Early Modern Disputations and Dissertations in an Interdisciplinary and European Context 9004436197, 9789004436190

Citation preview

Early Modern Disputations and Dissertations in an Interdisciplinary and European Context

Intersections Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture

General Editor Karl A.E. Enenkel (Chair of Medieval and Neo-Latin Literature Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster e-mail: kenen_01@uni_muenster.de) Editorial Board W. van Anrooij (University of Leiden) W. de Boer (Miami University) Chr. Göttler (University of Bern) J.L. de Jong (University of Groningen) W.S. Melion (Emory University) R. Seidel (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main) P.J. Smith (University of Leiden) J. Thompson (Queen’s University Belfast) A. Traninger (Freie Universität Berlin) C. Zittel (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice / University of Stuttgart) C. Zwierlein (Freie Universität Berlin)

volume 71 – 2021

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/inte

Early Modern Disputations and Dissertations in an Interdisciplinary and European Context Edited by

Meelis Friedenthal Hanspeter Marti Robert Seidel

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustrations: Details from two figures from Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke’s Chapter 3. The center image shows a detail from Fig. 3.4 (Cesare Bassano based on a drawing by Guido Reni, Jupiter slays the giants. Thesis broadsheet, used for Carlo Mottini’s disputation at the Brera College in Milan in 1644; see for more information pages IX and 82), the background image is a detail from Fig. 3.3 (Francesco Villamena, King Henry IV defeats the vices. Thesis broadsheet for the disputation of Roberto Fedele at the Jesuit college in Rome 1606; see pages IX and 80). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Friedenthal, Meelis, 1973– editor of compilation. | Marti, Hanspeter,  editor of compilation. | Seidel, Robert, editor of compilation. Title: Early modern disputations and dissertations in an interdisciplinary and  European context / edited by Meelis Friedenthal, Hanspeter Marti,  Robert Seidel. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2021] | Series: Intersections :  interdisciplinary studies in early modern culture, 1568–1181 ; volume 71  | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020027243 | ISBN 9789004436190 (hardback) |  ISBN 9789004436206 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Academic disputations—Europe—History. | Learning and  scholarship—Europe—History. | Religious disputations—Europe—History.  | Debates and debating—Europe—History. | Scholasticism—Europe—History. Classification: LCC PN4023 .E37 2021 | DDC 808.53—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020027243

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1568-1181 isbn 978-90-04-43619-0 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-43620-6 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Figures, Graphs and Tables ix Notes on the Editors xiv Notes on the Contributors xvi 1 Introduction 1 Meelis Friedenthal, Hanspeter Marti and Robert Seidel 2

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation: Early Leibniz and Disputation Handbooks 34 Donald Felipe

3

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes: Programm, Plakat und Memorialbild 65 Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke

part 1 Britain 4

In Search of the Truth: Mid-Sixteenth Century Disputations on the Eucharist in England 105 Lucy R. Nicholas

5

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford 145 Tommi Alho

6

Singing the Study of Sound: Literary Engagement with Natural Philosophy in the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge 164 William M. Barton

part 2 France 7

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France 191 Laurence Brockliss

vi 8

Contents

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska 207 Véronique Meyer

part 3 Germany, Austria and Switzerland 9

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy: Johannes Regiomontanus’s “An Terra Moveatur An Quiescat” 233 Alberto Bardi and Pietro Daniel Omodeo

10

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600 255 Ulrich Schlegelmilch

11

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg 288 Sabine Schlegelmilch

12

On the Early Reception of John Brown’s Medical Theory on the Example of Doctoral Dissertations Defended in Jena in 1794–1795 312 Arvo Tering

13

Learned Artisans and Merchants in Early Eighteenth-Century Latin Dissertations 340 Sari Kivistö

14

David Pareus’s Collected Disputations as a Theological Commonplace Book: Disputation as a Medium of Basic Dogmatics and Religious Controversy 364 Gábor Förköli

15

The Good Arts, the Bad Arts, and Nature According to Georg Stengel (1584–1651) 397 Joseph S. Freedman

16

Progress or Conservatism? Eighteenth-Century Disputations and Dissertations at the University of Innsbruck between (Catholic) Enlightenment and Josephinism 423 Isabella Walser-Bürgler

Contents

vii

17

Bismi ’llāhi … Three Dissertations by Johann Michael Lange on Editions and Translations of the Koran 451 Reinhold F. Glei

18

Being Entitled to Dispute: On Disputations in Duisburg in the Second Half of the 17th Century 478 Jan-Hendryk de Boer

19

Forms of Disputation and Didactics: Examples from Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools in the 17th and Early 18th Century 510 Stephanie Hellekamps and Hans-Ulrich Musolff

20 Tradition, Synthesis, and Innovation: An Early Eighteenth-Century Dissertation on Dialects Presented in Wittenberg 536 Raf Van Rooy 21 The Programma in Relation to Disputations/Dissertations at the Faculty of Law of Leipzig University around 1750 555 Annamaria Lesigang-Bruckmüller 22

Who Needs Albertina Dissertations in Russia? Königsberg Dissertations from the Early Modern Age in the Russian State Library (Moscow) 577 Daria Barow-Vassilevitch

23

Form, Function and Publication of the Zurich Dissertations before the Founding of the University (1833) 600 Urs B. Leu

part 4 Scandinavia and the Baltics 24 Ramism, Metaphysics and Pneumatology in the Swedish Universities of the First Half of the 17th Century 625 Meelis Friedenthal 25

Corollaries and Dissertations 649 Bo Lindberg

viii

Contents

26 Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations 681 Peter Sjökvist 27

Disputing and Writing Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius’ Περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς (Uppsala, 1658) 703 Tua Korhonen

28 Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities and Academic Gymnasia in the 17th and Early 18th Century 728 Janika Päll 29 Translation in University Dissertations: A Study of Swedish (and Finnish) Dissertations of the 19th Century and Earlier 779 Johanna Akujärvi 30 Johann Brever and Herodotus’ Histories in the Disputations of the Riga Academic Gymnasium 814 Kaarina Rein 31

‘Monstrum Rationis Status’: Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University 1743–1747 834 Andreas Hellerstedt

32

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature in Swedish University Disputations 857 Bernd Roling

33

Disputations and Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium 878 Axel Hörstedt Index Nominum 893

Figures, Graphs and Tables 1.1

Figures

Title page of the book catalogue of a Göttingen dissertation dealer. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen: 8 HLL XII, 2372:1 19 1.2 Title page of a dissertation defended under the chairmanship of a Franciscan in Fulda and Limburg. Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda: 100 Fuld 58/30 20 1.3 Title page of a dissertation defended during the Loitz synod. Universitätsbibliothek Greifswald: 536/Disp.theol. 36,12 22 1.4 Title page of a mock-dissertation with fictitious names and place names. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München: 4 Diss. 3109,16 25 3.1 Johann Daniel Herz, Thesenblatt mit fiktiver Szenerie einer feierlichen Disputation in Gegenwart Kaiser Karls IV. in Prag, verwendet für eine Disputation im Kloster Kremsmünster (Österreich) 1745. Kupferstich (5 Platten), 104,6 × 87,1 cm. Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek (12 PD 085). Image © Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 74 3.2 Francesco Villamena, Allegorie des Abendmahls. Thesenblatt für Daniel Niger O.F.M., verwendet für seine Disputation in der Kirche des Minoritenkonvents in Rom 1598. Kupferstich. Wien, Albertina (HB 07,01, fol. 169,801). Image © Albertina Wien 77 3.3 Francesco Villamena, König Heinrich IV. vernichtet die Laster. Thesenblatt, verwendet für die Disputation von Roberto Fedele am Jesuitenkolleg in Rom 1606. Kupferstich in zwei Platten, ganzes Blatt 114 × 87 cm. Wien, Albertina (HB 022,02, fol. 030,284 und 031,285). Image © Albertina Wien 80 3.4 Cesare Bassano nach einer Zeichnung von Guido Reni, Jupiter erschlägt die Giganten. Thesenblatt für die Disputation von Carlo Mottini am Brera-Kolleg in Mailand 1644. Kupferstich, 99,5 × 56,5 cm. Mailand, Castello Sforzesco, Raccolta A. Bertarelli, Scan aus: Bora G., „Tesi“, in Alberici C. et al. (Hg.), Il Seicento lombardo, vol. 3: Catalogo di dipinti, libri stampe, Ausstellungskatalog Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milano: 1973) 73f., Nr. 255 82 3.5 Gilles Rousselet und Robert Nanteuil nach Charles le Brun, Ludwig XIV. steuert das Schiff seines Reiches. Thesenblatt für die Disputation von Abbé Charles Amelot bam Collège d’Harcourt in Paris 1663. Kupferstich, 63,7 × 47,5 cm. Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Scan aus: Meyer, L’illustration fig. 1 84

x

Figures, Graphs and Tables

3.6 Bartholomäus Kilian nach Karel Škréta, Kaiser Leopold I. als Apollo. Thesenblatt für die Brüder Sternberg, verwendet für ihre Disputation am Jesuitenkolleg Clementinum in Prag 1661. Kupferstich (4 Platten), 129,8 × 89 cm. Prag, Nationalbibliothek Klementinum, teze 428. Image © Klementinum v Praze 87 3.7 Bartholomäus Kilian nach Johann Christoph Storer, Allegorie auf die Tätigkeiten der Gesellschaft Jesu, gewidmet dem Generaloberen Gian Paolo Oliva, Rom. Erste Ausgabe, verwendet für die Disputation von Johann Andreas Feigenbuz an der Universität Dillingen an der Donau 1664. Kupferstich, 91,9 × 64,4 cm (zwei Platten). Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek (Kilian B. 16). Image © Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 90 3.8 Bartholomäus Kilian nach Johann Christoph Storer, Allegorie auf die Tätigkeiten der Gesellschaft Jesu, gewidmet dem Heiligen Ignatius von Loyola. Ausgabe verwendet für die Disputation von Jacob Schaubinger an der Universität Freiburg im Breisgau 1672. Kupferstich, 91,9 × 64,4 cm (zwei Platten) mit gedruckten Texten. Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg (II, 243, 300). Image © Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg 91 3.9 Christian Rugendas nach einem Gemälde von Cornelis Schut, Maria umringt von musizierenden Engeln. Thesenblatt ohne Text. Mezzotinto, 87,3 × 61,5 cm. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek (GM 56/51). Image © Staatsbibliothek Bamberg 94 3.10 Johann Daniel Herz, Disputation der heiligen Katharina von Alexandrien. Thesenblatt, verwendet für die Disputation von Eberhard Laudensack an der Universität Würzburg 1747. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek (GM 54/5). Image © Staatsbibliothek Bamberg 95 8.1 Thèse de Savary de Brèves dédiée à Marie Leczinska en 1729. Portrait par Laurent Cars d’après Jean-Baptiste Van Loo, bas de thèse édité par Jean-François Cars, burin et eau-forte, portrait H. 453 × L. 376; bas H. 512 × L. 587; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Estampes, AA6 Cars. Photo de Véronique Meyer 213 8.2 Page du livret de l’Ode offerte à la reine en 1729, à l’occasion de la thèse par Philippe Le Roux, BnF, Tolbiac, Yc-3463 216 8.3 Page de titre de la Relation de ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de théologie dédiée à la Reine, Arles, 1730 (Fonds Méjanes, Aix-en Provence, C. 3295, 10) 218 8.4 Page de titre du Concert à l’honneur de la Reine, Arles, 1730 (Arles, Bibliothèque municipale, A-27.982) 222 8.5 Portrait de Marie Leczinska par Laurent Cars d’après Jean-Baptiste Van Loo, avec dédicace du père Gélase Mottet pour la thèse du père Didier, Arles, 1730; H. 483 × L. 387 (Fonds Méjanes, Aix-en Provence, Portr. 1) 224 12.1 Title page of the doctoral dissertation of Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese, De virtutibus opii medicinalibus secundum Brunonis systema dubiis et male fundatis (Diss. 12965, University of Tartu Library) 327

Figures, Graphs and Tables

xi

12.2 Title page of the doctoral dissertation of John Fredric Latrobe, Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Brunoniani systematis criticen (Diss. 1795, University Library of Jena) 332 15.1 Title page of Stengel’s De bonis artibus in genere (1616) [copy in Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: 4 Diss. 3558,30] 399 17.1 Basmala (Lange III) 455 17.2 Paganini Koran, Surah 18 459 22.1 Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Jeschke Dissertatio historica lat.-IV 4°. Endpaper (recto): Sheremetev’s ex libris (copperplate engraver Viktor Bobrov, 1842–1918) and former owner’s notes 590 22.2 Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Jeschke Dissertatio historica lat.-IV 4°. Endpaper (verso): Sergeĭ Sheremetev’s bookplate designed by Elizaveta Bëm (1843–1914) 591 22.3 Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Mithob De controversiis Suecopolonicis lat.-IV 4°. Title page of the 5th bound issue with a dedication to August Ludwig Schlözer by the author, Johann Philipp Gustav von Ewers 594 23.1 Disputation after the synod against the Anabaptists. Caspar Waser, Orthodidascalia de binis quaestionibus […] (Zurich, Johann Hardmeyer: 1614) (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, shelf mark: 6.12233) 606 23.2 Raphael Egli, Theses XII, de sacrae scripturae plenitudine […] (Zurich, Johann Wolf: 1593) (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, shelf mark: 6.1226) 614 25.1 Corollaria from one of Johannes Schefferus’ dissertations on style (De stylo, 1652, resp. J. Alin). They follow immediately after the text of the dissertation but do not relate to its contents 663 26.1 Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), A1v. Photo: Uppsala University Library 683 26.2 Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), A2r. Photo: Uppsala University Library 684 26.3 Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), A2v. Photo: Uppsala University Library 685 26.4 Dedication by Olaus Petri Niurenius in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Niurenius Olaus Petri (Resp.), Problemata aliquot physica (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1605), A1v. Photo: Uppsala University Library 692

xii

Figures, Graphs and Tables

26.5 Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), A1v. Photo: Uppsala University Library 694 26.6 Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), A2r. Photo: Uppsala University Library 695 26.7 Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), A2v. Photo: Uppsala University Library 696 27.1 Aurivillius Petrus, Περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς, 1658, [27]. A manuscript of the dissertation on virtue supervised by Henricus Ausius and responded (and most probably written) by Petrus Aurivillius. Uppsala University Library, MS R 24, Manuscripta aliquot. The manuscript is digitalised in the Swedish database ALVIN, http://www.alvin-portal.org > Aurivillius, p. 69 716 28.1 Greek disputations in 1604–1725. I. Greek Disputation according to extant prints (separate and in series). II. Other information about disputations in Greek (including extant disputation manuscripts, disputations partially in Greek and information about manuscripts or prints) 730 28.2 The title page of the disputation by Johann(es) Siglicius, […] Peri kriseōn: authoritate Nobilissimor. Basileensium Medicor. tota Europa inclytorum […] Basileae Rauracorum: imprimebat Iohannes Schroeter, ineunte mense Septembri vertentis anni 1604. Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Diss 17:21, https://doi. org/10.3931/e-rara-18270, Public Domain Mark (CC) 732 28.3 Dissemination of disputing in Greek: from respondens (R.) to praeses (P.). Direct lines from Halle to Västerås and from Tartu to Västerås, probably also from Västerås to Tartu (Johannes Gezelius had studied in Västerås in 1626–1637, and E. Holstenius was the nephew of G. Holstenius) 750 30.1 Brever – Burghausen, Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios, juxta Herod. l. III f., 1653; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 881 (17 cm) 821 30.2 Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de Beato Viro, ex. l. 1. Herod., 1653; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 915 (17 cm) 825 30.3 Brever – Struborg, Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, juxta Herod: l. VII. pr., 1654; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 947 (18 cm) 827

Figures, Graphs and Tables

xiii

30.4 Brever – Dunte, Imperium Smerdis Magi, juxta Herodot. l. III., 1654; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 892 (17 cm) 830



Graphs

23.1 Numbers of titles and Theses in Zurich (17th century) 615 23.2 Numbers of printed Theses per year 615 23.3 Numbers of students and printed Theses 616 23.4 Price per page with mathematical trend line (currency: Haller) 617 23.5 Prices and wages with mathematical trend lines (currency: Schilling) 618

29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4

Tables Chronological distribution 1790–1899 per decade 782 Dissertation translations per source text 784 Dissertation translations from each university 785 The translating professors 787

Notes on the Editors Meelis Friedenthal is a Pro Futura Scientia fellow at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study and also Senior Research Fellow at the Chair of Intellectual History of the University of Tartu and in University of Tartu Library. Friedenthal has worked mostly with early modern university disputations, from 2010 to 2013 Friedenthal led a project aiming to describe paper and watermarks of the seventeenthcentury Tartu University printshop. From 2014 to 2015, Friedenthal was a Fellow at the Lichtenberg-Kolleg, Göttingen, with the research focus on the concept of tolerance in early modern German university disputations. In 2018– 2019 Friedenthal was a visiting fellow in Max-Weber-Kolleg in Erfurt, Germany working with university disputations concerning pneumatology. His publications include a monograph Tallinna Linnaarhiivi Tractatus moralis de oculo (2008); co-edited volumes On the History of Religion and Atheism in Estonia (2012, with Atko Remmel) and Text and its materialities in early modern Estonia (2014, with Anu Lepp). He is also a coauthor of the database of early Estonian printings (paber.ut.ee). Hanspeter Marti is head of the Arbeitsstelle für kulturwissenschaftliche Forschungen in Engi (canton Glarus, Switzerland), which deals with the history of the universities in German-speaking countries, in particular the early modern disputation system, and the history of the monasteries in German-speaking Switzerland. International conferences were organized at the research center and the results of these meetings have been published. On the website of the Arbeitsstelle https://forschungen-engi.ch/projekte/projekte.htm you can consult the databases of Königsberg dissertations from the beginnings up to 1905, dissertations from the early modern Danzig Gymnasium and a directory of students from the University of Königsberg 1829–1921. The research center also focuses on radical Pietism (Gottfried Arnold) and the history of early modern periodicals and libraries. Marti’s main book publications are Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660–1750. Eine Auswahlbibliographie (1982), Index der deutsch- und lateinsprachigen Schweizer Zeitschriften von den Anfängen bis 1750, with Emil Erne (1998), Klosterkultur und Aufklärung in der Fürstabtei St. Gallen (2003), Die Universität Leipzig und ihr gelehrtes Umfeld 1680–1780, ed. with Detlef Döring (2004), Die Universität Königsberg in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. with Manfred Komorowski (2008), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, ed. with

Notes on the Editors

xv

Karin Marti-Weissenbach (2012), Kulturaustausch. Baltisches Echo auf Gelehrte in der Schweiz und in Deutschland, ed. with Ursula Caflisch-Schnetzler and Karin Marti-Weissenbach (2014), Nürnbergs Hochschule in Altdorf. Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschafts- und Bildungsgeschichte, ed. with Karin Marti-Weissenbach (2014), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens, ed. with Marion Gindhart and Robert Seidel (2016), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800, with Reimund B. Sdzuj and Robert Seidel (2017), Die Universität Straßburg zwischen Späthumanismus und Französischer Revolution, ed. with Robert Seidel (2018). Marti contributed to the Handbuch der historischen Buchbestände in der Schweiz (2011), the Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS) (2002–2014) and other encyclopedias. Collected articles: Gottfried Arnold. Radikaler Pietist und Gelehrter, ed. Antje Mißfeldt (2011). Robert Seidel is Professor of German literature at the University of Frankfurt on the Main (Germany). His research interests are focused on Neo-Latin literature and on the history of early modern scholarship. He is currently leading a research project The correspondence of Nicodemus Frischlin (1547–1590). Edition and commentary. His main book publications are Späthumanismus in Schlesien. Caspar Dornau (1577–1631). Leben und Werk (1994), Literarische Kommunikation im Territorialstaat. Funktionszusammenhänge des Literaturbetriebs in HessenDarmstadt zur Zeit der Spätaufklärung (2003). He co-edited Humanistische Lyrik des 16. Jahrhunderts (1997), Jacob Balde SJ: Urania Victrix. Die siegreiche Urania (1663). Liber I–II (2003), Martin Opitz: Lateinische Werke (3 vols., 2011–2015), and several collected volumes, among others Lateinische Lyrik der Frühen Neuzeit. Poetische Kleinformen und ihre Funktionen zwischen Renaissance und Aufklärung (2003), ‘parodia’ und Parodie. Aspekte intertextuellen Schreibens in der lateinischen Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit (2006), Das lateinische Drama der Frühen Neuzeit. Exemplarische Einsichten in Praxis und Theorie (2008), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur (2012), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (2016), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen aus Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (2016). Seidel is also co-editor of Frühe Neuzeit in Deutschland 1620–1720. Literaturwissenschaftliches Verfasserlexikon (8 vols., 2018–).

