goclenius (1547-1628)

The man who coined the word “psychology” (Psychologia, 1590). Professor at Marburg who wrote on logic, medicine, ethics, and natural philosophy. His philosophical lexicons and textbooks were used across Protestant Germany. 70 Latin works spanning philosophy, medicine, and what we'd now call psychology. The originator of a discipline's name—yet his works remain untranslated.

The Scientific Revolution's Latin Infrastructure

We know the Scientific Revolution through its translated heroes: Galileo, Descartes, Newton. But the revolution was conducted largely in Latin, through networks of correspondence and publication that we've barely begun to explore:

• University disputations — Thousands of Latin theses debating the new natural philosophy against Aristotelianism
• Scientific correspondence — Scholars communicated in Latin across linguistic boundaries
• Textbooks and compendia — Works like Burgersdijk's that taught the next generation
• Medical literature — Case studies, anatomical observations, pharmaceutical recipes
• Natural history — Descriptions of specimens, travel accounts, botanical observations

Even famous figures have large untranslated corpora. Descartes wrote 107 Latin works (many are translations of French originals, but many aren't). Kepler wrote 55. Robert Boyle wrote 96 Latin works—many distinct from his English publications.

The Problem of “Secondary” Figures

The history of science often focuses on revolutionary moments—Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. But science is also made by normal science: the textbooks that train students, the compendia that organize knowledge, the disputations that test ideas.

Figures like Franco Burgersdijk (53 works) wrote the logic textbooks used across Protestant Europe. Johann Magirus (30 works) wrote the physics textbooks. Christoph Scheibler (29 works) wrote the metaphysics. These weren't original geniuses—they were systematizers and educators. But they shaped how an entire generation understood natural philosophy.

Without their works, we see the Scientific Revolution as a series of isolated breakthroughs rather than what it was: a gradual transformation of how Europeans thought about nature, conducted through Latin texts we've never read.

Medicine in Latin

Medical literature was overwhelmingly Latin in the 1600s. The USTC records thousands of Latin medical texts from this period:

• Thomas Willis (82 works) — Foundational neuroanatomy, coined “neurology”
• Lazare Rivière (48 works) — Clinical observations and treatments
• Jean Fernel (48 works) — “Father of physiology,” continued influence
• Girolamo Mercuriale (37 works) — Sports medicine, dermatology
• Pieter van Foreest (50 works) — “Dutch Hippocrates,” case studies

William Harvey's De motu cordis (1628) is famous and translated. But Harvey wrote 24 Latin works. The medical context in which he worked—the texts he cited, the authorities he challenged, the responses he provoked—remains largely inaccessible.

The Esoteric Tradition

The 17th century saw a flourishing of Hermetic, alchemical, and Rosicrucian literature in Latin:

• Robert Fludd (20 works) — Rosicrucian cosmology, music of the spheres
• Johann Glauber (51 works) — Practical alchemy, pharmaceutical chemistry
• Oswald Croll (18 works) — Paracelsian medicine and alchemy
• Michael Maier — Alchemical emblems and philosophy

This literature wasn't “pseudoscience” separate from real science—it was part of the same conversation. Newton read alchemical texts. Boyle practiced alchemy. The boundary between chemistry and alchemy, between natural philosophy and natural magic, was not yet drawn. Understanding the Scientific Revolution requires reading texts we've dismissed as merely esoteric.

What's at Stake

The 17th century created modern science. But we've read only fragments of its literature—the famous names, the revolutionary texts, the works that happened to be translated.

The Latin infrastructure of the Scientific Revolution—the textbooks, disputations, encyclopedias, medical observations, and philosophical debates—remains locked away. 324,690 Latin works from this century alone. How many have been translated? A tiny fraction.

The 1600s are not ancient history. They're the foundation of our world. And that foundation is written in a language most can no longer read.