Notes on the Contributors Johanna Akujärvi is an Associate Professor of Greek and a Research Fellow at the Centre of Languages and Literature in the University of Lund, Sweden. Her research interests include Pausanias the perieget in particular, Greek literature of the Roman Empire, narratology, the classical tradition, especially in the context of teaching and university, the history of translation of classical literature in Sweden, and Humanist Greek in the Baltic Sea area. She is currently working on Swedish translations of Greek drama, and is involved in creating an open access database of Humanist Greek texts from the former Swedish Empire. Her publications include Retoriken: Aristoteles (2012); Researcher, Traveller, Narrator: Studies in Pausanias’ Periegesis (2005); co-edited volumes Gender and Translation. Understanding Agents in Transnational Reception (2018) and For particular reasons: studies in honour of Jerker Blomqvist (2003). Tommi Alho is a member of the English Department of Åbo Akademi University, Finland. His research focuses on historical linguistics, early modern rhetoric, and Neo-Latin Literature. He has recently finished his PhD on classical education in Restoration grammar schools. He is the co-editor (with J. Finch and R.D. Sell) of Renaissance Man: Essays on Literature and Culture for Anthony W. Johnson (2019). Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke is a German art historian in Munich. She received her PhD in 1983 at the University of Freiburg. From 1987 to 1991, she held scholarships in Italy while preparing her habilitation at Erlangen-Nuremberg (1996). Since 1991, she has held teaching positions at the Universities of Marburg, Augsburg, Passau, Erlangen and Cracow. From 1992 to 2018, she was a member of the scientific staff at the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte in Munich and the co-editor of Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, and, from 2003 to 2005, the coeditor of entries on art in Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. From 2004 until 2018, she was assistant professor of art history at the University of Erlangen. Her publications mostly focus on two fields: Baroque iconography and cultural history as well as the architecture of the 19th and early 20th century. Her main publications in the first area are Das Thesenblatt im Hochbarock (1988), and Visuelle Medien im Dienst der Gesellschaft Jesu. Johann Christoph Storer (1620–1671) als Maler der Katholischen Reform (2000).

Notes on the Contributors

xvii

Alberto Bardi is postdoctoral researcher (Polonsky fellow) at The Polonsky Academy of Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. His areas of expertise are Byzantine Studies and the history of science. His book Persische Astronomie in Byzanz: Ein Beitrag zur Byzantinistik und zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte is in print for the series Münchner Arbeiten zur Byzantinistik. Daria Barow-Vassilevitch studied at the Lomonosov State University (Moscow) and at the Free University of Berlin, where she earned her PhD with ‘Ich schwime in der gotheit als ein adeler in dem lufft!’ Heiligkeitsmuster in der Vitenliteratur des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts (2005). She is the author of Elisabeth von Thüringen. Heilige, Minnekönigin, Rebellin (2007), Die heilige Herzogin. Das Leben der Hedwig von Schlesien (2007) and Abendländische Handschriften des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit in den Beständen der Russischen Staatsbibliothek (Moskau) in German (2016) and Russian (together with M.-L. Heckmann, 2017). Barow’s research interests gradually shifted to the library and book history as well as to the university history of the Early Modern Age, especially Königsberg topics. Currently, she works at Berlin State Library, Manuscript department, in the project „Handschriftenportal“. William M. Barton is a Key Researcher at the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Neo-Latin Studies, Innsbruck. His previous work has focused predominantly on the representation of the natural world in early modern Latin literature. Here, changes in cultural attitude towards the mountain, the literary description of landscape, and the depiction of natural environments in the ‘New World’ count among his chief research interests. His Mountain Aesthetics in Early Modern Latin Literature (2016) belongs to the principal results of his work in the field. In his latest project, begun in 2018, he is studying the role of Latin literary production at the early modern university in the contemporary development of natural philosophy and the ‘New Science’. Jan-Hendryk de Boer is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Duisburg-Essen. His research interests are medieval and early modern intellectual history, history of the universities, humanism and scholasticism. Currently he is working on a book about the Avignon papacy. He has published two books on humanism, Unerwartete Absichten – Genealogie des Reuchlinkonflikts (2016) and Die

xviii

Notes on the Contributors

Gelehrtenwelt ordnen. Zur Genese des hegemonialen Humanismus (2017); together with Marian Füssel and Maximilian Schuh he is editor of Universitäre Gelehrtenkultur vom 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Ein interdisziplinäres Quellen- und Methodenhandbuch (2017). He recently edited Praxisformen. Zur kulturellen Logik von Zukunftshandeln (2019). Laurence Brockliss is emeritus professor in early modern French history at the University of Oxford and an emeritus fellow of Magdalen College Oxford. He is a historian of education, science and medicine with a particular interest in the history of universities and their role in knowledge creation and dissemination. His books include: French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1987); The Medical World of Early-Modern France (with Colin Jones, 1997); Calvet’s Web: Enlightenment and the Republic of Letters in Eighteenth-Century France (2002); and The University of Oxford: A History (2016). His is a Fellow of the British Academy. Donald Felipe is Professor of Philosophy and Chair of Liberal Studies at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. His primary research interests are ethics and the history of philosophy and logic, with special emphasis on the theory and practice of disputation in the 16th and 17th centuries. His works on disputation and the history of logic include his dissertation The Post-Medieval Ars Disputandi (1991). Felipe also manages courses, predominately online, in ethics, critical thinking, social sciences, arts and humanities in support of undergraduate professional programs serving non-traditional, adult students. Gábor Förköli is an assistant lecturer of early Hungarian literature at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. He received his PhD in 2017 from Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris 4), with Écriture et contingence: Fortuna, lieux communs et exemples historiques dans la littérature politique du XVIIe siècle. His current research project is a monograph of commonplacing and excerpting in early modern Hungary. Joseph S. Freedman is Professor of History at Alabama State University. His principal research interest is academic (scholastic and humanistic) philosophy during the early modern period (with a primary focus on Central Europe) within the broader

Notes on the Contributors

xix

contexts of the history of academic instruction, the history of academic disciplines, and the history of ideas/concepts. His publications include European Academic Philosophy in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries: The Life, Significance, and Philosophy of Clemens Timpler, 1563/64–1624 (1988); Philosophy and the Arts in Central Europe, 1500–1700: Teaching and Texts at European Schools and Universities (1999), and the edited volume Die Zeit um 1670: Eine Wende in der europäischen Geschichte und Kultur? (2016). Reinhold F. Glei is Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Bochum (Germany). His research interests cover a wide range of genres, epochs and authors from Greek and Roman Antiquity up to the 19th century. A central focus is on Neo-Latin literature and the reception of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. His numerous publications include the commented editions and translations Petrus Venerabilis, Schriften zum Islam (1985), Nikolaus von Kues, Sichtung des Korans (co-editor L. Hagemann, 3 vols. 1989–1993), Johannes Damaskenos und Theodor Abu Qurra, Schriften zum Islam (co-editor A. Th. Khoury, 1995), Pius II. Papa, Epistola ad Mahumetem (co-editor M. Köhler, 2001), and Ludovico Marracci at work: The evolution of his Latin translation of the Qur’an in the light of his newly discovered manuscripts (co-editor R. Tottoli, 2016). Stephanie Hellekamps studied philosophy, German philology, historiography and paedagogy, and earned her doctor’s degree in 1990 at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster; 1996 habilitation at Humboldt-Universität of Berlin. Since 1999 she is professor of educational science at the Westfälische Wilhelmsuniversität in Münster. Her book publications include the following works (with Hans-Ulrich Musolff each): Geschichte des pädagogischen Denkens (2006), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (2009); Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien der Frühen Neuzeit (2014). Andreas Hellerstedt earned his Ph.D. in the history of ideas at Stockholm University (Sweden). His research focuses on early modern political thought, the history of moral philosophy, as well as early modern education and the history of universities. In particular, he has studied mirrors for princes in the Scandinavian countries (ca 1200–1700) and Swedish dissertations on politics (ca 1650–1750). He is the editor of a recent volume on Virtue Ethics and Education from late Antiquity to

xx

Notes on the Contributors

the Eighteenth Century (2018), and co-editor of Shaping Heroic Virtue: The Art and Politics of Supereminence in Europe and Scandinavia (2015). In his Ph.D. (2009) he has studied the concepts of fate, fortune and providence in early 18th century Sweden. Axel Hörstedt took his PhD in Latin from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) with his thesis Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820 (2018). His research interests include early modern Swedish disputation culture. Currently, he is researcher at the Department of Education at Uppsala University where he studies network-building among early modern Uppsala university students. Also, he is high school lecturer in languages at Katedralskolan in Uppsala. Sari Kivistö is Professor of Comparative Literature at the Tampere University, Finland, and a former Director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Since 2018, she is an invited member of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (Academia Scientiarum Fennica) and, since 2017, of the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters (Societas Scientiarum Fennica). Her research interests include epistemic vices, suffering and antitheodicy in Neo-Latin satire, Neo-Latin dissertations, and academic history. Her edited books include Lucubrationes Neolatinae. Readings of Neo-Latin Dissertations and Satires (2019), Kantian Antitheodicy. Philosophical and Literary Varieties (with Sami Pihlström, 2016), The Vices of Learning. Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities (2014), and Medical Analogy in Latin Satire (2009). She has also translated numerous medical, ornithological and rhetorical dissertations from Latin into Finnish. Tua Korhonen is assistant professor in Greek Literature at the University of Helsinki. She is specialized in “Humanist Greek” in early modern Finland and Sweden; currently, she is working in the project Helleno-Nordica, which aims to collect Nordic and Baltic Humanist Greek texts. She has widely published on Humanist Greek (also in her e-thesis, University of Helsinki, 2004). Furthermore, she has co-written a monograph on Johan Paulinus’ (Lillienstedt) oration Magnus Principatus Finlandia (2000), and another (with Erika Ruonakoski) on Human and Animal in Ancient Greece: Empathy and Encounter in Classical Literature (2017).

Notes on the Contributors

xxi

Annamaria Lesigang-Bruckmüller worked as an assistant and lecturer at the Department of Classical Philology, Medieval and Neo-Latin at Vienna University. In the course of her dissertation entitled Eine Oratio academica als Reisebericht? – Johann Christoph Gottscheds Reise nach Wien im Spiegel seiner Universitätsrede Singularia Vindobonensia (2017) she became interested in the occasional literature of German university professors in the Early Modern Age and its conventions. Another focus of her research is on Neo-Latin literature in the Habsburg Empire. Currently she is co-worker with Edition der Korrespondenz von Sigismund Herberstein. Urs B. Leu is Director of the Rare Book Department at the Zentralbibliothek Zürich. He teaches book history at the University of Zurich. He published widely on the Swiss polymath Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) and wrote a comprehensive biography, in 2016, on Gessner, which will soon appear in an English translation. He is also the author of several contributions on other important Zurich scholars like Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733), Johannes Gessner (1709–1790) and Oswald Heer (1809–1883), and on early modern book history. Bo Lindberg is emeritus Professor of the History of Ideas and Learning at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). His research interests include the history of classical scholarship, the history of universities, Lipsius and political humanism, Latin and Swedish political vocabulary in the early modern period. His main monographs are Naturrätten I Uppsala 1655–1720 (1976), De lärdes modersmål. Latin, humanism och vetenskap I 1700-talets Sverige (1984), Stoicism och stat. Justus Lipsius och den politiska humanismen (2001), Den antika skevheten. Politiska ord och begrepp i det tidigmoderna Sverige (2006), The Pufendorf lectures. Annotations from the teaching of Samuel Pufendorf 1672–1674 (2014) and Den akademika läxan. Om föreläsningens historia (2017). Véronique Meyer is professor of art history at the university of Poitiers (France). She specializes on French engravings of the 17th and 18th centuries. She is the author of L’illustration des thèses à Paris (2002) and Pour la plus grande gloire du roi. Louis XIV en thèses (2018).

xxii

Notes on the Contributors

Hans-Ulrich Musolff has studied German philology, history, philosophy and pedagogy, and has earned his PhD at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster in 1989. In 1996 he defended his Habilitation at Universität Bielefeld in educational science; subsequently, he has been lecturer at the university of Bielefeld. In 2010, he has been appointed lecturer at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. His special research interest is the history of school education in the early modern period. His book publications include the following works (with Stephanie Hellekamps each): Geschichte des pädagogischen Denkens (2006), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (2009); Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien der Frühen Neuzeit (2014). Lucy Rachel Nicholas is a PhD in Classics and Early Modern History at King’s College, London, and teaches classical Latin and Greek at King’s College London and the Warburg Institute. She published Roger Ascham’s ‘A Defence of the Lord’s Supper’. Latin Text and English Translation (2017) and co-edited Themes of Polemical Theology Across Early Modern Literary Genres (2016). She is currently in the final stages of assembling an edited volume entitled Roger Ascham and his Sixteenth-Century World and co-editing An Anthology of British Neo-Latin Literature, and An Anthology of European Neo-Latin Literature as well. Pietro Daniel Omodeo is professor of historical epistemology at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), and a permanent guest of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin. He is the principal investigator of the ERC research endeavour “Institutions and Metaphysics of Cosmology in the Epistemic Networks of Seventeenth-Century Europe” (Horizon 2020, GA 725883). His research focuses on early modern science and philosophy, and political epistemology. He authored Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation (2014), (with Jürgen Renn) Science in Court Society: Giovanni Battista Benedetti’s Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum liber (2019), and Political Epistemology: The Problem of Ideology in Science Studies (2019). Among other edited volumes, he has recently published Bernardino Telesio and the Natural Sciences in the Renaissance (2019), and (with Volkhard Wels) Natural Knowledge and Aristotelianism at Early Modern Protestant Universities (2019).

Notes on the Contributors

xxiii

Janika Päll is Professor for Classical Philology at the College of World Languages and Cultures of Tartu University, Estonia. Her research interests include metrical and stylististic aspects of ancient Greek literature, rhetoric in Neo-Latin literature, and humanist Greek literature. She has published several translations and edited volumes, e.g. Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe: Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture (2018, together with I. Volt) and Classical tradition from the 16th century to Nietzsche (2010, with I. Volt and M. Steinrück). Kaarina Rein is a research fellow at the Research Centre of the University of Tartu Library, Estonia. Her research focuses on medical disputations and dissertations at the University of Tartu in the 17th and 19th centuries, and the reception of Greek language and literature in Estonia. Her book size publications are: Ladina keel meditsiinierialadele (Latin for medical students) (2002 and 2008); Arstiteadus rootsiaegses Tartu gümnaasiumis ja ülikoolis aastatel 1630–1656. Meditsiinialased disputatsioonid ja oratsioonid ning nende autorid (Medicine at the Gymnasium and University of Tartu from 1630 to 1656. Medical Disputations, Orations and their Authors) (2011), and Lingua Latina in theologia (2015). Bernd Roling is Professor for Classical and Medieval Latin at the Institute for Greek and Latin Philology of the Freie Universität Berlin. His research interests include high medieval and early modern Latin poetry, medieval and early modern philosophy, especially philosophy of language; the history of early modern science, university history, with special focus on Scandinavia; and early modern esoteric traditions. Recent monographs are: Christliche Kabbalah und aristotelische Naturphilosophie im Werk des Paulus Ritius (2007); Locutio angelica. Die Diskussion der Engelsprache im Mittelalter und der Frühen Neuzeit als Antizipation einer Sprechakttheorie (2008); Drachen und Sirenen: Die Aufarbeitung und Abwicklung der Mythologie an den europäischen Universitäten (2010); Physica Sacra: Wunder, Naturwissenschaft und historischer Schriftsinn zwischen Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (2013); and, as critical editor with Iolanda Ventura and Baudoin van den Abeele, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus rerum, vol. 1 (2007). He has just finished a book on the Swedish polymath Olaus Rudbeck and his reception in 18th century Northern Europe, entitled Odins Imperium (2 vols.).

xxiv

Notes on the Contributors

Sabine Schlegelmilch is Assistant professor for the History of Medicine at the University of Würzburg; she also is curator of the Historical Collections of the Würzburg Medical Faculty. She was trained in Classics and German literature at the universities of Würzburg and London. Her research interests are medical theory and practice of the 16th–18th century; the history of surgery; medicine in film and TV. Her book publications are Bürger, Gott und Götterschützling. Kinderbilder der hellenistischen Kunst und Literatur (2009) and Ärztliche Praxis und sozialer Raum: Johannes Magirus (1615–1697) (2019); she also is co-editor of Medical Practice, 1600–1900. Physicians and their patients (2016). Ulrich Schlegelmilch is a Classical Philologist and Historian of Science at the University of Würzburg. He was Wissenschaftlicher Assistent at the Institut für Klassische Philologie from 2001 to 2008 and has since been a researcher in the long-term project Frühneuzeitliche Ärztebriefe, 1500–1700 at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He has published on classical and Neo-Latin poetry, including a book on Jesuit descriptions of church buildings Descriptio templi (2003), on Latin palaeography and medieval scholia, on the history of medicine and humanist epistolography. He is currently a co-director of the Opera Camerarii DFG project. Peter Sjökvist is Associate Professor of Latin at Uppsala University and Librarian at Uppsala University Library. His research interests include early modern occasional poetry, academic culture, book history and library history, with a special focus on literary spoils of war. He is the author of The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from 17th-century Sweden (2012), and The Early Latin Poetry of Sylvester Johannis Phrygius (2007). He is convener of the Neo-Latin Network of Uppsala, and one of the editors of Bibliotheca Neolatina Upsaliensis. He has co-edited several volumes including Kulturarvsperspektiv (2018) and Bevara för framtiden (2016). He is presently translating philosophical texts by the Swedish scholars Thomas Thorild and Benjamin Höijer. Arvo Tering is a Senior Research Fellow at the University Library of Tartu, Estonia. His work has mostly centred on the universities and the students of the Baltic area. His current research interests include Baltic students of medicine at European universities in the early modern period. Among his major publications are Lexikon der Studenten aus Estland, Livland und Kurland an europäischen Universitäten

Notes on the Contributors

xxv

1561–1800 (2018); Eesti-, liivi- ja kuramaalased Euroopa ülikoolides 1561–1798 (‘Students from Estland, Livland and Courland at European Universities in 1561–1798’) (2008); and Album Academicum der Universität Dorpat (Tartu) 1632–1710 (1984). Raf Van Rooy is affiliated with the Catholic University of Leuven as a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). A classicist, linguist, and historian, he obtained his PhD in Linguistics at the Catholic University of Leuven in 2017. His research focuses on the early modern study of Greek and on the history of linguistic concepts of Greek origin (such as ‘aorist’). In his PhD thesis, he traced the development of the conceptual pair ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ from antiquity until about 1900. He is (co-)editor of George J. Metcalf, On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung (2013), and editor of Essays in the History of Dialect Studies: From Ancient Greece to Modern Dialectology (2020). Currently, he is finishing two monographs related to the history of dialect studies, with particular emphasis on the early modern period: Language or Dialect? The History of a Conceptual Pair, and Greece’s Labyrinth of Language: A Study in the Early Modern Discovery of Dialect Diversity. Isabella Walser-Bürgler is Key Researcher at the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Neo-Latin Studies in Innsbruck (Austria). Her research interests encompass early modern university orations, Tyrolean Neo-Latin literature, the Neo-Latin didactic poem, the Neo-Latin novel, and concepts of European identity in early modern Latin texts. Among her publications rank Im theresianischen Zeitalter der Vernunft. Giovanni Battista Graser: ‘De praestantia logicae’ (2013) and Anton Wilhelm Ertl: ‘Austriana regina Arabiae’. Ein neulateinischer Habsburgroman des 17. Jahrhunderts (2016). Walser-Bürgler is also co-editor of Der neulateinische Roman als Medium seiner Zeit: The Neo-Latin Novel in Its Time (2013) and Contesting Europe: Comparative Perspectives on Early Modern Discourses of Europe (15th–18th Century) (2019).

chapter 1

Introduction Meelis Friedenthal, Hanspeter Marti and Robert Seidel For some years now, the study of pre-modern university history has increasingly devoted itself to the structures and media of academic teaching, including that of the disputation (disputatio). Sources for this field of research are, on the one hand, normative texts such as university statutes, but they also include various forms of accounts of university acts, such as transcripts, journal reports and subsequently edited summaries of the arguments presented. This source situation is similar for medieval and early modern times, but since the 16th century printed theses (theses, dissertationes, assertiones, etc.) have supplemented the documents. Indeed, printed theses appear to constitute the greater part of this vast mass of material, at least in some areas. In simple terms, as far as the early modern period is concerned, there are cases in which the process and results of the disputation were reported after the act took place, and those in which the printing of the theses preceded the act of disputation. The theses, unlike, for example, a transcript, can of course also be examined independently of the academic act: as documents of the history of scholarship, as a veritable ‘store of knowledge’ (‘Wissensspeicher’),1 or as sources of social and intellectual history. The editors of this volume are from Estonia, Switzerland, and Germany, and they have their scholarly roots in the academic traditions of those countries. Their preoccupation with the early modern university system has so far focused mainly on the analysis of the second type of sources: theses printed in Central Europe, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the Baltic territories from the 16th to the 18th century. For the Intersections book series, however, a volume was planned that covers a wider range of research on the subject – in geographical as well as in disciplinary terms – and in fact we have been able to attract more than thirty contributions from researchers in twelve countries. Despite considerable efforts, not all important European regions could be

1  Marti H., “Die Disputationsschriften – Speicher logifizierten Wissens”, in Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der Frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin – Boston: 2015) 203–241.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_002

2

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

represented in the same way. This may have something to do with the particular situation of university history research, which of course we have not been able to revolutionize with our project. Unfortunately, some of the researchers we contacted declined to submit a proposal, and it is possible that we neglected to ask others, perhaps out of ignorance, for a contribution. But we have been able to obtain contributions on the practice of the disputation at early modern universities in England and France, in addition to the territories mentioned above. On the following pages we first give a few brief introductory notes outlining our starting point, and we will sketch the research situation with respect to the different European regions (1). In the next section of this introduction, the connection between printed theses and the act of disputation is explained in general terms, referring to the practices at universities in Central Europe. We decided to present the Central European form of the dissertation as a point of reference because of the large number of contributions in this volume that deal with such texts. As the articles show, there are numerous internal differences, for example between Protestant and Catholic universities. On the other hand, there are also certain correspondences with theses from France or Italy, so it makes sense to choose the Central European ‘type’ as a general reference (2). The introduction then outlines conditions at Scandinavian and Baltic universities, which form a special focus within the volume (3). Finally, drawing on our starting position, we formulate desiderata for further disputation research (4). – In addition, you will find brief information on the individual contributions of our volume in the sections of this introduction. They are divided according to the regional references of the articles: Western Europe in Section 1, Central Europe in Section 2 and Northern Europe in Section 3. 1

Disputation Practice and Printed Dissertations in Early Modern Europe

Disputations existed already in antiquity as more or less structured forms of communication centring on specific themes or objects of interest – think of Plato’s dialogues or the textbooks of Aristotle or Cicero. The disputation (disputatio) has been institutionalised in academic teaching since the Middle Ages, and, fortunately, we are relatively well informed about the characteristics of the medieval examination and graduation system. The studies of, for example,

Introduction

3

Bernardo Bazàn et al.,2 Brian Lawn,3 Olga Weijers4 and Alex Novikoff,5 along with, most recently, the concise overview of Jan-Hendryk de Boer6 explain the structure and function of the medieval disputatio, taking into account the very complicated material status of the sources that have come to us.7 As soon as one approaches the early modern age, scholars are faced with new problems. Although the state of sources is more intricate for the Middle Ages owing to the handwritten tradition, the research situation for the early modern period is more confusing, because there have been fewer systematic investigations to date. Many studies on the university systems of the United Kingdom, France and Italy, and sometimes also those dedicated to the universities of Central and Northern Europe, deal primarily with disputation procedures in general and refrain from a thorough investigation of the sources. For this reason, it is not possible to gain a swift, clear overview of the actual types of written evidence – to differentiate between pre-act theses and subsequently written reports, for 2  Bazàn B.C. – Fransen G. – Jacquart D. – Wippel J.W., Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine, Typologie des sources de Moyen Âge occidental 44–45 (Turnhout: 1985). 3  Lawn B., The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic ‘Quaestio disputata’. With Special Emphasis on its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 2 (Leiden – New York – Cologne: 1993). 4  See the most recent, comprehensive publication: Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013). The overview embeds the epoch of the Middle Ages in a universal historical account of disputation history. 5  Novikoff A., The Medieval Culture of Disputation. Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia: 2013). 6  De Boer J.H., “Disputation, quaestio disputata”, in de Boer J.H. – Füssel M. – Schuh M. (eds.), Universitäre Gelehrtenkultur vom 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Ein interdisziplinäres Quellen- und Methodenhandbuch (Stuttgart: 2018) 221–254. De Boer describes, as Weijers does, continuities and breaks in the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period. He states that, until early modern times, ‘die Funktion mittelalterlicher scholastischer Disputationen als spezifische universitäre Prüfungsform wie als Repräsentation einer Universität bzw. einer Fakultät fort[lebt]’ (237). De Boer’s outstanding article is published in German but is largely applicable to the entire European area. 7  See, e.g., Bazàn et al., Les questions 129–136 (‘L’état des textes’); de Boer, “Disputation” 231– 234, at 233: ‘Verschriftlicht worden sind mittelalterliche Disputationen primär in zweierlei Weisen: Als Hörermitschriften (reportationes) […] oder als von den Magistern auf der Grundlage einer oder auch mehrerer Disputationen verfasster Text, der in unterschiedlichem Grad Spuren der zugrunde liegenden mündlichen Veranstaltung aufweisen kann. […] In ihren Redaktionen weiteten Magister gerne die von ihnen in der mündlichen Debatte formulierte Lösung (determinatio) stark aus, so dass diese zu einer Art Traktat anwachsen konnte’.

4

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

example. One of the few scholars who venture to take a comparative look at the status of the sources in different countries is Joseph S. Freedman, who states: From about the year 1550 onwards, disputations began to be published in limited quantities in Central Europe. […] Such disputations began to be published in the Protestant Netherlands and in Scandinavia beginning in the 1580s. By the end of the 16th century, theses disputations began to be published in larger quantities in the Netherlands and in very large quantities in Central Europe as well as in Scandinavia. Beyond these three European regions, however, disputations appear to have been published in far smaller quantities during the early modern period.8 Freedman’s general assessment may be true, at least in certain respects,9 but individual regions, universities and subjects must be examined more closely. In his fundamental study French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Laurence Brockliss deals with various documents of academic acts, and has been able, for the medical faculty of the University of Montpellier, for example, to find titles that, in their grammatical form alone, mark the difference between reports and theses.10 While Brockliss offers a wealth of sources for French universities, which obviously have a very different status in the system of academic teaching and auditing (see also his article in the present volume), Peter Mack addresses the disputation system rather briefly in his central and extremely influential investigation on Elizabethan Rhetoric.11 For Italy, Paul F. Grendler describes, also briefly, the common 8  Freedman J.S., “Disputations in Europe in the early modern period”, in Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden (ed.), Hora est! On dissertations (Leiden: 2005) 30–50, at 34–35. 9  Thesis prints have been published in the academic field right from the beginning of the 16th century, at least sporadically, as is demonstrated in Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungswesen des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017). Note that the present volume considers only disputations in universities and gymnasia, not the theological debates of the Reformation, which sometimes took place elsewhere. 10  Cf. Broussonet Auguste, Variae positiones circa respirationem, quas publicis subjiciebat disputationibus […] (Montpellier: Martel 1778); Barthez Paul-Joseph, Quaestiones medicae duodecim […], quas […] propugnabit […] diebus 29, 30 et 31 mensis Januarii anni 1761 […] (Montpellier: Martel 1761). Brockliss L.W.B., French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. A Cultural History (Oxford: 1987) 497–498. 11  Mack P., Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: 2002); cf. Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society 18 (Cambridge: 2009) 58–66 (chapter ‘Disputations and Declamations’); Rodda J., Public religious

Introduction

5

disputation system and gives examples of handwritten or printed theses, some of which covered only one sheet, while others appeared in the form of bound booklets.12 David A. Lines, in his exhaustive study on Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’ in the Italian Renaissance, focuses on disputations wherever the nature of the source material allows.13 This somewhat arbitrary shortlist of studies on Western European disputation practice could be extended, but good overviews are not available for all regions and academic disciplines in Western and Southern Europe.14 The dissertation and disputation systems in the countries of Central and Northern Europe have, as already indicated, attracted much more extensive scholarly interest. There are, to name but a few exemplary titles, monographs on individual subjects such as philosophy,15 medicine,16 jurisprudence,17

disputation in England, 1558–1626 (London: 2016). Extensive material can also be found in the vast compendia of the history of Oxford and Cambridge universities. 12  Grendler P.F., The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore – London: 2002) 152–157. 13  Lines D.A., Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’ in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650). The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 13 (Leiden – Boston – Cologne: 2002); cf. Matsen H.S., “Students’ ‘Arts’ Disputations at Bologna around 1500”, Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994) 533–555. 14  For the area of philosophy in a broader sense, see the exhaustive Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (called Ueberweg, after its first compiler; Basel: 1983 pp.). The volumes on Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Americas etc. quite sporadically provide information about scholars who were productive in the field of disputations, such as the Croatian Rugjer Josip Bošković, or the Portuguese Silvestre Aranha, both publishing collections of disputationes during the middle of the 18th century. The British volumes discuss the disputation system in general, and the impression is confirmed that printed theses were not widespread in England, whereas they were commonplace at Scottish universities. In contrast, the volumes on the Holy Roman Empire (including Switzerland) and the Scandinavian territories give detailed evidence about 17th century printed dissertations in the most diverse fields of philosophy, and prominent authors are named in large numbers. 15  Dibon P., L’enseignement philosophique dans les universités néerlandaises à l’époque précartésienne (1575–1650) (Leiden: 1954); Lamanna M., Metaphysik und Ontologie in der Schweiz im Zeitalter der Reformation (1519–1648) (in preparation); idem, Zwischen Realund Supertranszendentalwissenschaft, Metaphysikunterricht und “Geburt” der Ontologie in St. Gallen im Zeitalter der Reformation (in print). 16  Trevisani F., Descartes in Deutschland, Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft – Philosophie – Geschichte 25 (Vienna – Zurich – Berlin – Münster: 2011). 17  Mommsen K., Auf dem Wege zur Staatssouveränität. Staatliche Grundbegriffe in Basler juristischen Doktordisputationen des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Bern: 1970); Ahsmann M.J.A.M., Collegium und Kolleg. Der juristische Unterricht an der Universität Leiden 1575–1630 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Disputationen (Frankfort on the Main: 2000).

6

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

and theology,18 different types of schools other than normal universities19 and conspicuously special formats such as the illustrated broadsheet widespread in the Catholic areas.20 There are also studies on early modern disputation theory.21 It is not, it seems, currently possible to successfully chart the diffusion, development, form and function of the disputation from a pan-European perspective, nor is it possible to bring the entire handwritten and printed source material into a systematic order. Despite initial attempts to form partial syntheses, case studies are still a useful means of improving our knowledge of the subject. The following two sections of this introduction – on the structure and function of thesis prints in Central Europe, and the specific situation of the disputation system in Scandinavia and the Baltics – give some pointers to areas that have already enjoyed scholarly attention and to which numerous contributions can be found in our volume. As for the disputation history of Britain and France, six articles in this volume convey valuable insights: Tommi Alho focuses on the degree requirements connected with the practice of academic disputation in 17th century Oxford, while William Barton examines the ‘Act and Tripos Verses’ that serve as an indirect source of the disputation proceedings in early modern Oxford and Cambridge, for which there is otherwise little textual evidence. In our third article concerning Britain, Lucy Nicholas deals with different types of records of 16th century disputations on the Eucharist. France is explored by Laurence Brockliss, who gives an overview of the French 18  Appold K.G., Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung. Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 127 (Tübingen: 2004); Beck A.J., Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 92 (Göttingen: 2007). 19  van Miert D., Humanism in an age of science. The Amsterdam Athenaeum in the Golden Age, 1632–1704, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 179 (Leiden: 2009); Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820 (Gothenburg: 2018). 20   Appuhn-Radtke S., Das Thesenblatt im Hochbarock. Studien zu einer graphischen Gattung am Beispiel der Werke Bartholomäus Kilians (Weißenhorn: 1988); Meyer V., L’illustration des thèses dans la seconde moitié du XVII° siècle. Peintres, Graveurs, Editeurs (Paris: 2002); eadem, Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Les thèses dédiées à Louis XIV (Rennes: 2017); eadem, Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Louis XIV en thèses, Catalogue (Rennes: 2017); Telesko W., Thesenblätter österreichischer Universitäten (Salzburg: 1996). 21  Felipe D., The Post-Medieval Ars Disputandi (Ann Arbor: 1991); cf. Sdzuj R.B., “‘mandatum esse officium elencticum, quod disputando exeritur’. Zu Johann Konrad Dannhauers Disputationslehrbuch Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (1629) und seinem historischen Kontext”, in Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Die Universität Straßburg zwischen Späthumanismus und Französischer Revolution (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2018) 43–67.

Introduction

7

disputation system, and by Véronique Meyer, who examines illustrated theses dedicated to the Queen of France. The article by Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke, which deals with illustrated theses prints in broadsheet format, is interdisciplinary and also focuses on France. 2

Thesis Prints: The Central European Pattern

We will now focus on the widespread type of printed dissertation disseminated at Central European universities and other institutions of higher education (Gymnasium Academicum, Hohe Schule etc.). In the early modern period there is often no clear qualitative difference between gymnasial and university disputation, and as such it would be useful to research both types of disputation in parallel.22 From the beginning of the 16th century it became common for a list of theses (dissertatio) to be published in advance as the basis for the act of disputation.23 Offering a means of accessing and preserving material independently of the immediate teaching context and thus providing an opportunity to use it later as a basis for continued discussion, dissertations eventually gained increased autonomy from the tradition of oral defence. As Kevin Chang puts it in his fundamental investigation of the early modern transformation of the disputation system: Since the text could exist independently of oral disputation, its theses could no longer be merely propositions to be disputed. Rather, it needed to contain in itself arguments that resolved possible objections. The printed dissertation thus became a self-contained essay that was argumentative in nature.24 22  For the following paragraph cf. the most recent survey in the Introduction to Marti – Sdzuj – Seidel (eds.), Rhetorik 10–27. The Introduction also gives an overview of the history and priorities of disputation research. 23  Disputation research in Germany started as early as the late 19th century. Cf. Horn E., Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den Deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: 1893). For a thorough and concise overview on the subject, see Marti H., “Disputation”, in Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 2 (Tübingen: 1994) 866–880; idem, ibidem, “Dissertation” 880–884. 24  Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19/2 (2004) 129–187, at 154. On the other hand there existed, of course, prints of so-called theses nudae, e.g. those still being kept at the theological faculty of Berlin University in the second half of the nineteenth century, cf. Erman W., Verzeichnis der Berliner Universitätsschriften 1810–1885 (Berlin: 1899; Reprint: Hildesheim – New York: 1973) 22–27. For the 18th century as a period of transition, see

8

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

A second decisive change took place towards the end of the 18th century, when the thesis defence was eventually replaced by a monograph written independently by an exam candidate. This development was accompanied by the decline and disappearance of printed practice dissertations (‘Übungsdissertationen’) in the second half of the 18th century.25 These are the origins of the procedures for examining doctoral candidates largely corresponding with those of the present day. This volume will be devoted predominantly to thesis prints that emerged between these two paradigm shifts.26 The technical terms used in the context of the disputation (which, depending on its place within the academic rituals, could be a disputatio pro gradu, pro cathedra / loco, or exercitii causa) reflect the origin and function of the texts in question along with those of the people involved in the actus. The term dissertatio rarely denotes a dissertation or thesis in the modern sense of an original piece of research written by a young scholar; rather, it signifies the printed theses presented for defence. These prints are sometimes also metonymically referred to as disputationes and, less frequently, as disquisitiones, discursus or the like. The author of a dissertatio was often the supervising professor (praeses), who presided over the disputation. The student (as respondens) was required to respond to the objections of opponents (opponentes) and thus to defend the theses in question. When a respondens et auctor is recorded on the title page of the print next to the name of the praeses, it does not necessarily indicate that the respondent was the ‘author’ of the text; rather it can mean that he organized and especially that he financed the actus.27 Sometimes the paratexts, such as dedication letters or poems, offer plausible indications of the text’s Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel im 18. Jahrhundert”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 63–85. 25  Marti H., “Dissertation und Promotion an frühneuzeitlichen Universitäten des deutschen Sprachraums. Versuch eines skizzenhaften Überblicks”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 1–20, at 4–8. 26  As for the continuity of the institution into the 19th century, including the use of Latin, cf. Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation in der Frühen Neuzeit und im 19. Jahrhundert – Gegenstand der Wissenschaftssprachgeschichte?”, in Prinz M. – Schiewe J. (eds.), Vernakuläre Wissenschaftskommunikation. Beiträge zur Entstehung und Frühgeschichte der modernen deutschen Wissenschaftssprachen, Lingua Academica 1 (Berlin – Boston: 2018) 271–292. 27  Disputation research in the German-speaking world tended to focus in its early days on the question of the authorship of theses, which was more relevant for librarians than for historians of scholarship. Cf. Schubart-Fikentscher G., Untersuchungen zur Autorschaft von Dissertationen im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Berlin: 1970).

Introduction

9

authorship. Often, however, the authorship of early modern theses remains unclear. It has thus become customary in contemporary research on dissertations to assume significant involvement of the praeses in writing them and so to attribute dissertations to the praeses’ list of publications. Modern library entries, however, usually specify the names of both praeses and respondent. These prints, whose external form could vary from single, often illustrated, folio pages to thick booklets of several print sheets, contained first and foremost the theses. These could remain uncommented (nudae) or take the form of a discursive treatise in which the sources consulted are documented in detail. In addition, further theses could also be presented, sometimes from other areas of study (corollaria; cf. Bo Lindberg’s article in this volume), as well as a number of paratexts such as dedications (dedicationes), a letter of recommendation or accompanying poems. As a polyvalent media form,28 these dissertations were some of the most important documents of early modern scholarly teaching, and thus represent an extremely important source for European cultural and academic history of the period. Often inconspicuous in appearance, and written almost exclusively in Latin, dissertations have aroused limited interest among researchers up to the present day. Nonetheless, the value of these early modern dissertations for the history of intellectual culture is extraordinarily diverse. They contain a wealth of information by documenting, for example, the appeal and the innovative potential of individual universities, the development of academic filiation for various chairs at the universities, career patterns, personal relationships, the reputation of certain professors and, of course, significant paradigm shifts within individual disciplines. Often the printed theses enable us to draw conclusions about the educational principles and school affiliation of the parties involved. The lines of argument sketched and the selection of authorities cited often allow the disputatio to be situated in the context of certain methodological orientations or leading figures in contemporary thought. The content presented in the dissertations provides precise indications of what was being discussed at a certain place and at a certain time, information about the basic skills routinely practised, and insights into controversial issues, hard-fought positions and actual or alleged innovations in research. The thesis prints could also be transformed into teaching material for academic instruction, and they served generally as the preferred source of information on current disciplinary discourses for interested contemporaries. They were also used in the professional and personal practice of learned elites, 28  Cf. the title of the most recent of three edited volumes dedicated to disputatio from the last decennium: Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016).

10

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

as well as later by non-academic audiences in translated versions, reviews and other forms of knowledge transfer. Whereas previous scholarship has engaged with the problem of the authorship of early modern dissertations largely from a bibliographical perspective, approaches stemming from intellectual and discourse history have now increasingly gained prominence in the research of the past three decades. Key themes have been, to name but the most important, the institutional basis for the act of disputation and the paratextual environment of the theses themselves. And of course the complicated relationship between tradition and innovation, which always plays an important role in the context of early modern academic discourse, has also been a core concern. Recently, research on dissertations has increasingly developed comparative approaches that consider the entire disciplinary spectrum and examine the development of the phenomenon of disputation in various areas of Europe, including Catholic universities.29 So much for the structure and function of theses at Central European universities. In our volume, several contributions are dedicated to this field of research. The material is presented in a great variety of methods, and in terms of content and institution, too, numerous aspects come to the fore. The investigation of Daria Barow-Vassilevitch falls into the field of library history, examining the preservation of the old Königsberg dissertations in modern Russia. As in the Scandinavian countries (see the next section), disputations were also held at non-university institutions, especially secondary schools. The contributions of Stephanie Hellekamps and Hans-Ulrich Musolff on Westphalian gymnasia30 and that of Urs Leu on the Hohe Schule in Zurich are dedicated to these special 29  The disputation system of Catholic universities differed in some respects from the practices of Protestant higher education institutions, both in terms of the range of subjects and of the outward appearance of the dissertations. Of course, there were by no means only (illustrated) broadsheets, but also quite extensive theses in the Catholic field. Cf. Leinsle U., Dilinganae Disputationes. Der Lehrinhalt der gedruckten Disputationen an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Dillingen 1555–1648, Jesuitica 11 (Regensburg: 2006). Leinsle asserts, however, that ‘Disputationen mit gedruckten Thesen sind, im Gesamt des Disputationswesens betrachtet, eher die Ausnahme als die Regel’ (39), which would certainly not be true for Protestant universities in 17th century Central Europe and Scandinavia. After all, it must be considered – and in this respect Leinsle is right – that in the early modern period there were numerous disputation exercises in courses without printed theses, and in the 19th century there was still no pressure to print inaugural dissertations in some places. See Poll R., “Zur Geschichte der juristischen Promotion an der Erlanger Universität”, in Schug D. (ed.), Der Bibliothekar zwischen Praxis und Wissenschaft, Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 24 (Wiesbaden: 1986) 168–210, at 199. From 1810 to 1879, 121 dissertations were printed in that faculty, while 71 existed only as manuscripts. 30  See also Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U. (eds.), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (Münster: 2009);

Introduction

11

institutional conditions. As far as the material state of the sources is concerned, paratextual structures play an important role in current disputation research: The study by Anna-Maria Lesigang-Bruckmüller examines the invitation programs from the Faculty of Law in Leipzig, similar to Bo Lindberg’s (see the next section) investigation of the ‘corollaries’ in dissertations of the Swedish university in Uppsala. Most of the contributions, however, are case studies on specific universities or topics, and detailed analyses are sometimes conducted on individual dissertations. Examinations of individual theses show how wide the range of topics covered in the disputations was. While Jan-Hendryk de Boer (on the reception of Descartes in the German territories), Gábor Förköli (on the function of theological theses for denominational instruction), and Pietro Daniel Omodeo and Alberto Bardi (on Regiomontanus’ disputation on the movement of the earth) examine more or less common issues, other authors direct their attention to apparently more remote objects of study: Reinhold F. Glei focusses on dissertations which deal with the Koran as it was received in Central Europe, and Raf van Rooy devotes himself to an early thesis print on the origin of the Greek dialects. Joseph Freedman’s contribution to some Dillingen disputations on the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ arts could also be attributed to this area. Three studies deal with the field of medicine, each with a different theoretical approach: Sabine Schlegelmilch examines the impact of printed dissertations on the establishment of Cartesian medicine at Marburg University, Ulrich Schlegelmilch is concerned with Basel dissertation printings from around 1600 devoted to the newly established subject of surgery, and Arvo Tering examines the way in which dissertations at the University of Jena reflect the adoption of the Scottish physician John Brown’s medical theories. Quite a few studies focus on the final phase of early modern disputation culture in the second half of the 18th century. Specifically, Isabella Walser-Bürgler addresses the penetration of Enlightenment values and educational reforms into contemporary universities, using the example of Innsbruck’s Jesuit University. Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke’s investigation of illustrated thesis broadsheets in the Catholic areas of Europe has a general European perspective, and Donald Felipe takes a meta-textual perspective by examining disputation handbooks (de arte disputandi). Finally, Sari Kivistö addresses a special case: She examines German (as well as Swedish and Finnish) dissertations that deal with the praise of artisans and traders.

eadem – idem (eds.), Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien in der frühen Neuzeit. Neue Studien zu Schule und Unterricht 1600–1750 (Münster: 2014).

12 3

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

A Closer Look at Scandinavia and the Baltics

Disputation practices lend themselves to being researched as a part of local academic culture.31 Owing to the relative inactivity of educational institutions in Scandinavia and the Baltics during the 16th century, higher academic education was generally pursued abroad. Indeed, most of the leading intellectual figures in Northern Europe during that period were at least partly educated in Protestant universities in Germany and, to a lesser extent, in the Netherlands. Later, peregrinatio academica in foreign universities could be considered one of the staple points of Northern universities, and this practice continued well into the middle of the 18th century.32 This, of course, left its mark on disputation culture, both at universities and at gymnasia. The gymnasial disputation in early modern Sweden is discussed in the current volume by Axel Hörstedt and Kaarina Rein. Stemming from the fact that the academic culture in Scandinavia had its background in German Protestant universities, much of the discussion that concerns the Central European disputation model outlined in the previous section also applies to Northern Europe. With the exception of the university of Copenhagen (established 1479), all other universities of the early modern period were in the Swedish territories: Uppsala (established 1477), Dorpat (1632, present day Tartu, Estonia), Åbo (1640, present day Turku, Finland) and Lund (1668). In addition, Sweden also had control of territories in Northern Germany, where the University of Greifswald is located.33 Owing to the comparatively late start, it is possible to track the process of Swedish adaptation of German disputation elements. In the current volume Peter Sjökvist shows how the title page of the disputation developed in time and how dedication practices evolved in the reorganized Uppsala university at the beginning of the 17th century. One of the differences of the region would appear to be the number of disputations written and presented in Greek: this appears to be higher in Scandinavia and the Baltics than elsewhere in 31  See e.g. Burman L., Eloquent Students, Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663–2010 (Uppsala: 2012), at 29–60; cf. the articles in Lindberg B. (ed.), Early Modern Academic Culture, Konferenser / Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien 97 (Stockholm: 2019). 32  Eliasson P., “Peregrinatio Academica: The Study Tours and University Visits of Swedish Students Until the Year 1800”, Science & Technology Studies (1992) 29–42; Niléhn L.H., Peregrinatio academica: det svenska samhället och de utrikes studieresorna under 1600-talet, Bibliotheca historica Lundensis 54 (Lund: 1983). 33   For a still useful overview of the period see: Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975).

Introduction

13

Europe, as Tua Korhonen and Janika Päll describe. It also appears that during the 17th century the Swedish universities display more similarity with each other than typically German universities, as they shared the same constitutions and were at least theoretically bound to exactly the same rules. This did not particularly affect the procedure and general structure of the disputation, but it did influence the topics that were selected, or not selected, for discussion. Indeed, disputation topics adhered quite closely to the requirements presented in the university constitutions. Accordingly, Ramism, which had already lost its foothold in Germany, persisted in Sweden up until the middle of the 17th century as a quasi-official philosophy (see the article by Meelis Friedenthal). The control that the state had over universities also permitted disputations to be used as a vehicle to spread a national ideology, Gothicism, as Bernd Roling discusses. At the same time, state power was not absolute and did not preclude that disputations could be used by the professors to test out new or controversial ideas. Indeed, presenting controversy and provoking discussion had been one of the main characteristics of the disputation from the medieval period onward.34 Andreas Hellerstedt describes how disputations were used at Uppsala University to present controversial political ideas and the philosophy of Christian Wolff, which was still met with opposition in the mid-18th century. Disputations in early modern Sweden could also be used for making texts accessible that otherwise would have remained the preserve of all but a few. Disputations were published that were, in whole or in part, translations of ancient literature, first into Latin and later into Swedish, as Johanna Akujärvi shows. Perhaps owing to the more manageable number of printed disputations (Bo Lindberg has estimated 22,000 disputations from the universities of Uppsala, Lund and Turku from 1602 to 1852),35 Scandinavian disputations have received quite active scholarly attention, although the focus has generally been on individual authors or specific topics.36 In recent years, however, digitization of 34  Cf. Weijers, Search. 35  Lindberg B., “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39. 36  For some studies in English (or German) see e.g.: Hörstedt, Dissertations; Friedenthal M. – Piirimäe P., “Philosophical Disputations at the University of Tartu 1632–1710: Boundaries of a Discipline”, Studia Philosophica Estonica 8, 2 (2015) 65–90; Sjökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from 17th-Century Sweden (Uppsala: 2012); Tering A., “The dissertations of doctors of medicine active in Estland, Livland and Courland, defended at European universities in the eighteenth century”, Ajalooline Ajakiri 133–134 (2010) 367−402; Kivistö S., “Sympathy in rhetorical persuasion: Two eighteenth-century Finnish dissertations”, Rhetorica Scandinavica 43 (2007) 39–57; Östlund K., Johan Ihre on the Origins and History of the Runes: Three Latin Dissertations from the Mid 18th Century,

14

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

disputations, and electronic catalogues, have facilitated a clearer overview of the topics and tendencies in these academic writings, although much work remains to be done, especially concerning disputations from Copenhagen university, which have attracted comparatively little attention. Methods used in the digital humanities have been proposed to analyse the disputations, and indeed it seems that these texts would be an excellent source material for distant reading methods. With the development of better OCR technology regarding early modern type and the development of tools suitable for statistical analysis of Latin and Greek texts, it is to be hoped that much new information will be gained regarding general developments in the intellectual culture of the period. 4

Outlook: Problems, Desiderata, Perspectives

The previous sections have touched upon the current state of research into the history of the early modern disputation and indicated areas for future investigation. This research is now summarized, the focus sharpened, and concerns previously mentioned are supplemented by a number of further considerations. Dissertation collections have been and are being indexed in databases tailored to their requirements.37 Titles and/or texts are constantly being digitized and added to electronic records. Progress in bibliographic indexing has been made in Eastern Europe – in Poland and the Czech Republic,38 and more recently Russia – while it has been slower in Southern and Western Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. In Italy, for example, universities were of marginal significance in the early modern period; a more important role in the teaching of academic elites was played by religious schools, seminaries for priests such as the Collegium Helveticum in Milan, specialist training opportunities for Studia Latina Upsaliensia 25 (Uppsala: 2000); Vallinkoski J., Die Dissertationen der alten Universität Turku 1642–1828, Publications of the University Library at Helsinki 30 (Helsinki: 1966); Lounela J., Die Logik im XVII. Jahrhundert in Finnland, Annales academiae scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 17 (Helsinki: 1978); Kallinen K., Change and Stability: Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku (1640–1713), Studia Historica 51 (Helsinki: 1995). 37  Cf. dissertations from the early modern University of Königsberg (https://forschungenengi.ch/projekte/koenigsberg.htm) and the Academic Gymnasium Danzig (Athenäum) at Gdansk (https://forschungen-engi.ch/projekte/danzig.htm). 38  For the dissertations of the early modern University of Prague see Tříška J., Disertace pražské univerzity 16.–18. století (Dissertationes universitatis Pragensis 16.–18. saec.) (Prague: 1977).

Introduction

15

medical and legal professionals, and private tuition.39 It is therefore unsurprising that printed disputations are rare in early modern Italy. In early modern France, higher education institutions founded by Huguenots, such as those of Sedan, Saumur, Nîmes and Montauban, deserve attention for the role they play in the history of disputations and dissertations.40 The work devoted to dissertations defended in South-Eastern Europe, especially in Hungary and Romania, should be continued: here researchers can build on invaluable bibliographical achievements.41 Not to be forgotten are the non-European continents, among which North America has long been expertly catalogued by the National Union Catalogue. The printed catalogues of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and the British Library in London also contain dissertations; and the holdings of the Bodleian Library in Oxford were recorded early on in a printed catalogue specific to the genre.42

39  Hersche P., “Die Marginalisierung der Universität im katholischen Europa des Barockzeitalters, Das Beispiel Italiens”, in Schwinges R.Ch. (ed.), Universität, Religion und Kirchen, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 11 (Basel: 2011) 267–276 (with further sources). Very little secondary literature exists on the history of teaching in southern European countries. 40  Lists exist of theological dissertations defended at Sedan, a Hohe Schule founded on the model of the Académie de Genève; they include the Syntagma disputationum theologicarum (Sedan: Iannon 1611). Further reading: Komorowski M., “Die Universität Orléans im 17. Jahrhundert: ihre Bedeutung für Juristen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum”, in Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 386–409, here 400, illustration of a title page. 41  Res Litteraria Hungariae Vetus Operum Impressorum 1473–1670, 4 vols. (Budapest: 1971– 2012), vol. 4 under https://mek.oszk.hu (date retrieved: 16.11.2019), with abundant and precise evidence of thesis prints; Chindriş I. et al., Cartea românească veche în Imperiul Habsburgic (1691–1830), Recuperarea unei indentităţi culturale – Old Romanian Book in the Habsburg Empire (1691–1830), Recovery of a cultural identity (Cluj-Napoca: 2016). Printed early modern dissertations are available from Debrecen, Oradea, Sibiu, Alba Iulia, Kassa, Cluj-Napoca, Brasov (Braşov), Leutschau (Löcse), Preschau (Eperjes), Sárospatak, Tyrnau (Nagyszombat), and from today’s western Slovakian Trenèín (Trenčín). For bibliographical additions we thank Jan-Andrea Bernhard and Ádám Hegyi. 42  Cf. Marti H., Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660–1750. Eine Auswahlbibliographie, unter Mitarbeit von Karin Marti (Munich – New York – London – Paris: 1982) 47–50, 70–77; Komorowski M., “Die Hochschulschriften des 17. Jahrhunderts und ihre bibliographische Erfassung”, Wolfenbütteler Barock-Nachrichten 24, 1 (1997) 19– 42; Risse W., Bibliographia philosophica vetus: Repertorium generale systematicum operum philosophicorum usque ad annum MDCCC typis impressorum. Ps. 8: Theses academicae: Teile 1 und 2: Index disputationum, Teil 3: Index respondentium; Ps. 9: Syllabus auctorum, Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 45.8, 1–3; 45.9 (Hildesheim – Zurich – New York: 1998). On internationally printed bibliographical works in general: Koppitz H.J., Grundzüge der Bibliographie (Munich: 1977).

16

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

The Handbücher der historischen Buchbestände is a valuable source of information on extant collections of dissertations in European libraries. However, there are considerable geographical gaps in these collections, and they focus on the book production of German-speaking countries.43 Dissertation collections enjoyed great popularity in scholarly libraries of the early modern period. Some of them are preserved in their entirety; these have attracted the interest of researchers.44 There are printed indexes for individual Hohe Schulen that aim at exhaustive listing: to name just one example, the University of Giessen’s early modern short works (‘Kleinschriften’) were painstakingly recorded by Hermann Schüling, one of the first bibliographers of old university theses.45 Further improvements and new additions are in prospect and are very much to be welcomed. There is as yet no up-to-date bibliographic overview of early modern dissertation holdings in libraries in Europe and other continents; current bibliographic practice all too often centres on national book production. An internationalization of genre-specific bibliographical communication is desirable, even if national reference works on university history, such as Erman-Horn’s bibliography of the literature of disputation, which refers to the former German Reich, can still be consulted.46 Handwritten sources on the early modern history of disputations, which have been neglected thus far, usually have to be made known bibliographically before they can start to be taken into account in research work.47

43  H  andbuch der historischen Buchbestände in Europa (http://fabian.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ fabian). In PDF form: Handbuch der historischen Buchbestände in der Schweiz (https://www .zb.uzh.ch/de/collections/handbuch-der-historischen-buchbestande-in-der-schweiz). Not included are, among others, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Spain. 44  Kramm H., Wittenberg und das Auslandsdeutschtum im Lichte älterer Hochschulschriften, Sammlung bibliothekswissenschaftlicher Arbeiten 50 (Leipzig: 1941); Hegyi A., Hungarica in der Dissertationssammlung des Nürnberger Naturforschers und Arztes Christoph Jacob Trew (1695–1769), Katalog 1582–1765, Bavarica et Hungarica 3 (Budapest: 2019). 45  Schüling H., Die Dissertationen und Habilitationsschriften der Universität Gießen im 18. Jahrhundert, Berichte und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek Gießen 26 (Gießen: 1976); idem, Die Dissertationen und Habilitationsschriften der Universität Gießen 1650–1700, Bibliographie (Munich – New York – London – Paris: 1982). 46  Erman W. – Horn E., Bibliographie der deutschen Universitäten. Systematisch geordnetes Verzeichnis der bis Ende 1899 gedruckten Bücher und Aufsätze über das deutsche Universitätswesen. 3 vols. (Leipzig – Berlin: 1904/1905; Reprint: Hildesheim: 1965), cf. vol. 1, 15–21, 340–367. 47  Cf. Schlegelmilch U., “Andreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationscollegiums zur Physiologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart – Marti – Seidel (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen 49–88.

Introduction

17

Aristotle’s Topics is a detailed guide to disputation to which later disputation theorists repeatedly referred, even if only indirectly. Probability thinking, which is located at the border between logic and rhetoric, has occupied a firm place in compendia of logic since the 16th century.48 The ars disputandi has not as yet found sufficiently comprehensive, cross-denominational and crossnational representation. The same applies to the history of the methods of disputation. In the early modern period, the syllogistic method was still largely preferred, with the Socratic method and the mathematical approach (of Christian Wolff and his followers) less frequently used.49 Disputation theory and practice at early modern Hohe Schulen survived all the attacks launched against it: these attacks were instigated in the 16th century mainly by the humanists, and came later on from scientific empiricism and variously motivated criticisms of scholasticism. Sometimes disputation and experiment were even used in combination at philosophical faculties.50 While dissertations were previously considered separately from other types of texts, in the last decade there has been an increasing tendency to relate them to other genres of scholarly literature, especially the programmata, and to secure a place for them in the system of Litterärgeschichte.51 Thus, lecture catalogues announced diverse courses teaching disputation. Authors of programmata provided general advice for the teaching of disputation and outlined the syllabus of disputation courses. Textbooks evidently originated from disputation cycles or, conversely, served as models for disputation exercises. Network research has discovered indispensable sources in dissertations and their accompanying paratexts (dedications, congratulatory addresses), which supplement the bibliographically better known repertoire of independently published occasional writings.52 The early modern disputation – more so than the lectio, which was also sometimes written – occupied a space suspended 48  Cf. Beetz M., Rhetorische Logik, Prämissen der deutschen Lyrik im Übergang vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert, Studien zur deutschen Literatur 62 (Tübingen: 1980) 80, 164, 169, 173. 49  Marti H., “Nov-antiquitas als Programm. Zur frühneuzeitlichen Schuldisputation an der Universität Jena (1580–1700)”, in Herbst K.D. (ed.), Erhard Weigel (1625–1699) und die Wissenschaften (Frankfort on the Main: 2013) 15–49. 50  Wiesenfeldt G., Leerer Raum in Minervas Haus. Experimentelle Naturlehre an der Universität Leiden, 1675–1715 (Berlin – Diepholz: 2002), in particular 162–173. 51  See for example Traninger A., Disputation, Deklamation, Dialog. Medien und Gattungen europäischer Wissensverhandlungen zwischen Scholastik und Humanismus (Stuttgart: 2012). 52  The poetic occasional writings which appeared as separate prints in the Old Empire, mainly in the 17th century, are catalogued by Garber K. (ed.), Handbuch des perso­ nalen Gelegenheitsschrifttums in europäischen Bibliotheken und Archiven, to date 31 vols. (Hildesheim – Zurich – New York: 2001–2013).

18

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

between oral and written scholarly culture. It combines various elements of the two traditions and is now increasingly being evaluated in praxeological studies that draw on discourse analysis and communication theory.53 But the content negotiated in the theses still merits close attention within a comprehensive history of knowledge. Recent research has focused on the discrepancy between the norms of the disputatio and the reality of disputation.54 However, it will inevitably also have to take a closer look at the mass of normative sources, since these are not so far from reality, not only in the questionable terms of a historiographical ideal of objectivity. Hitherto rather neglected research on dissertation printing and trading affords insights into the financial burdens and returns of disputations.55 It is not uncommon for pro gradu disputations in particular to incur burdensome costs; and non-academics such as innkeepers and coachmen became further financial beneficiaries of the disputation system.56 The disputation system of various types of higher education institutions has been researched to varying degrees. Most work has focused on the schools entitled to award doctorates, the universities, with individual gymnasia of widely varying status coming into view more recently. The least known dissertations are those of the scholars of the mendicant orders, the house faculties of individual prelate monasteries (such as the Cistercian monasteries), and the academies of knights.57 53  Clark W., Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University (Chicago – London: 2006); Füssel M., Gelehrtenkultur als symbolische Praxis. Rang, Ritual und Konflikt an der Universität der Frühen Neuzeit, Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne, Studien zur Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst (Darmstadt: 2006) 149–187; idem, “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deutungsangebote”, in Gindhart – Marti – Seidel (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen 27–48; Stollberg-Rilinger B., “Von der sozialen Magie der Promotion. Ritual und Ritualkritik in der Gelehrtenkultur der Frühen Neuzeit”, Paragrana 12 (2003) 1 and 2, 273–296. 54  See for example Mulsow M., Die unanständige Gelehrtenrepublik. Wissen, Libertinage und Kommunikation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart – Weimar: 2007) 191–215 (“Der ausgescherte Opponent. Akademische Unfälle und Radikalisierung”). 55  Rasche U., “Die deutschen Universitäten und die ständische Gesellschaft. Über institutionengeschichtliche und sozioökonomische Dimensionen von Zeugnissen, Dissertationen und Promotionen in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 150–273. 56  List of costs for a Königsberg practice disputation in Marti, “Dissertation und Promotion” 19; Marti H., “Einleitung”, in Marti H. – Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Nürnbergs Hochschule in Altdorf, Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschafts- und Bildungsgeschichte (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2014) 7–15, at 12–13 (on the trade in dissertations). 57  As an example of the mendicant orders: Jann A. (Adelhelm von Stans), “Der selige Märtyrer Apollinaris Morel von Posat und die feierliche Disputation seines theologischen Kurses”,

Introduction

figure 1.1 Title page of the book catalogue of a Göttingen dissertation dealer. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen: 8 HLL XII, 2372:1

19

20

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

figure 1.2 Title page of a dissertation defended under the chairmanship of a Franciscan in Fulda and Limburg. Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda: 100 Fuld 58/30

Introduction

21

The content of dissertations on subjects at philosophical faculties, such as rhetoric, poetics, aesthetics, politics, as well as physics in Catholic areas and metaphysics in Jesuit colleges, has received more attention than that of the dissertations defended in the upper faculties. Disputation theory, as far as the field of jurisprudence is concerned, has been researched insufficiently. The same applies to controversial theological dissertations and textbooks of all three denominations. Outside of educational institutions, early modern polemical literature across a broad spectrum of academic genres influenced the denominational politics of church and secular authorities, whose success depended on their proficiency and practice in scholarly controversies.58 In Protestant regions (in Switzerland, for example, in Zurich) synodal disputations were organized for the further education of pastors, for which printed dissertations are available that attract little interest today.59 For about two decades, research has increasingly turned to the theological propaedeutics of Lutheran Orthodoxy; however, these efforts have been limited to a few universities, primarily Wittenberg. The study guides examined also deal with theological disputations in a broad hodegetic framework.60 Since early modern times, the academic disputations of Protestants have been historiographically enhanced by the (now historically disputed) act of the posting in Collectanea Franciscana 2 (1932) 72–98, 208–243, 348–376, 488–519; Schlageter J., Franziskanische Barocktheologie, Theologie der franziskanischen Thuringia im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Abtei und Diözese Fulda 30 (Fulda: 2008), esp. 197–209. For a detailed examination of teaching at a monastic faculty: Leinsle U.G., Studium im Kloster. Das philosophisch-theologische Hausstudium des Stiftes Schlägl 1633–1783, Bibliotheca Analectorum Praemonstratensium 20 (Averbode: 2000). 58  Bremer K., Religionsstreitigkeiten. Volkssprachliche Kontroversen zwischen altgläubigen und evangelischen Theologen im 16. Jahrhundert, Frühe Neuzeit 104 (Tübingen: 2005); Dingel I., “Streitkultur und Kontroversschrifttum im späten 16. Jahrhundert. Versuch einer methodischen Standortbestimmung”, in Dingel I. – Schäufele W.F. (eds.), Kommunikation und Transfer im Christentum der Frühen Neuzeit (Mainz: 2007) 95–111; Gierl M., Pietismus und Aufklärung. Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 129 (Göttingen: 1997). 59  Leu U.B., “Häresie und Staatsgewalt. Die theologischen Zürcher Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts zwischen Orthodoxie und Frühaufklärung”, in Marti H. – MartiWeissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 105–145, at 106–108; Bodmer J.P., “Zürcher Disputationsthesen bis 1653. Facetten einer Druckschriftengattung”, Zwingliana 41 (2014) 85–116, at 92–94; see also Leu’s article in this volume. 60  Nieden M., Die Erfindung des Theologen. Wittenberger Anweisungen zum Theologiestudium im Zeitalter von Reformation und Konfessionalisierung, Spätmittelalter und Reformation Neue Reihe 28 (Tübingen: 2006) 53–59; Bohnert D., Wittenberger Universitätstheologie im frühen 17. Jahrhundert. Eine Fallstudie zu Friedrich Balduin (1575–1627), Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 183 (Tübingen: 2017) 159–172.

22

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

figure 1.3 Title page of a dissertation defended during the Loitz synod. Universitätsbibliothek Greifswald: 536/Disp.theol. 36,12

of the Ninety-Five Theses in Wittenberg, which initiated the Reformation, and by the reputation of Martin Luther as a skillful disputant.61 In (philosophical) 61  O  tt J. – Treu M. (eds.), Luthers Thesenanschlag – Faktum oder Fiktion, Schriften der Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt 9 (Leipzig: 2008); Schwarz R., “Disputationen”, in Beutel A. (ed.), Luther-Handbuch (Tübingen: 32016) 372–384.

Introduction

23

theses of Protestant provenance, Catholic authorities are often consulted in agreement, whereas those of Catholic disputants display hardly any appreciative reception of Protestant sources. There are few detailed studies on parallels and differences between disputations and religious discussions, although the meeting of Protestant and Jesuit theologians in Regensburg in 1601, for example, inspired comparison and evaluation during the 17th century of denominationally different norms of argumentation and led to the use of this religious discussion in the academic teaching of disputation.62 In the field of denominational comparative literature, there are still gaps in research on printmaking, even after intensive study of the rich copperplate titles of theses of Catholic provenance. As is well known, the courses of study based on the Ratio Studiorum and other Jesuit decrees were widespread worldwide and had significant influence on the Catholic disputation system. The college founded by Ignatius of Loyola in Rome had exemplary character.63 The philosophical dissertations of Catholic countries related to (scholastic) logic, ethics, philosophy of nature and metaphysics stand in contrast to the variety of topics in Protestant areas, which also include history, philology, politics and further disciplines of the philosophical subject canon. Medicine and jurisprudence are absent from most of the Catholic universities and gymnasia of the early modern period, and where they were taught they led a shadowy existence, which nevertheless deserves attention from the perspective of the history of disputation. There was a connection between the scholarship system and the obligation to dispute across denominations:64 thesis papers often, sometimes

62  F uchs T., Konfession und Gespräch, Typologie der Religionsgespräche in der Reformationszeit, Norm und Struktur 4 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 1995); Vogel L., “Religionsgespräche”, in Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 10 (Berlin – Boston: 2019) 1054–1065; Schüling H., Die Geschichte der axiomatischen Methode im 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert, Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 13 (Hildesheim – New York: 1969) 84, 154: Regensburg 1601 (see also Felipe in this volume); Roobol M., Disputation by Decree. The Public Disputations between Reformed Ministers and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert as Instruments of Religious Policy during the Dutch Revolt (1577–1583), Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 152 (Leiden – Boston: 2010). 63  Villoslada R.G., Storia del Collegio Romano dal suo inizio (1551) alla soppressione della Compagnia di Gesù (1773), Analecta Gregoriana 66 (Rome: 1954); Wels H., Die Disputatio de anima rationali secundum substantiam des Nicolaus Baldelli S.J. nach dem Pariser Codex B.N. lat. 16627. Eine Studie zur Ablehnung des Averroismus und des Alexandrismus am Collegium Romanum zu Anfang des 17. Jahrhunderts, Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie 30 (Amsterdam: 2000); Kotala L., Method and Practice of Oral Disputation in the 16th and 17th century. The Jesuit Tradition (Olomouc: 2016). 64   Foremost reference work on the scholarship system: Ebneth B., “Stipendium und Promotion, Studienförderung vor und nach der Reformation”, in Schwinges R.Ch. (ed.), Examen, Titel, Promotionen, Akademisches und staatliches Qualifikationswesen vom

24

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

as the only source documents, testify to the payment of support funds, supplementing the information gained from scholarship files. Dissertations afford heightened insight into early modern developments and shifts in the canon of subjects, caused by the emergence of natural law and the rise of biblical exegesis, and they facilitate the assignment of subjects to faculties. Statements on disputatio by all the early modern philosophical authorities still respected today (such as John Locke) merit the same attention as the long-established influence of René Descartes. Similarly, analysis of early modern standard topics of dissertations is a productive area of research, since it reveals nuances of knowledge tied to place and time, and sometimes relations between schools, which are less prominent outside the literature of disputation. Understandably, the originality of the topics and forms of argumentation is at the forefront of disputation research, but this often carries the consequence that the everyday routine of disputatio, which is quite different at the various educational institutions, is forgotten. The reception history of early modern dissertations has been insufficiently researched. This applies to the transfer of knowledge from Latin into publications in vernacular languages and the influence of vernacular literature on neo-Latin scholarly literature.65 From time to time, dissertations were published in collective editions, often with omission of paratexts and sometimes with modified content, or as individual texts in up to five editions. Also, they were translated into the vernacular and made accessible to a non-scholarly audience. Conversely, theses could fall at the first hurdle and cause offence to the university’s internal censors.66 Encyclopedias, dictionaries and works on the history of scholarship took up the information available in the dissertations and disseminated it in fragments. Early modern dissertations wrongly occupy a marginal position among the sources of concepts in contemporary reference works.67 The instrumentalization of knowledge from dissertations in fictional texts (in popular weeklies, dialogues, didactic poems and novels) illustrates 13. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 7 (Basel: 2007) 489–533. 65  For comparative material from works in vernacular language see Geissler-Kuhn A., « Nach dem Probier-Stein der Vernunfft examiniret », Popularisierung realkundlichen Wissens in der Buntschriftstellerei der Frühen Neuzeit, Schriften zur Kulturgeschichte 50 (Hamburg: 2018). 66  Marti H., “Grenzen der Denkfreiheit in Dissertationen des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts. Theodor Ludwig Laus Scheitern an der juristischen Fakultät der Universität Königsberg”, in Zedelmaier H. – Mulsow M. (eds.), Die Praktiken der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit, Frühe Neuzeit 64 (Tübingen: 2001) 295–306. 67  Acknowledged by Klein W.P., Die Geschichte der meteorologischen Kommunikation in Deutschland. Eine historische Fallstudie zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaftssprachen, Texte und Studien zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 2 (Zurich – New York – Hildesheim: 1999).

Introduction

25

figure 1.4 Title page of a mock-dissertation with fictitious names and place names. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München: 4 Diss. 3109,16

the transfer of knowledge from the types of texts preferred by scholars into the channels of reception of popular writings. Mock-dissertations are an extreme case of literary shaping of the role play of the disputation, and express at the same time criticism of knowledge and of literary genres.68 68  See Gindhart – Kundert (eds.), Disputatio. Further reading: Füssel M., “Der magische Tisch: Soziale Raumbezüge studentischen Lebens der Barockzeit im Spiegel einer

26

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

The source value of early modern theses in many historiographical subject areas is now undisputed, a development that could not have been anticipated forty years ago. The dissertations written in later centuries also provide information on basic currents, schooling and ideologies in the history of science and research. The aim is now to make optimal use of the current multitude of methodological and content-related approaches in order to approach the goal of a fruitful historiography of the courses of study, and of higher education as a whole, while meeting the demands of contextuality, interdisciplinary orientation and internationality. Despite overlaps in the four core areas of university history (institutional and constitutional history, personnel history, student history, and external representation of the university), the history of teaching and research must be explicitly added to these core topics.69 If the present publication gives emphasis to this ambition and helps to realize it, it has achieved its purpose. Bibliography Ahsmann M.J.A.M., Collegium und Kolleg. Der juristische Unterricht an der Universität Leiden 1575–1630 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Disputationen (Frankfort on the Main: 2000). Appold K.G., Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung. Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 127 (Tübingen: 2004). Appuhn-Radtke S., Das Thesenblatt im Hochbarock. Studien zu einer graphischen Gattung am Beispiel der Werke Bartholomäus Kilians (Weißenhorn: 1988). Barthez Paul-Joseph, Quaestiones medicae duodecim […], quas […] propugnabit […] diebus 29, 30 et 31 mensis Januarii anni 1761 […] (Montpellier: Martel 1761). Bazàn B.C. – Fransen G. – Jacquart D. – Wippel J.W., Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de médecine, Typologie des sources de Moyen Âge occidental 44–45 (Turnhout: 1985). Beck A.J., Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 92 (Göttingen: 2007). Scherzdisputation”, in Friedrich K. (ed.), Die Erschließung des Raumes, Konstruktion, Imagination und Darstellung von Räumen und Grenzen im Barockzeitalter, Teil 2, Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 51 (Wiesbaden: 2014) 489–504. 69  The four categories specified in Schwinges R.Ch., “Universitätsgeschichte: Bemerkungen zu Stand und Tendenzen der Forschung (vornehmlich im deutschsprachigen Raum)”, in Prüll L. – George Ch. – Hüther F. (eds.), Universitätsgeschichte schreiben. Inhalte – Methoden – Fallbeispiele, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Mainz Neue Folge 14 (Mainz: 2019) 25–45, at 42–43.

Introduction

27

Beetz M., Rhetorische Logik, Prämissen der deutschen Lyrik im Übergang vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert, Studien zur deutschen Literatur 62 (Tübingen: 1980). Bodmer J.P., “Zürcher Disputationsthesen bis 1653. Facetten einer Druckschriftengattung”, Zwingliana 41 (2014) 85‒116. Bohnert D., Wittenberger Universitätstheologie im frühen 17. Jahrhundert. Eine Fallstudie zu Friedrich Balduin (1575‒1627), Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 183 (Tübingen: 2017) 159‒172. Bremer K., Religionsstreitigkeiten. Volkssprachliche Kontroversen zwischen altgläubigen und evangelischen Theologen im 16. Jahrhundert, Frühe Neuzeit 104 (Tübingen: 2005). Brockliss L.W.B., French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. A Cultural History (Oxford: 1987). Broussonet Auguste, Variae positiones circa respirationem, quas publicis subjiciebat disputationibus […] (Montpellier: Martel 1778). Burman L., Eloquent Students, Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663‒2010 (Uppsala: 2012). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19/2 (2004) 129–187. Chindriş I. et al., Cartea românească veche în Imperiul Habsburgic (1691–1830), Recuperarea unei indentităţi culturale – Old Romanian Book in the Habsburg Empire (1691–1830), Recovery of a cultural identity (Cluj-Napoca: 2016). Clark W., Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University (Chicago ‒ London: 2006). De Boer J.H., “Disputation, quaestio disputata” in de Boer J.H. – Füssel M. – Schuh M. (eds.), Universitäre Gelehrtenkultur vom 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Ein interdisziplinäres Quellen- und Methodenhandbuch (Stuttgart: 2018) 221–254. Dibon P., L’enseignement philosophique dans les universités néerlandaises a l’époque précartésienne (1575–1650) (Leiden: 1954). Dingel I., “Streitkultur und Kontroversschrifttum im späten 16. Jahrhundert. Versuch einer methodischen Standortbestimmung”, in Dingel I. ‒ Schäufele W.F. (eds.), Kommunikation und Transfer im Christentum der Frühen Neuzeit (Mainz: 2007) 95‒111. Ebneth B., “Stipendium und Promotion, Studienförderung vor und nach der Reformation”, in Schwinges R. Ch. (ed.), Examen, Titel, Promotionen, Akademisches und staatliches Qualifikationswesen vom 13. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 7 (Basel: 2007) 489‒533. Eliasson P., “Peregrinatio Academica: The Study Tours and University Visits of Swedish Students Until the Year 1800”, Science & Technology Studies (1992) 29–42. Erman W., Verzeichnis der Berliner Universitätsschriften 1810–1885 (Berlin: 1899; Reprint: Hildesheim – New York: 1973).

28

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

Erman W. ‒ Horn E., Bibliographie der deutschen Universitäten. Systematisch geordnetes Verzeichnis der bis Ende 1899 gedruckten Bücher und Aufsätze über das deutsche Universitätswesen. 3 vols. (Leipzig ‒ Berlin: 1904/1905; Reprint: Hildesheim: 1965). Felipe D., The Post-Medieval Ars Disputandi (Ann Arbor: 1991). Freedman J.S., “Disputations in Europe in the early modern period” in Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden (ed.), Hora est! On dissertations (Leiden: 2005) 30–50. Friedenthal M. – Piirimäe P., “Philosophical Disputations at the University of Tartu 1632–1710: Boundaries of a Discipline”, Studia Philosophica Estonica 8, 2 (2015) 65–90. Fuchs T., Konfession und Gespräch, Typologie der Religionsgespräche in der Reformationszeit, Norm und Struktur 4 (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒ Vienna: 1995). Füssel M., Gelehrtenkultur als symbolische Praxis. Rang, Ritual und Konflikt an der Universität der Frühen Neuzeit, Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne, Studien zur Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst (Darmstadt: 2006). Füssel M., “Der magische Tisch: Soziale Raumbezüge studentischen Lebens der Barockzeit im Spiegel einer Scherzdisputation”, in Friedrich K. (ed.), Die Erschließung des Raumes, Konstruktion, Imagination und Darstellung von Räumen und Grenzen im Barockzeitalter, Teil 2, Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 51 (Wiesbaden: 2014) 489–504. Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deutungsangebote”, in Gindhart ‒ Marti ‒ Seidel, Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen 27‒48. Garber K. (ed.), Handbuch des personalen Gelegenheitsschrifttums in europäischen Bibliotheken und Archiven, to date 31 vols. (Hildesheim ‒ Zurich ‒ New York: 2001‒2013). Geissler-Kuhn A., « Nach dem Probier-Stein der Vernunfft examiniret », Popularisierung realkundlichen Wissens in der Buntschriftstellerei der Frühen Neuzeit, Schriften zur Kulturgeschichte 50 (Hamburg: 2018). Gierl M., Pietismus und Aufklärung. Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikations­ reform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts, Veröffentlichungen des MaxPlanck-Instituts für Geschichte 129 (Göttingen: 1997). Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Grendler P.F., The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore – London: 2002). Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (called Ueberweg, after its first compiler; Basel: 1983). Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society 18 (Cambridge: 2009). Hegyi A., Hungarica in der Dissertationssammlung des Nürnberger Naturforschers und Arztes Christoph Jacob Trew (1695‒1769), Katalog 1582‒1765, Bavarica et Hungarica 3 (Budapest: 2019). Hellekamps S. – Musolff, H.-U. (eds.), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (Münster: 2009).

Introduction

29

Hellekamps S. – Musolff, H.-U. (eds.), Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien in der frühen Neuzeit. Neue Studien zu Schule und Unterricht 1600–1750 (Münster: 2014). Hersche P., “Die Marginalisierung der Universität im katholischen Europa des Barockzeitalters, Das Beispiel Italiens”, in Schwinges R.Ch. (ed.), Universität, Religion und Kirchen, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 11 (Basel: 2011) 267‒276. Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820 (Gothenburg: 2018). Horn E., Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den Deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: 1893). Jann A. (Adelhelm von Stans), “Der selige Märtyrer Apollinaris Morel von Posat und die feierliche Disputation seines theologischen Kurses”, in Collectanea Franciscana 2 (1932) 72–98, 208–243, 348–376, 488–519. Kallinen K., Change and Stability: Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku (1640– 1713), Studia Historica 51 (Helsinki: 1995). Kivistö S., “Sympathy in rhetorical persuasion: Two eighteenth-century Finnish dissertations”, Rhetorica Scandinavica 43 (2007) 39–57. Klein W. P., Die Geschichte der meteorologischen Kommunikation in Deutschland. Eine historische Fallstudie zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaftssprachen, Texte und Studien zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 2 (Zurich ‒ New York ‒ Hildesheim: 1999). Komorowski M., “Die Hochschulschriften des 17. Jahrhunderts und ihre bibliographische Erfassung”, Wolfenbütteler Barock-Nachrichten 24, 1 (1997) 19‒42. Komorowski M., “Die Universität Orléans im 17. Jahrhundert: ihre Bedeutung für Juristen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum”, in Sdzuj R.B. ‒ Seidel R. ‒ Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung ‒ Gelehrsamkeit ‒ Disputationskultur (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012) 386‒409. Koppitz H.J., Grundzüge der Bibliographie (Munich: 1977). Kotala L., Method and Practice of Oral Disputation in the 16th and 17th century. The Jesuit Tradition (Olomouc: 2016). Kramm H., Wittenberg und das Auslandsdeutschtum im Lichte älterer Hochschulschriften, Sammlung bibliothekswissenschaftlicher Arbeiten 50 (Leipzig: 1941). Lamanna M., Zwischen Real- und Supertranszendentalwissenschaft, Metaphysikunterricht und “Geburt” der Ontologie in St. Gallen im Zeitalter der Reformation (in print). Lamanna M., Metaphysik und Ontologie in der Schweiz im Zeitalter der Reformation (1519‒1648) (in preparation). Lawn B., The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic ‘Quaestio disputata’. With Special Emphasis on its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 2 (Leiden – New York – Cologne: 1993). Leinsle U.G., Studium im Kloster. Das philosophisch-theologische Hausstudium des Stiftes Schlägl 1633‒1783, Bibliotheca Analectorum Praemonstratensium 20 (Averbode: 2000).

30

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

Leinsle U., Dilinganae Disputationes. Der Lehrinhalt der gedruckten Disputationen an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Dillingen 1555–1648, Jesuitica 11 (Regensburg: 2006). Leu U.B., “Häresie und Staatsgewalt. Die theologischen Zürcher Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts zwischen Orthodoxie und Frühaufklärung”, in Marti H. ‒ Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012) 105‒145. Lindberg B., “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39. Lindberg B. (ed.), Early Modern Academic Culture, Konferenser / Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien 97 (Stockholm: 2019). Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975). Lines D.A., Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’ in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650). The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 13 (Leiden – Boston – Cologne: 2002). Lounela J., Die Logik im XVII. Jahrhundert in Finnland, Annales academiae scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 17 (Helsinki: 1978). Mack P., Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: 2002). Marti H., Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660‒1750. Eine Auswahlbibliographie, unter Mitarbeit von Karin Marti (Munich ‒ New York ‒ London ‒ Paris: 1982). Marti H., “Disputation” in Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 2 (Tübingen: 1994) 866‒880. Marti H., “Dissertation” in ibidem 880‒884. Marti H., “Grenzen der Denkfreiheit in Dissertationen des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts. Theodor Ludwig Laus Scheitern an der juristischen Fakultät der Universität Königsberg”, in Zedelmaier H. ‒ Mulsow M. (eds.), Die Praktiken der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit, Frühe Neuzeit 64 (Tübingen: 2001) 295‒306. Marti H., “Dissertation und Promotion an frühneuzeitlichen Universitäten des deutschen Sprachraums. Versuch eines skizzenhaften Überblicks”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 1‒20. Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel im 18. Jahrhundert”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 63–85. Marti H., “Dissertationen”, in Rasche U. (ed.), Quellen zur frühneuzeitlichen Universitätsgeschichte. Typen, Bestände, Forschungsperspektiven (Wiesbaden: 2011) 293–312.

Introduction

31

Marti H., “Nov-antiquitas als Programm. Zur frühneuzeitlichen Schuldisputation an der Universität Jena (1580‒1700)”, in Herbst K.D. (ed.), Erhard Weigel (1625‒1699) und die Wissenschaften (Frankfort on the Main: 2013) 15‒49. Marti H., “Einleitung”, in Marti H. ‒ Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Nürnbergs Hochschule in Altdorf, Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschafts- und Bildungsgeschichte (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒Vienna: 2014) 7‒15. Marti H., “Die Disputationsschriften – Speicher logifizierten Wissens” in Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der Frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin – Boston: 2015) 203–241. Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungswesen des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017). Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation in der Frühen Neuzeit und im 19. Jahrhundert – Gegenstand der Wissenschaftssprachgeschichte?”, in Prinz M. – Schiewe J. (eds.), Vernakuläre Wissenschaftskommunikation. Beiträge zur Entstehung und Frühgeschichte der modernen deutschen Wissenschaftssprachen, Lingua Academica 1 (Berlin – Boston: 2018) 271–292. Matsen H.S., “Students’ ‘Arts’ Disputations at Bologna around 1500”, Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994) 533–555. Meyer V., L’illustration des thèses dans la seconde moitié du XVII° siècle. Peintres, Graveurs, Editeurs (Paris: 2002). Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Les thèses dédiées à Louis XIV (Rennes: 2017). Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Louis XIV en thèses, Catalogue (Rennes: 2017). Mommsen, K., Auf dem Wege zur Staatssouveränität. Staatliche Grundbegriffe in Basler juristischen Doktordisputationen des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Bern: 1970). Mulsow M., Die unanständige Gelehrtenrepublik. Wissen, Libertinage und Kommunikation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart ‒ Weimar: 2007). Nieden M., Die Erfindung des Theologen. Wittenberger Anweisungen zum Theologiestudium im Zeitalter von Reformation und Konfessionalisierung, Spätmittelalter und Reformation Neue Reihe 28 (Tübingen: 2006) 53‒59. Niléhn L.H., Peregrinatio academica: det svenska samhället och de utrikes studieresorna under 1600-talet, Bibliotheca historica Lundensis 54 (Lund: 1983). Novikoff A., The Medieval Culture of Disputation. Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia: 2013). Östlund K., Johan Ihre on the Origins and History of the Runes: Three Latin Dissertations from the Mid 18th Century, Studia Latina Upsaliensia 25 (Uppsala: 2000). Ott J. ‒ Treu M. (eds.), Luthers Thesenanschlag ‒ Faktum oder Fiktion, Schriften der Luthergedenkstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt 9 (Leipzig: 2008). Poll R., “Zur Geschichte der juristischen Promotion an der Erlanger Universität”, in Schug D. (ed.), Der Bibliothekar zwischen Praxis und Wissenschaft, Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 24 (Wiesbaden: 1986) 168–210.

32

FRIEDENTHAL, MARTI AND SEIDEL

Rasche U., “Die deutschen Universitäten und die ständische Gesellschaft. Über institutionengeschichtliche und sozioökonomische Dimensionen von Zeugnissen, Dissertationen und Promotionen in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Bilder ‒ Daten ‒ Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 150‒273. Res Litteraria Hungariae Vetus Operum Impressorum 1473–1670, 4 vols. (Budapest: 1971–2012). Risse W., Bibliographia philosophica vetus: Repertorium generale systematicum operum philosophicorum usque ad annum MDCCC typis impressorum. Ps. 8: Theses academicae: Teile 1 und 2: Index disputationum, Teil 3: Index respondentium; Ps. 9: Syllabus auctorum, Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 45.8, 1–3; 45.9 (Hildesheim ‒ Zurich ‒ New York: 1998). Rodda J., Public religious disputation in England, 1558–1626 (London: 2016). Roobol M., Disputation by Decree. The Public Disputations between Reformed Ministers and Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert as Instruments of Religious Policy during the Dutch Revolt (1577–1583), Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 152 (Leiden – Boston: 2010). Schlageter J., Franziskanische Barocktheologie, Theologie der franziskanischen Thuringia im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Abtei und Diözese Fulda 30 (Fulda: 2008). Schlegelmilch U., “Andreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationscollegiums zur Physiologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart ‒ Marti ‒ Seidel (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen 49‒88. Schubart-Fikentscher G., Untersuchungen zur Autorschaft von Dissertationen im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Berlin: 1970). Schüling H., Die Geschichte der axiomatischen Methode im 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert (Wandlung der Wissenschaftsauffassung), Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 13 (Hildesheim ‒ New York: 1969). Schüling H., Die Dissertationen und Habilitationsschriften der Universität Gießen im 18. Jahrhundert, Berichte und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek Gießen 26 (Gießen: 1976). Schüling H., Die Dissertationen und Habilitationsschriften der Universität Gießen 1650‒1700, Bibliographie (Munich ‒ New York ‒ London ‒ Paris: 1982). Schwarz R., “Disputationen”, in Beutel A. (ed.), Luther-Handbuch (Tübingen: 32016) 372‒384. Schwinges R.Ch., “Universitätsgeschichte: Bemerkungen zu Stand und Tendenzen der Forschung (vornehmlich im deutschsprachigen Raum)” in Prüll L. ‒ George Ch. ‒ Hüther F. (eds.), Universitätsgeschichte schreiben. Inhalte ‒ Methoden ‒ Fallbeispiele, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Mainz Neue Folge 14 (Mainz: 2019) 25‒45.

Introduction

33

Sdzuj R.B., “‘mandatum esse officium elencticum, quod disputando exeritur’. Zu Johann Konrad Dannhauers Disputationslehrbuch Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (1629) und seinem historischen Kontext”, in Marti H. ‒ Seidel R. (eds.), Die Universität Straßburg zwischen Späthumanismus und Französischer Revolution (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2018) 43‒67. Sjökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from 17th-Century Sweden (Uppsala: 2012). Stollberg-Rilinger B., “Von der sozialen Magie der Promotion. Ritual und Ritualkritik in der Gelehrtenkultur der Frühen Neuzeit”, Paragrana 12 (2003) 1 and 2, 273‒296. Syntagma disputationum theologicarum (Sedan: Iannon 1611). Telesko W., Thesenblätter österreichischer Universitäten (Salzburg: 1996). Tering A., “The dissertations of doctors of medicine active in Estland, Livland and Courland, defended at European universities in the eighteenth century”, Ajalooline Ajakiri 133–134 (2010) 367−402. Traninger A., Disputation, Deklamation, Dialog. Medien und Gattungen europäischer Wissensverhandlungen zwischen Scholastik und Humanismus (Stuttgart: 2012). Trevisani F., Descartes in Deutschland, Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft ‒ Philosophie ‒ Geschichte 25 (Vienna ‒ Zurich ‒ Berlin ‒ Münster: 2011). Tříška J., Disertace pražské univerzity 16.‒18. století (Dissertationes universitatis Pragensis 16.‒18. saec.) (Prague: 1977). Vallinkoski J., Die Dissertationen der alten Universität Turku 1642‒1828, Publications of the University Library at Helsinki 30 (Helsinki: 1966). van Miert D., Humanism in an age of science. The Amsterdam Athenaeum in the Golden Age, 1632–1704, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 179 (Leiden: 2009). Villoslada R.G., Storia del Collegio Romano dal suo inizio (1551) alla soppressione della Compagnia di Gesù (1773), Analecta Gregoriana 66 (Rome: 1954). Vogel L., “Religionsgespräche”, in Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 10 (Berlin ‒ Boston: 2019) 1054‒1065. Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013). Wels H., Die Disputatio de anima rationali secundum substantiam des Nicolaus Baldelli S.J. nach dem Pariser Codex B.N. lat. 16627. Eine Studie zur Ablehnung des Averroismus und des Alexandrismus am Collegium Romanum zu Anfang des 17. Jahrhunderts, Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie 30 (Amsterdam: 2000). Wiesenfeldt G., Leerer Raum in Minervas Haus. Experimentelle Naturlehre an der Universität Leiden, 1675‒1715 (Berlin ‒ Diepholz: 2002).

chapter 2

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation: Early Leibniz and Disputation Handbooks Donald Felipe Summary This essay argues that Lutheran disputation handbooks provide important background to Leibniz’s commentary on burden of proof in Question II of Leibniz’s early disputation, Specimen quaestionis philosophicarum ex jure collectarum (1664). Investigations of the treatment of burden of proof in Leibniz and the handbooks, including Conrad Dannhauer’s Idea boni disputatoris (1629), Johann Scharf’s Processus disputandi (1635) and Andreas Kesler’s Methodus disputandi (1668), serve as points of departure to a broader study of burden of proof in post-medieval disputation. This study examines the interpretation and use of the rule affirmanti incumbit probatio in Counter-Reformation polemics and other, related burden shifting argument strategies. Burden of proof has been shown to be at work in the advancement of a variety of doctrines and positions from the Reformation to the early Enlightenment. The essay suggests that burden shifting strategies employing affirmanti incumbit probatio and the use of ‘negatives’ have disruptive effects on oral disputation practice, and that burden of proof is neglected as important background to well known 17th and 18th century critiques of viva voce disputation in Locke, Kant and others.

Leibniz’s disputation, Specimen quaestionis philosophicarum ex jure collectarum (1664), has been translated into English with commentary, and has received attention from Dascal and De Olaso.1 This essay will revisit one small part of this work, Question II, to examine relationships between Leibniz’s 1  Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm (Pr.) – Menzel Johann Matthaeus (Resp.), Specimen quaestionum philosophicarum ex jure collectarum (Leipzig, Johann Wittigau: 1664); Artosi A. – Bernardo P. – Sartor G. (eds.), Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law (Dordrecht – Heidelberg – New York – London: 2013); Dascal M., “Leibniz’s Two-Pronged Dialectic”, in Symons J. – Dascal M. (eds.), Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist? (ProQuest Ebook Central: 2008) 37–72 at 45–46; Dascal M., in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: The Art of Controversies (Dordrecht: 2008) xxxiv– xxxvi; De Olaso E., “Leibniz et l’art de disputer”, in Heinekamp A. (ed.), Akten des II. Internationalen Leibniz-Kongresses, vol. 4, Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa 15 (Wiesbaden: 1975) 207–228. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_003

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

35

commentary on burden of proof and 17th century disputation handbooks. Further investigation of this minor portion of this early Leibnizian text illuminates some neglected context that may also serve as a point of departure to a broader study of burden of proof in Counter-Reformation polemics and postmedieval disputation generally. 1

Preliminaries

This disputation is the written counterpart to an oral disputation which took place at the university of Leipzig on 3 December 1664. On the title page Leibniz, only 18 years old, is identified as the presider (praeses) and Johann Menelius as respondent. The text itself is condensed commentary and analysis of 17 questions related to study of how various disciplines, including logic, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, can inform the study of law and vice versa. The particular questions addressed in a given section are not always clearly indicated.2 It is highly unlikely that all the topics and arguments in the written work could be addressed in the oral dispute. These facts considered together imply at the very least demotion of the significance of the act of dispute; the disputation is above all an exploratory, written investigation of novel ideas through the process of disputation.3 The topic of Question II is how to allocate burden of proof in disputation and law. The question is not stated directly in the text, but the section appears to be organized around, ‘on whom does proof rest?’ (cui incumbit probatio?). The way this question is tacitly posed apart from any concrete context raises issues that beg for treatment. The concepts of burden of proof (onus probandi) and the associated notion of presumption are typically treated via examples and rules rather than definitions in 16th and 17th century disputation literature and legal commentary, and the interpretive issue of how to define and describe these concepts both as they apply in their historical contexts and as theoretical concepts, is a multifaceted problem.4 I adopt a simple-minded 2  For an example of a simpler, ‘specimen-type’ disputation of similar structure, where the questions are clearly indicated in the written text, providing a reader a better glimpse into how the oral dispute might have been organized and conducted, see Bechmann, Johann Volkmar (Pr.) – Corner, Johann (Resp.), Specimen juridicum continens quaestiones varias (Jena, Johann Nisius: 1656). 3  For a shift in aims of published disputation in the 17th century from defending orthodoxy to exploring new ideas see Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19/2 (2004) 154–156. 4  For an overview of some of the problems in defining ‘burden of proof’ and ‘presumption’ see: Walton D., Burden of Proof. Presumption and Argumentation (Cambridge – New York: 2014) 2–6.

36

Felipe

understanding of these notions as we move through various texts, subject to refinement and reinterpretation: burden of proof is a normative demand in an argument-dispute (grounded in various ways) that a party is obliged to prove a claim. A presumption is an inference that a proposition will stand as ‘provisionally true’ or ‘probable’ until adequate proof overthrows the inference. Presumptions allocate burden of proof to the party who claims the contrary. The act of disputation and an action in court involve performance with participants or ‘persons’ (personae) who have certain well defined roles; the way the question ‘who should prove?’ is treated in performances and written argument differ. Also, rules and processes for allocating or determining burden of proof, if that is at all feasible in some situations, will differ according to context, and the type of dispute in question. In the Specimen Leibniz seems satisfied with suggestive summaries and abbreviated ideas and arguments, and this applies especially to treatment of burden of proof in Question II. Attending to the distinction between performance and writing, which Leibniz passes over in the Specimen, is crucial to unpacking the context of Question II. Events, experiences and the outcomes of oral disputations, most of which are unavailable to us, inform and influence argument in written work; rules, guidance, laws, canons, and strategies in turn influence performance. The study of burden of proof in post-medieval disputation will involve the interplay of performance, theory and strategy, and the interrelated media through which these exchanges occur.5 In Question I Leibniz notes that Question II is a ‘logical question’ of the ‘third operation of mind’. That is all he says about the matter. The third operation of mind in later scholastic thought is generally understood as the comprehension of inferences and arguments formed from propositions (enunciationes) furnished by the second operation of mind. But, conventions and rules for allocating burden of proof in disputation in school exercises, testing, or in a court of law, are, for the most part, based on extra-logical considerations. A teacher, for instance, may assume the burden of proof in a disputation because it offers a way to communicate and teach arguments to students. Also, inferences related to assigning burden of proof are often ‘probable’, that is, a conclusion can be falsified with the introduction of more evidence. These sorts of inferences, related to the notion of a presumption in law, are of keen interest to Leibniz.6 This suggestive remark in Question I would seem to frame 5  These insights are inspired most especially from the work of Hanspeter Marti. See Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel im 18. Jahrhundert”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800: Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 62–82. 6  For a treatment of Leibniz’s theory of presumption in his later work see: Armgardt M., “Presumptions and Conjectures in Leibniz’s Legal Theory”, in Armgardt M. – Canivez, P. –

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

37

Question II as primarily a logical treatment of how certain rules, including rules of probable inference and presumption, allocate proof burdens. But that is not what we find. 2

Two Rules of Proof: Conflict and Origins Notus est apud Philosophos canon: Affirmanti incumbit probatio, qui non videtur consistere cum altero illo posse, quod opponens teneatur, ad probationem. In dubio igitur praevalere posterior debet; ex contractu, ut ita dicam tacito. Nam qui progressus est ad disputandum responsurus, eo ipso se tacite obligavit tantum ad defendendum theses; (Specimen, Question II, paragraph 1) The canon affirmanti incumbit probatio (proof rests with the one affirming) is known among philosophers;7 this does not appear to be consistent with that other canon, that the opponent is obliged to prove. In doubt, therefore, the latter should prevail from a contract, which I would say is tacit. For whoever has advanced as a respondent for disputing, by that very act, tacitly obliged himself only to defend theses.

The keys to unlocking the context of this first paragraph are the disputation handbooks, a genre of 17th and 18th century logic literature, whose mid-17th century authors are predominately Lutheran, Aristotelian, and affiliated with universities of Wittenberg and Helmstedt.8 As early as 1619 in De analysi logica Chassagnard-Pinet S. (eds.), Past and Present Interactions in Legal Reasoning and Logic (Dordrecht: 2015) 51–69. See also Dascal, The Art of Controversies xxxi–xxxvii. It is difficult to read Questions I and II of the Specimen and not think of Jungius’s treatment of probable inferences and the third operation of mind in Book 4 of Logica Hamburgensis, and the firestorm of criticism it elicited from Johann Scharf. See Jungius Joachim, Logica Hamburgensis (Hamburg, Barthold Opfermann: 1638); Scharf Johann, Apologeticum adversus rhapsodias contumeliosarum obtrectationum d. Jungii et Georgii Calixti: nec non adversus nequissimas scurrarum, sycophantarum, Aereoli, Samsonii, Stumphii, et complicum calumniatorum criminationes, imposturasque maledicentissimas (Wittenberg, Johann Burckard: 1655). See especially the last four pages of this work. 7  I have adopted a more literal translation of affirmanti incumbit probatio (‘proof rests with the one affirming’ as opposed to ‘the one who asserts should prove’) to better capture the meanings in Latin and the distinction between ‘affirming’ and ‘asserting’. 8  Below are listed just a few mid-17th century disputation handbooks and logical works that furnish some background to the Leibnizian text: Martini Jacob, Paedia seu prudentia in disciplinis generalis (Wittenberg, Clemens Berger widow: 1631) 746–747; Dannhauer Conrad, Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (Strasbourg, Wilhelm Christian Glaser: 1629) 97–102; Calov A., Tractatus novus de methodo docendi et disputandi (Rostock, Johann Hallervord: 1637);

38

Felipe

Cornelius Martini, the influential Aristotelian professor at Helmstedt, refers to ‘proof rests with the one affirming’ (affirmanti incumbit probatio) as a ‘law of disputants’ that he accepts, and he describes the conflict between this rule and the rule that the respondent is not obliged to prove in terms quite similar to Leibniz. Non negamus hanc esse disputantium legem, ut affirmanti incumbat probatio, non autem neganti. Sed talis affirmatio et negatio ad materiam pertinet, quae sane probanda illi est, qui eam protulerit, protulerit inquam in syllogismo, alias ne hoc quidem semper verum est, quod affirmanti incumbit probatio, cum nullus disputator theses suas probare teneatur, sed tunc satis eas defendisse censeri debeat, si opponens nihil contra adferre possit, quod ei a respondente non solide refellatur.9 We do not deny that this is a law of the disputants, that proof rests with the one affirming and not with the one denying. But such affirmation and negation pertains to the material, which must reasonably be proved by the one who advances it, I mean, the one who advances it in a syllogism; otherwise, it is indeed not always true that the one affirming must prove, since no disputant is obliged to prove his own theses, but it should be deemed adequate to have defended them, if the opponent can bring forth nothing that is not firmly refuted by the respondent. This passage in De analysi logica, an early, foundational work in the handbook genre, sums up a fairly common position on burden of proof that several handbook authors would probably agree with, namely Scharf, Wendeler, Kesler, and Felwinger:10 1) ‘proof rests with the one affirming and not with the one denying’   Scharf Johann, Processus disputandi (Wittenberg, Christoph Wust – Johann Röhner: 1635) chapter 5; Wendeler Michael, Breves observationes genuini disputandi processus (Wittenberg, Hiob Wilhelm Fincelius: 1650) 22–24; Cellarius Balthasar, Libellus de consequentia (Helmstedt, Johann Heitmüller: 1658) 132–135; Prückner Andreas, Libellus de artificio disputandi (Erfurt, Johann Birckner – Paul Michael: 1656) 90–91; Felwinger Johann Paul, Brevis commentatio de disputatione (Altdorf, Georg Hagen – Nuremberg, Johann Tauber: 1659) 56–57; Kesler Andreas, Methodus disputandi (Altdorf, Johann Heinrich Schönnerstädt: 1668) 48, 178, 181–182, 249, 280; Pretten Johann, Disputandi methodus (Leipzig, Johann Scheib – Johann Wittigau: 1669) 85, 91–92. For a general description of the handbook genre see Felipe D., “Ways of disputing and principia in 17th century German disputation handbooks”, in Gindhart – Kundert Disputatio 1200–1800 33–35. 9  Martini Cornelius, De analysi logica tractatus (Helmstedt, Zacharias Rabe: 1619) 170. 10  Scharf, Processus disputandi; Wendeler, Breves observationes; Felwinger, Brevis commentatio; Kesler, Methodus disputandi.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

39

is a legitimate ‘law’ or ‘common rule’ of disputation, but it applies only to the material, the premises, of an argument (and Martini insists on syllogisms) not to the formal consequence (consequentia). Hence, the move ‘I deny the consequence’ (nego consequentiam), if challenged, requires proof by the respondent. 2) The respondent is not obliged to prove theses. The role or ‘person’ (persona) of the respondent is to propose theses and to defend them, but not to prove. The ‘person’ of the opponent is defined as the one who argues and proves that the thesis is false. Leibniz points out, as others have before him, affirmative theses create inconsistencies among the rules. The conflict between these two ‘laws’ or ‘rules’ of disputing is unsettling for handbook authors. And, it is not the only problem that affirmanti incumbit probatio creates. Before examining this inconsistency and applications of these rules of proof, I would like to point to two questions that may be of interest to historians of logic, argumentation and rhetoric. These questions also have significance for the study of Reformation and Counter-Reformation polemics: affirmanti incumbit probatio is a truncated version of the foundational rule of proof in the Juris Civilis, ‘proof rest with the one who affirms and not with the one who denies’ (ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio).11 The application of this principle as a legitimate rule of proof in disputation constitutes the transference of a jurisprudential principle to public disputation and discourse. When and under what conditions did this transference take place? How is the rule interpreted and applied in extra-legal argumentation as opposed to juridical contexts? The disputation handbooks, again, are invaluable sources to begin an inquiry into these complicated questions. The general form of the method of disputation in the handbook genre, the so-called ‘modern method’, has been treated elsewhere.12 Norms and rules of the method, the disputation procedure, the roles of responding and opposing, argument-moves and strategies available to each, have eclectic origins in medieval scholastic disputation, what Weijers has called ‘eristic disputation’, Humanism, and the Roman legal tradition.13 The aims of the method stressed 11  C  orpus iuris civilis, digesta, Book 22, title 3, paragraph 2. For an English translation see: The Digest of Justinian, vol. 2, trans. A. Watson (Philadelphia: 1985) 186. 12  See Marti H., “Disputatio”, in: Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 1 (Tübingen: 1994) 866–880; Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013) 220–238; Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 131–146; Felipe D., The Post-Medieval ‘Ars Disputandi’, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Texas at Austin – Ann Arbor, MI: 1991): 1991); Felipe D., “Ways of disputing”. 13  See Weijers, In Search of the Truth 121–145; 220–238.

40

Felipe

in the handbooks are traditional, teaching, exercise and testing, as well as the high-minded goal of investigating truth. Although these works do not emphasize or treat the same content in the same ways, it could be said that all are written as guides for how to dispute, teaching disputation process, rules, strategies, and techniques for special forms of disputation, like confessional dispute. Also, in various ways handbooks are concerned with managing instabilities in disputation, caused by lack of skill or knowledge, as well as behavioral problems, anger, quarreling;14 ethics, a common topic, is an integral part of training in disputation. Treatments of how one should dispute are sometimes presented alongside sophistic strategies and tricks. A constant tension between what disputation should be, and all too often is, permeates themes and content in some sources; whatever ideals exist concerning the high aims of disputation, it is clear that some authors, like Dannhauer and Felwinger, wish to acquaint their readers with rhetorical skill and the tools of the sophist, both as moral and logical lessons for what to avoid, and as weapons for the ‘good disputer’ (bonus disputator) to diagnose and refute trickery and heresy.15 The jurisprudential analogies sometimes used to describe the roles and duties of the respondent and opponent, the status of the thesis, and the process of disputation itself, reflect an underlying ethos of competition and struggle; the conflicts between the rules of proof and the very need for rules managing proof burdens, emerge as aspects of the competitive spirit of a quasi-jurisprudential model for disputation. Dannhauer in Idea boni disputatoris provides what is perhaps the most thorough discussion of burden of proof in scattered commentary. Rules of proof are primarily determined by the roles or duties of the respondent and opponent: the respondent advances theses, repeats (repetitio) and assumes (assumptio) the initial objection or argument of the opponent, and then responds (responsio) or solves (solutio) the opponent’s arguments, none of which requires ‘proving’, that is, forming an argument with premises and conclusion. The opponent, on the other hand, should accurately comprehend the status of the 14  For an informative overview of a genre of 17th and 18th century literature that describes and satirizes abuses of disputation, verbal combat (logomachia) and quarreling. See Kivistö S., The Vices of Learning: Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 48 (Leiden: 2014) 147–201. 15  See especially Felwinger, Brevis commentatio, and Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris. Also, for a general description of Dannhauer’s Idea boni disputatoris see Kivistö, The Vice of Learning 153–154; Sdzuj R.B., “‘mandatum esse officium elencticum, quod disputando exeritur’. Zu Johann Konrad Dannhauers Disputationslehrbuch Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (1629) und seinem historischen Kontext”, in Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Die Universität Straßburg zwischen Späthumanismus und Französischer Revolution (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2018) 43–67.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

41

controversy (status controversiae), and contradict the respondents thesis with arguments (obiectiones).16 The respondent responds and solves; the opponent argues and contradicts; hence, the burden of proof rests with the opponent and not with the respondent.17 But, questions of proof can be complicated and confused in two ways. The respondent may step outside the role of responding and argue, which may result in an exchange of roles with the opponent, or a party may claim that an affirming adversary should prove according to affirmanti incumbit probatio. As far as the former is concerned, no rule prohibits the respondent from offering arguments and proof, but the mid-17th century, Aristotelian handbook authors tend to frown upon this move because it leads to confusion in disputation.18 Dannhauer also warns that the respondent may be compelled to exchange roles with the opponent if arguments appear among theses. The opponent is allowed to respond to these arguments. Hence, the respondent should write and propose theses prudently with proof liabilities in mind.19 The respondent’s exemption from proof should be guarded and used to advantage, Dannhauer recommends. He cites the 16th century legal commentator Matthäus Wesenbeck, and explains in language reminiscent of Richard Whately’s famous advice in Elements of Rhetoric that a defendant not venture into battle with proof if it is not necessary,20

16  For an overview of respondent and opponent duties, and the disputation-moves available to each see Felipe, Ars disputandi 78–181. 17  This is a sketch of the structure of the ‘modern method’ adopted in most Lutheran, Aristotelian handbooks. But not all sources structure disputation in the same way. Jacob Thomasius, for instance, in Processus disputandi, organizes disputation into four conflicts, and reconfigures slightly the duties of respondent and opponent in each conflict. See Thomasius Jacob, Erotemata logica pro incipientibus accessit pro adultis processus disputandi (Leipzig, Johann Jacob Fritsch – Rudolstadt, Heinrich Urban: 1705); also see Felipe, Ars Disputandi 56–63. 18  See, for instance, Scharf, Processus disputandi 140–141; Margreet Ahsman notes that after 1593 in published disputations theses are included with proof, and, Ashman argues, that regardless of whether or not theses are published with proofs, the proofs were provided orally in defense of theses. Respondents in legal disputations at Leiden, it seems, were expected to prove. See Ahsman M., Collegium und Kolleg. Der juristische Unterricht an der Universität Leiden 1575–1630 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Disputationen, Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte 138 (Frankfurt a.M.: 2000), 200–205. 19  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 107–108. 20  See Whately R., Elements of Rhetoric, 7th Edition (London: 1860) Part I, chapter 1, § 2. See also Wesenbeck M., In pandectas iuris civilis et codicis Iustinianei lib. IIX. commentarii olim paratitla dicti: nunc ex postrema ipsius authoris, necnon aliorum quorundam iurisconsultorum recognitione multo quam antehac emendatius editi (Basel, Gymnicus: 1604) 497.

42

Felipe

Molem probationis nemo debet facile suscipere, nisi teneatur jure, stultitiae enim damnandus est, inquit Wesenbecius […] qui tam grave onus ac sumtuosum nemine imponente aut cogente in se reciperet.21 No one should easily take up the task of proof, unless one is bound by law, ‘he should be cursed for his foolishness,’ says Wesenbecius […], ‘the man who would receive such a grave and expensive burden with no one imposing or forcing it’. Interpreting affirmanti incumbit probatio in disputation, its meaning and how it is applied, is at best a challenge. First, we should note that this rule of Roman law, in its post-medieval juridical application at least, is not equivalent to a rule of proof that is still discussed today in argumentation theory, ‘the one who asserts should prove’.22 In post-medieval legal commentary ‘the one affirming’ is first and foremost the plaintiff who makes an initial affirmation in court; thereafter, ‘the one affirming’ is the party, plaintiff or defendant, ‘who affirms’ in the process of presenting testimony and evidence. The act of ‘affirming’ is treated by some commentators as the assertion of a claim with an affirmative quality that allows for proof; ‘affirming’ is contrasted with ‘denying’ and ‘negatives’. ‘The one denying’ refers to the defendant in the initial position, who is not obligated to prove; denying a claim involves making a ‘denial’ or a ‘negative’; some denials entail accepting burden of proof, like denials of law or of presumption. But, sometimes denials either cannot be proved or are not easy to prove. These sorts of denials raise complicated issues of provability in legal commentary influenced by the principle ‘there is no proof of denying a fact in the nature of things’ (cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit) in the Iuris civilis.23 Denials of fact are the most problematic class of denials. A simple denial like, ‘I did not see you’, cannot be proved or is not easy to prove, and so, burden of proof normally transfers to the party affirming. But, in other cases denials of fact are provable or are easier to prove when time and place

21  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 98. 22  In argumentation theory some consensus exists about treating an assertion as a declarative utterance or a proposition whose truth and falsity can be rationally evaluated. See Walton D., Burden of Proof; Rescorla M., “Shifting the burden of proof?”, Philosophical Quarterly 59, 234 (2009) 86–109; Rhode C., “The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue”, Argumentation 31, 3 (2017) 535–554. An ‘affirmation’, on the other hand, is treated in some post-medieval legal commentary and in 17th century logic literature, as a proposition with affirmative quality. 23  Corpus iuris civilis Book 4, § 19, Title 23.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

43

determinations are included: ‘I was not in Rome on that day’, for instance, can be proved by the affirmation that, ‘I was in Heidelberg’. It is not possible in this essay to even scratch the surface of the complex post-medieval commentary on rules for allocating burden of proof according to ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio and proving negatives.24 Our concern here is limited to how this rule is interpreted in disputation. Dannhauer formulates a position through arguments in a mini-disputation which, on the one hand, embraces jurisprudential analogies to describe the procedural process of disputation, the duties of respondent and opponent, and the thesis, while, on the other hand, argues for the rejection of the literal application of this principle of Roman law. The roles of the respondent and defendant in court, Dannhauer argues, are analogous: Is tenetur probare qui non per praesumtionem ab hoc munere exemptus est, cum autem partes Respondentis, sicut in foro rei, semper magis sint favorabiles, et ipse quodammodo sit in possessione veritatis, nec praesumtio sit quicquam permissum fuisse ab eo defendi, quod absurdum sit aut falsum, ideo Respondens de jure nunquam tenetur probare. He is obliged to prove, who is not exempt from this duty by presumption, because the roles of the respondent, like the roles of a defendant in court, are always more favorable, and he is in some way in possession of the truth; it is not a presumption that whatever has been permitted to be defended by him is absurd or false; thereby the respondent by law is never obliged to prove.25 The role of respondent in the initial position, like a defendant, is more favorable; the respondent is exempt from burden of proof; the opponent, on the other hand, is obliged to prove that the thesis is false, as the plaintiff is obliged to prove that the allegation is true. The description of the thesis, ‘that it is not a presumption that the thesis is absurd or false’, seems to imply that it is

24  Martin de Fano’s commentary on the proof of negatives, for instance, cited by Leibniz in Question II, discusses 325 topics concerning how to prove negatives and issues related to denials and assignment of burden of proof. See De Fano M., Tractatus de probanda negativa (Cologne, Johann Gymnich: 1578). 25  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 98–99.

44

Felipe

presumed that the thesis stands as true until proven false, and in this way, the respondent is, ‘in some way in possession of the truth’.26 The analogy here with legal procedure and presumption is more complicated than it appears; ‘proof rests with the one who affirms and not the one who denies’ (ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio) requires, in almost all cases, that the plaintiff offer proof in the initial position, because the plaintiff is the one affirming and the defendant the one denying. But the respondent is, strictly speaking, the one affirming when affirmative theses are proposed. Dannhauer seems to want to achieve an alignment with juridical process through an analogy between the thesis selected for dispute and a presumption: since the thesis is like a presumption (it is not presumed that the thesis is false or absurd) burden of proof transfers to the opponent, who must overthrow the presumption with proof. Despite Dannhauer’s endorsement of these jurisprudential analogies, which are picked by other handbook authors, including Calov and Scharf,27 the ways in which burden of proof shifts from opponent to respondent in disputation, according to Dannhauer’s own account, is different from legal proceedings. The respondent must offer a ‘contrary argument’ to accomplish a shift in burden of proof. Scharf mentions an additional step: the opponent repeats (repetitio) and assumes (assumptio) the ‘contrary argument’ to complete role reversal, which the opponent is not required to do.28 Hence, it would appear that an orderly shift in burden of proof from opponent to respondent involves some cooperation; the respondent argues, the opponent repeats, assumes and responds. Proof burdens in legal proceedings shift back and forth from plaintiff to defendant more freely as the case proceeds, and affirmations are made by plaintiff and defendant. The final arguments against affirmanti incumbit probatio are developed against what appears to be something of a straw man: the rule is interpreted ‘quite literally’ (stricte sumpto vocabulo) to mean that in every case (per omnia) ‘there is no proof of negation in the nature of things’:29 so, in all cases the one affirming has the burden of proof and the one denying does not, because 26  Logically one can question whether or not ‘it is not presumed that P is false or absurd’ implies that ‘P is presumed to be true’; the denial of a presumptive inference that not-P does not imply the presumptive inference that P. It may be that P is neither presumed to be true nor presumed to be false. 27  See Calov, Tractatus novus de methodo docendi et disputandi 477–482; Scharf, Processus disputandi 130–133. Calov reproduces large portions of Dannhauer’s comments on onus probandi. 28  Scharf, Processus disputandi 140. 29  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 99–100.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

45

affirmations are provable, and denials are unprovable.30 Dannhauer demolishes this absurd view with a series of arguments. First, he evokes a principle ‘from reason’ (ex ratione) that ‘whoever claims that his opinion is worthy should prove, whether affirming or denying’ (‘Is probare debet, cujus est suam sententiam probam facere, at non solum affirmantis id est, sed et negantis’).31 This principle is followed by arguments showing that denials can indeed be proved; syllogisms like Celarent and Camestres, for instance, prove negatives. And, as just noted, denials of fact in law like ‘I was not in Rome’ can be proved by showing that ‘I was in Heidelberg’. Dannhauer concludes that affirmanti incumbit probatio is strictly false because denials can indeed be proved. A couple of interesting points emerge from this excursion: the principle ‘from reason’, ‘whoever claims that his opinion is worthy should prove, whether affirming or denying’, comes very close to a more contemporary conception of assertion and a statement of ‘the one who asserts must prove’. Also, it seems that adopting this principle ‘from reason’ requires that the respondent prove theses. Dannhauer does not address this point. Moreover, these arguments so oversimplify post-medieval commentary on ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio and per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit that one must wonder about their purpose. Is Dannhauer attempting to refute and discourage the naïve belief that any party ‘denying’ in disputation, by virtue of the denial, is always exempt from the burden of proof because denials cannot be proved? Is this a common way in which affirmanti incumbit probatio is understood in Lutheran schools? After advancing these arguments, instead of stressing in no uncertain terms the total rejection of affirmanti incumbit probatio, Dannhauer extends an olive branch to those who want to accept it: one can admit that proof rests with the one who affirms, he claims, if you interpret ‘the one affirming’ as ‘the one contradicting’; the opponent is always contradicting, and, therefore, always has the burden of proof.32 Other handbook authors, who accept affirmanti incumbit probatio, like C. Martini, Scharf, Felwinger and Kesler, are of little help. Scharf and Felwinger, whose handbooks are published after Dannhauer’s, are almost certainly aware of these arguments and problems, but say nothing about them. Scharf refers to affirmanti incumbit probatio as a ‘common rule’, and, like Dannhauer, compares the respondent to a defendant in court; he also claims that the thesis 30  See Wesenbeck, In pandectas iuris 498. Wesenbeck adds the qualification ‘nisi juris negationem alleget’ (‘unless one claims a denial of law’). 31  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 100. 32  Ibidem 102.

46

Felipe

should be presumed to be true, but says nothing more.33 Andreas Kesler offers implicit praise for the rule as a useful principle in the refutation of Catholics and Socinians, but he notes another exception in addition, which further complicates interpretation: some will abuse affirmanti incumbit probatio by denying principles and things that are manifestly true. Instead of rejecting such abuses by rejecting affirmanti incumbit probatio itself, Kesler says that such denials violate the principle contra negantem principia non est disputandum (‘one must not dispute against the one denying principles’) and have the ‘force’ of affirmations, and, therefore, should be proved.34 This seems to imply that affirmanti incumbit probatio involves analysis of the affirmative and negative quality of propositions. The 17th century Lutheran handbooks, teaching guides for how to dispute, offer no clear, consistent commentary on how to resolve the question ‘cui incumbit probatio?’ by applying this ‘common rule’. Only Dannhauer’s argument, which is reproduced by Calov,35 that the two rules of proof should be consolidated into one: ‘the one contradicting (i.e. the one arguing) always has the burden of proof’, offers some intelligible solution to how to manage proof burdens. Making sense of this commentary, and why handbook authors appear so attached to this rule and the jurisprudential analogies that go with it, requires delving deeper into argument strategies in 16th and 17th century Lutheran disputation. The most useful handbook in this regard in Kesler’s chapter on affirmanti incumbit probatio in Methodus disputandi. In Chapter I, Law XXI, Kesler turns to affirmanti incumbit probatio and explains in some detail examples and uses in a handful of late 16th and early 17th century sources. An important source in Kesler is the Regensburg Colloquium of 1601, transcribed in Colloquium de norma doctrinae and published in 1602 with extended written responses from both parties.36 Sessions I and II of the Colloquium offer perhaps the most revealing picture affirmanti incumbit probatio.37 33  Scharf, Processus disputandi 134. 34  Kesler, Methodus disputandi 243. Kesler’s comment on denying manifest truths also appears in Felwinger almost word for word: see Felwinger, Brevis commentatio 56. 35  Calov, Tractatus novus de methodo docendi et disputandi 477. 36  [Tanner Adam, ed.], Colloquium de norma doctrinae, et controversiarum religionis judice: autoritate et in praesentia, serenissimorum atque illustrissimorum principum ac dominorum domini Maximiliani, et domini Philippi Ludovici, principum Palatinorum Rheni, ducum Bavariae etc. Ratisbonae habitum mense Novembri, anno domini M.DCI. Ex authentico, ab utriusq; partis constitutis responsoribus et notariis, subscripto et obsignato exemplari (Lauingen on Danube, Jacob Winter: 1602). 37  Ibidem 9–73.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

47

These beginning Sessions revolve around the question of the ‘norm of doctrine and culture’ and the ‘judge’ (criterion or standard) of controversies in religion. The Catholic thesis on this question is a brief statement, two sentences, that sacred scripture, although infallible, is not the only judge, and that traditions, definitions of the Church, and consensus of Doctors of the Church should be consulted.38 The Lutheran position is presented in 12 theses, around 3 pages, which argue for the fundamental thesis that sacred scripture is the only norm and judge.39 The way the theses of the two sides are formulated tacitly allocates the burden of proof to the Lutherans; the Catholic thesis contains the denial that the main Lutheran thesis is true, and no arguments are advanced. The Lutherans, on the other hand, make numerous affirmations and arguments. Jacob Heilbrunner opens the dispute by addressing rules and norms for proof in the disputation, which in this case, are bound to the questions and to the theses of the disputation itself. Heilbrunner offers to produce proofs for theses, with the demand that Catholics concede the ‘common’ (tritum) principle, affirmanti incumbit probatio; the Catholics asserted in their thesis that there are other judges to religious controversy in addition to sacred scripture, and so, Heilbrunner says, it should be explained what these sources are.40 The Jesuit Jacob Gretser responds that there is no need to say what the judge of scripture is: that the burden of proof rests with those who assert that only sacred scripture is the norm or judge. Most of the remainder of Session I involves sparring around the question of who should prove: Heilbrunner and Ägidius Hunnius argue that Catholics explain and prove that traditions et alia should be consulted as judges; Hunger and Gretser reply that proof should be presented that sacred scripture is the only judge. Affirmanti incumbit probatio underlies many of the exchanges in the dispute, and is explicitly mentioned in moves by both parties. Let us examine two examples. After several futile exchanges about who should prove, Hunnius complains that his side is ready to prove, but that the Catholics should not be in an advantageous condition, and should perfect their thesis. He then questions the basis for the dispute itself and why the Catholics received the Lutheran theses for disputation in the first place.

38  Ibidem 18. 39  Ibidem 19–23. I will use the contemporary designations ‘Lutheran’ and ‘Catholic’ to describe the groups and parties to this dispute, although these terms are scarcely used in the text. 40  Tanner, Colloquium de norma doctrinae 24.

48

Felipe

Why do you receive our theses [for dispute]? (Cur accepitis nostras theses?) Gretser curtly throws back the question: I rather ask, why would you receive our theses [for dispute], if they were incomplete? (Ego potius quaero, cur acceperistis nostras theses, si non fuerunt integra?) Heilbrunner flirts with an ad hominem reply, commenting that the Catholics should say what other judge there is besides sacred scripture or their own judge is rendered untrustworthy due to their subterfuge. Gretser once again returns the request for proof and turns from the idea of being untrustworthy to honor and reverence: Non est necessarium. Affirmanti enim incumbit probatio: suo tempore honorificentissime, et summa cum reverentia, nominabimus nostrum Iudicem.41 It is not necessary. Proof indeed does rest with the one who affirms: we will name our judge with the greatest honor and reverence in its own time. Here, in this dialectical wrestling match, affirmanti incumbit probatio is used in a retorsion (retorsio) that attempts to turn the argument back on Heilbrunner; Heilbrunner ceremoniously demanded proof of the norm and judge of religious controversy according to affirmanti incumbit probatio, and so, Gretser replies, he should supply it. But, the rule does not apply to the Catholic thesis, Gretser seems to imply, which does not name the judge of scripture ‘perfectly’; the judge will be named in ‘its own time’ (suo tempore), he promises. In Session II affirmanti incumbit probatio comes center stage again as disputation drifts onto the issue of the infallibility of the high priest or Pontiff. Hunnius argues, citing the Letter to the Hebrews, that Aaron was a high priest and Pontiff of the Old Testament. But Aaron was also an idolator and erred; therefore, Pontiffs or high priests are fallible. Gretser claims that Moses was a ‘high priest’ simpliciter, the superior of Aaron when he erred, and therefore 41  Ibidem 33.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

49

Aaron did not err as Pontiff. But, Hunnius argues, Aaron is recognized as a Pontiff and high priest in the Letter to the Hebrews, but Moses is not. Gretser attempts to explain with a distinction; Moses was a high priest without succession but Aaron was a high priest with succession in political office. Hunnius questions where this distinction is supported in scripture. Gretser responds, ‘I want that the contrary be proved’. (Ego diversum probari cupio.) Hunnius replies: Tu debes probare: quia affirmanti incumbit probatio. Epistola ad Hebraeos judicat inter me et te. Ubi tua assertio extat in Scriptura?42 You should prove, because proof rests with the one who affirms. The Letter to the Hebrews decides between me and you. Where does your assertion exist in Scripture? Gretser brushes off the demand: We are providing an adequate response. (Nos adhibemus commodam responsionem.) Hunger adds on again turning affirmanti incumbit probatio against Hunnius’s plea in another retorsion: Si quis assert locum sive in Philosophia, sive Theologia, debet probare. Quapropter vobis incumbit, ut reprobetis responsionem datam: si mala est, impugnetur vel autoritate, vel ratione, vel alio modo. Res ista est ponderanda suis momentis et rationibus. If someone asserts a place (locum), either in philosophy or theology, one should prove. On this account proof rests with you, that you refute the response given: if it is bad, attack it by authority, or reason, or in some other way. These matters should be weighed by their own circumstances and arguments. Strictly speaking, Gretser does not assert affirmanti incumbit probatio; the principle advanced is that whoever asserts a ‘place’ (locum) in philosophy or theology should prove; it is the act of asserting this place, in this case a passage in scripture, that carries with it the obligation to prove. Hunnius, on 42  Ibidem 68.

50

Felipe

the other hand, denies that ‘Aaron was a high priest with succession’ can be proved, according to the criterion he assumes, that is, from scripture. Gretser affirms. Hunnius denies there is proof, therefore, burden of proof should shift to Gretser by affirmanti incumbit probatio. These dialectical impasses and the push and pull of irreconcilable positions in the theatre of the Colloquium reveal many features of affirmanti incumbit probatio. For Heilbrunner and Hunnius the rule seems to constitute an ethos of sorts, an unassailable, rational norm that should be followed. The rule also functions as a rhetorical device to establish a presumption in favor of scripture as the only judge of religious controversy, and to shift burden of proof to the Catholics who make affirmations but do not prove.43 In these ways affirmanti incumbit probatio favors Lutheran positions, and serves as a tool to put Catholic dogma and Church authority on trial. Hunger, on the other hand, uses the rule as a mere tactic to deflect proof burdens, and Gretser limits the rule to the assertion of ‘places’ (loci). In both instances Hunger and Gretser employ affirmanti incumbit probatio as a strategy to turn back demands for proof without embracing the rule carte blanche. In summary, the Regensburg Colloquium indicates several interconnected ways in which affirmanti incumbit probatio is interpreted and employed in disputation: 1) as a norm of discourse that requires the party who ‘affirms’ in a disputation or argument to prove 2) as a rhetorical device to shift presumption of authority in religious controversy from the Catholic Church to evidence in scripture 3) as a rhetorical device to deflect and turn back demands for proof onto an opponent who advocates for the rule. With regard to 1), as noted in discussion of Idea boni disputatoris, it is not always clear how to define and identify ‘the one affirming’ as opposed to ‘the one denying’ in disputation. In the Regensburg Colloquium this issue is never engaged. The Catholics seem quite content with this, and never directly respond to Heilbrunner’s initial request that affirmanti incumbit probatio be observed in the dispute. Is the negative and affirmative quality of a proposition determined by the quality of the categorical sentence? Or do affirmative assertions 43  This argument strategy conforms rather well to Richard Gaskins’s account of how the argument of ignorance is used in contemporary argument to revise presumptions and standards about acceptable evidence, to shift burden of proof in favor of privileged positions. See Gaskins R., Burden of Proof in Modern Discourse (New Haven: 1992). Hans Hohman has argued that similar strategies are employed as early as 12th century in Pilius of Medicina in his treatment of presumptions in Libellus Pylei Disputatorius. See Hohman H., “Presumptions in legal argument: from antiquity to the middle ages”, Scholarship at Uwindsor; Ossa Conference Archive 28. https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/72767545.pdf (05.04.2019).

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

51

have another kind of ‘quality’ or ‘force’? In any event, rough and ready ways for distinguishing affirmatives and negatives appear to be understood in the course of the dispute, and negatives are employed to project proof burdens; the negative Catholic thesis, ‘sacred scripture is not the only judge of religious controversy’, and Hunnius’s claim, ‘there is no foundation in scripture for this claim’, are two examples. 3

Role Reversal and Burden Shifting opponenti igitur probandum est, et, si affirmanti probandum esset, inverso rerum ordine argumentaretur Respondens, exciperet Opponens, quandoquidem Theses plerumque sunt affirmativae […] (Specimen, Question II, paragraph 1) therefore, the opponent must prove, and, if the one affirming should be obliged to prove, the respondent would argue in an inverted order of things, and the opponent would refute, since there are many affirmative theses […]

As we have seen in Idea boni disputatoris, exchange of roles between respondent and opponent may occur when the respondent offers arguments, and the opponent responds to those arguments. Nearly an entire chapter on ‘the persons of dispute’ in Scharf’s Processus disputandi is devoted to the avoidance of role reversal; the portion of the commentary that will concern us here, are strategies for exchanging roles and shifting proof burdens ‘through fraud’. Scharf rather nicely outlines a simple, textbook formula for constructing ‘deceitful syllogisms’ designed to coax a respondent into arguing: the syllogism contains a major premise that is most certain and known, which cannot be denied, and, minor propositio sit negativa, eaque negative concipitur per impossibile, vel alio modo ut ab opponente ejus probatio flagitari non possit.44 a negative minor proposition, which is comprehended negatively by impossibility, or in some other way so that its proof cannot be demanded from the opponent. 44  Scharf, Processus disputandi 224 [recte 124].

52

Felipe

Examples of such negative, minor propositions are: Tua thesis non potest probari, nullum habet fundamentum; a nullo sano homine unquam fuit ita statutum: tuae theseos indicium et argumentum nullum dari potest. In Theologicis frequenter ita loquuntur: haec assertio vel hoc dogma nullum habet fundamentum in sacra scriptura […]45 Your thesis cannot be proved, has no foundation; no sane man has ever said such a thing; no evidence or argument can be given for your thesis. Among theologians it is frequently said, this assertion or this dogma has no foundation in sacred scripture […] Scharf moves through a series of syllogism-examples in metaphysics, physics and theology. The syllogism in theology is quite familiar: Quodcunque dogma non habet fundamentum in sacris literis, illud non est articulus fidei. Atque dogma Calvinianorum, de absoluta multorum hominum reprobatione, non habet fundamentum in sacris litteris. Ergo illud dogma Calv. non est articulus fidei.46 Whatever dogma has no foundation in sacred writings is not an article of faith. And, the dogma of the Calvinists about the absolute condemnation of most men has no foundation in sacred writings. Therefore, that Calvinist dogma is not an article of faith. These simple syllogisms appear to be stock examples for school exercise, and are not serving any higher purpose in this handbook at least. Nevertheless, the theological syllogism is similar to the affirmanti incumbit probatio strategy employed by Hunnius in the Regensburg Colloquium. In this syllogism a negative minor, which denies that proof has been satisfied, is used to attempt a transfer in the burden of proof. Hunnius, on the other hand, argues that there is no proof of the claim that ‘Aaron was a high priest with succession’ in scripture, and that, therefore, it should be proved by the one affirming its truth. Scharf also seems to imply that the opponent is not obliged to prove the negative minor precisely because it is negative. But the Calvinist is defending heresy, 45  Ibidem 224–225 [recte 124–125]. 46  Ibidem 228–229 [recte 128–129].

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

53

Scharf remarks. Is this a tacit recommendation for students to use this argument in certain circumstances?47 The disruptive effects of these rather obvious burden shifting strategies are evident from Scharf’s rambling advice about how a respondent should handle opponents who resort to such tactics: Econtra audacter dicat respondens, imo mea thesis potest probari, tu illam refringas, si potes: mea thesis habet fundamentum, meae theseos ratio constat et satis probata est. Quod si opponens adhaec inferre velit, si tua thesis potest probari. E. probes illam. Jam neget consecutionem. Non enim sequitur, hoc dogma potest probari. E. jam a me debet probari, a me, inquam, qui vicem respondentis sustineo, non vicem probantis thesin. Similiter si dicat opponens: Hoc dogma non habet fundamentum in sacra scriptura: Respondeatur per simplicem affirmationem: Imo omnino habet fundamentum, quod alibi est ostensum, hic vero praesuppositum. Quod si hoc responso non contentus opponens, porro requirat ut tu, qui jam respondentem agis, ostendas sive adducas fundamentum, jam ex superioribus urgeas, te hac lege non teneri pro tempore, ut probes thesin, ejusque fundamentum, monstres […]48 The respondent should say audaciously, ‘certainly my thesis can be proved, you should destroy it, if you can: my thesis has foundation, there is an argument for my thesis and it has been adequately proven’. And if the opponent responds, ‘if your thesis can be proved, then prove it’, the respondent should deny the inference (consecutionem): ‘it does not follow that, this dogma can be proved, therefore, it should be proved by me, who sustains the role of the respondent, and not the role of proving the thesis’. Similarly, if the opponent says that ‘this dogma has no foundation in sacred scripture’, the respondent should assert that it does have foundation, that it has been demonstrated somewhere, and that it is presupposed. 47  Ursula Paintner and Martin Mulsow have shown that early 17th century Gymnasium, confessional disputation often take on a rigid institutional character in which dissent is controlled and limited. Is Scharf’s ‘deceitful syllogism’ against the Calvinist a trick for use in such regulated disputation games? See Paintner U., “Zum Nutzen der akademischen Jugend. Zwei antijesuitische Gymnasialdisputationen von Johann Matthäus Meyfart”, in Sdzuj R. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur: Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 430–447. Mulsow M., “Der ausgescherte Opponent. Akademische Unfälle und Radikalisierung”, in Mulsow M. (ed.), Die unanständige Gelehrtenrepublik. Wissen, Libertinage und Kommunikation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart – Weimar: 2007) 191–215. 48  Scharf, Processus disputandi 137–138.

54

Felipe

And if the opponent is not satisfied with this, and demands that you respond and provide a foundation and prove, then you should appeal from superiors that you are not bound by this law at this time, that you should prove the thesis, that you should demonstrate its foundation […] Dannhauer addresses this same problem in theological disputation, and he recommends a gentle, collaborative response, bringing to the eyes of the opponent a passage in scripture where the article or dogma in question is discussed.49 The respondent’s move, Dannhauer says, does not offer an argument that would accomplish an exchange in roles, but merely suggests a passage for the opponent to address with an argument. But, this will not work with some Jesuits, Dannhauer warns, who may require a dispute decided in a hall with priests seated as judges, and Lutherans sent to the low benches of the opponents. Apart from contentious dispute with some Jesuits, the collaborative overture of the respondent, which strikes a delicate balance and manages proof burdens with cooperation, are not easily reconciled with some of Dannhauer’s other strategic recommendations; he describes strategies in which the opponent seeks to shift the burden of proof to a respondent by demanding an instantia (a counter-example) to a universal premise, or a ‘justification’ (ratio) for a denial. This may lead a respondent to offer contrary arguments, which in turn realizes an exchange of roles.50 Tensions in Dannhauer between collaborative management of burden of proof, competitive strategies to shift proof burdens, and cautionary tactics to guard against putting oneself in dialectical danger, are further evidence of the instability of viva voce disputation, and are never satisfactorily worked out in the scattered commentary in Idea boni disputatoris. As simple-minded as these argument strategies may seem, the durability of affirmanti incumbit probatio and the use of negatives to shift burden of proof in post-medieval disputation is remarkable. Eighty-five years after the publication of Scharf’s handbook in 1710, Heine presents similar burden shifting syllogisms in Methodus disputandi hodierna, which he calls ‘negative syllogisms’.51 Geulincx notes syllogisms with similar form, disparagingly, attesting to the proliferation of these kinds of arguments to Catholic institutions, although the 49  Dannhauer, Idea boni disputatoris 101. 50  Ibidem 107–108. 51   Heine Johann Friedrich, Methodus disputandi hodierna ex variis autoribus collecta (Helmstedt, Georg Wolfgang Hamm: 1710) 36–37. See also Jacobi Jacob Anton, Dissertationem logico-moralem de obligatione probandi […] pro loco […] submittit (Leipzig, Heinrich Christoph Takkius: 1716).

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

55

arguments themselves are more obviously question-begging.52 The use of affirmanti incumbit probatio in polemical literature outside Germany requires study. In England by 1640 the rule seems to be a common principle of public argument appearing in a letter by John Cotton in a reply to Roger Williams.53 4

Leibniz’s Critique Adde etiam, quod regula illa prior rem plane ἀσύσαστον et inexplicabilem redderet. Quid enim quam facile mutatis vocibus negativa in affirmativam et contra transmutari potest? Hic plane tolleretur omnis pene disputatio, et antequam inveniri posset, sitne aliqua propositio ex ipsa rei natura affirmativa, an negativa, infinitis litibus opus esset. (Specimen, Question II, paragraph 2) Add also that that rule [proof rests with the one who affirms] is ‘incoherent’ (ἀσύσαστον) and inexplicable. How easily can a negative be changed into an affirmative and back again by changing the words? This would clearly bring to an end every disputation, and before it could be discovered whether or not a certain proposition itself was from an affirmative or negative nature there would be a need for infinite disputes.

An example of how to change a negative into an affirmative might be drawn from the Hunnius example: ‘Aaron is a high priest without succession’ is logically equivalent to ‘Aaron is not a high priest with succession’. Hence, Hunnius’s denial that ‘Aaron is not a high priest with succession’ could easily be changed into an affirmative by ‘changing the words’. These equivalencies follow from the laws of obversion, which are certainly at the heart of what Leibniz has in mind here: All A is B if and only if No A is non-B; No A is B if and only if All A is non-B; Some A is B if and only if Some A is not non-B; Some A is not B if and only if Some A is non-B. The argument in the Leibnizian text, at least one layer of it, is that by the laws of obversion no categorical proposition in disputation can be unambiguously identified as affirmative or negative. Therefore, the rule of proof, which requires such an identification, is incoherent and inexplicable. 52  Geulincx Arnold, Tractatus de officio disputantium (1663). In: Opera philosophica, vol. 2, ed. J.P.N. Land (Hague: 1892) 112–122. 53  See Williams R., The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, vol. 2 (New York: 1963) 33: ‘And the humilitie which he acknowledgeth to be expressed in my Letter, I shall acknowledge to be out of season: Meane while, Affirmanti incumbit Probatio’.

56

Felipe

The critique easily eliminates the negative or affirmative quality of a categorial sentence as a criterion for allocating burden of proof. A goal of Leibniz in Question II is to work toward rules of proof that prevent the possibility of stalemates in disputation. Although this imaginative argument from a logical standpoint eliminates the naïve use of affirmanti incumbit probatio from creating such impasses, the argument does not provide a solution to burden shifting strategies like, ‘this or that has no foundation in scripture’, nor, of course, does it address the underlying issue of criteria for assent in theological disputation, which are the ultimate grounds for potential deadlock. 5

Disputation ‘Pro Cathedra’ and Juridical Dispute Apud Philosophos igitur pro cathedra disputantes certum est, quod Respondens, qua talis, neque probet neque principium petat. Apud partes vero in foro litigantes non est determinatum universaliter, Actor, an reus teneatur ad probationem, quoniam neque tacitus inter partes de eo contractus intercessit, neque etiam, ut apud Philosophos contemplantes, potest a sententia et decisione supersederi sine alterius partis praejudicio. Sed ita comparatum est, ut si sententia supersedeat judex, eo ipso tacite causa cadat Actor, id est, quod petit, non consequatur. Therefore among disputing philosophers ‘pro cathedra’ it is certain that the respondent, as such, should neither prove nor seek a principle [for proof]. But, it is not universally determined among the roles of litigants in court whether the plaintiff or the defendant should be held to prove, because a tacit contract did not mediate among the parties, nor, as with contemplative philosophers, can judgment and decision be omitted without prejudice to the other party. But in court it is arranged in such a way that should a judge fail to render a decision, by that very act, the plaintiff tacitly loses the case, that is, what the plaintiff seeks does not succeed. (Specimen, Question II, paragraph 3)

Disputation ‘pro cathedra’ (public, ceremonial disputation) among ‘contemplative philosophers’ is perhaps best interpreted in this text as an idealized conception of what disputation should be: collaborative disputation between knowledgeable, well trained participants, who disinterestedly dispute for the sake of knowledge and investigation of truth. Rules and conventions of the post-medieval, modern method provide a suitable framework for this kind of dispute: Duties and roles of respondent and opponent, and dialectical

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

57

cooperation, should resolve most questions of proof, if these questions arise at all. In these collaborative endeavors, in the modern method, for instance, a respondent and opponent might agree to rules similar to those Leibniz suggests in the Theodicy:54 that the respondent may deny and seek proof of all premises, except those that are eternal verities, whose opposites imply contradictions; that only demonstrations from eternal verities constitute a refutation of a mystery of faith; that the respondent need only ‘uphold’ and defend mysteries of faith to show that faith conforms with reason. Of course, this implies these principles can be proved to be necessary in the required sense, and that the respondent and opponent accept these proofs, which Leibniz claims are necessary, logically, metaphysically or geometrically. In such a collaborative disputation the respondent may confidently offer explanations and extra arguments in favor of theses, as Leibniz does in the ‘Summary of the Controversy Reduced to Formal Arguments’, without fear such moves will lead to a breakdown in dispute and quarreling about principles, proof and process.55 Dialectical stalemate might be avoided with a synthesis of logic, convention, and collaboration. These are quite trivial to accomplish, of course, in written argument. The distance between viva voce disputation and written work, performance and theory, present in the Specimen, and on full display in the Regensburg Colloquium, vanishes in the Theodicy with the erasure of performance altogether. Juridical disputation, on the other hand, lacks these conventions, and must terminate in a decision; this is the crucial, distinguishing feature of juridical disputation that also regulates reasoning and rules of proof. Syllogisms, deduction, demonstrative reasoning, traditional response-moves are well adapted to disputation ‘pro cathedra’. But, juridical disputation is better served by presumptive reasoning, that a proposition will stand until adequate proof has been offered to the contrary, and the back and forth assertion of testimony and evidence.56

54  See Leibniz G.W., Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, ed. A. Farrer – trans. E.M. Huggard (London: 1951 – La Salle, Ill.: 1985) 73–76. 55  In the Theodicy in the ‘Summary of the Controversy Reduced to Formal Arguments’ Leibniz remarks in places that he might ‘content myself with denying’ in observance of the rule that the respondent is not obliged to prove (see 384). These are nods to the rule of proof drawn from the modern method that the respondent is not obliged to prove. 56  See Artosi – Bernardo – Sartor (eds.), Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law 7, 41. See also Leibniz G.W., ‘Letter to Gabriel Wagner, 27 February 1697’ in Die Philosophischen Schriften von G.W. Leibniz, vol. VII, ed. C.I. Gerhardt (Berlin: 1875–1890 – Reprint, Hildesheim: 1965) 514–527.

58

Felipe

It is important to note that neither disputation method sketched in the Specimen, idealized disputation ‘pro cathedra’ and juridical dispute, adequately captures the dialectical context of competitive, confessional disputation, the breeding ground for juridical analogies and strategies related to burden shifting in post-medieval disputation. Leibniz is well aware of this in the New Essays, where he compares theological debate in the Reformation to ‘combat with reasons’.57 6

Burden of Proof in Law: Specimen, Question II, Paragraphs 4–7

The last paragraphs of Question II outline, in the broadest terms, how to approach burden of proof in law. The general goal of the commentary is to map out rules for managing proof burdens that most efficiently lead to truth. From this methodological principle follows a guiding rule of proof: ‘the burden of proof is imposed on the party who can prove ‘most easily’ (commodissime) prove’ (‘ei imponatur onus probandi qui commodissime potest’).58 This astonishing principle is viewed by Dascal as an early indication of Leibniz pragmatic approach to proof of contingent claims that are context dependent.59 Also notable is the statement that ‘proof rests with the one asserting first, whether an affirmative or a negative, if it can be proved; if it cannot be proved, then by virtue of necessity itself forcing upon us, the burden of proof transfers to the other party so that the inquiry of truth is not interrupted’. Leibniz makes clear distinctions between ‘the one asserting’, ‘affirming’ and ‘denying’. The transfer of burden of proof to another party is a function of a party’s ability to prove. At the very least, the young Leibniz seems to be striving to sketch a bare outline of an efficient, rational process in which presumptive rules and available evidence terminate in a decision. On the other hand, overall, with the exception the pragmatic rule of proof, emphasis on the ability of a particular party to prove, regardless of whether or not the quality of the claim is affirmative or negative, the process is nothing out of the ordinary; burden of proof transfers from plaintiff to defendant, and back again, as evidence and testimony is introduced in a court action; Leibniz draws from the traditional tripartite framework of denials (law/quality/fact) to articulate rules for assigning proof 57  See Leibniz G.W., The New Essays on Human Understanding, trans and eds. P. Remnant – J. Bennett (Cambridge – New York – Melbourne: 1981) Book IV, Ch. vii, § 418–§ 421; Theodicy 73–122. 58  Leibniz, Specimen, Quaestio II, 4. 59  Dascal, “Leibniz’s Two-Pronged Dialectic” 46.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

59

burdens by presumption. Only denials of fact raise questions about the unprovability of certain claims. Leibniz repeats a traditional view that certain denials of fact cannot be proved ‘thoroughly’, and that in some cases it may be ‘morally impossible’ to prove. 7

Conclusion

I think there is little question that Leibniz was familiar with 17th century disputation handbooks, at least some of them, and that this literature is at least part of the basis for Leibniz’s comments in Question II. The handbooks explain the context for the conflict of rules of proof, the reversal of roles in disputation, and the background of Leibniz’s clever critique of affirmanti incumbit probatio. Leibniz seems to initiate this early investigation of burden of proof in response to confusions and conflicts that exist in disputation and legal commentary, the beginnings of a quest for logic and methods that allow for the efficient, rational assignment of proof burdens in disputation and law. An examination of the origins of affirmanti incumbit probatio, one source of these confusions, leads to Andreas Kesler’s handbook Methodus disputandi, which identifies Counter-Reformation disputations as crucial sources in the emergence of affirmanti incumbit probatio. Lutheran theologians employ this principle as a norm of discourse, ‘known to dialecticians and jurisconsultants’,60 to demand proof in confessional disputes that conform to a criterion amenable to their positions, as well as a technique to shift presumption from Catholic authority to scriptural foundations as the norm or judge of religious debate. These burden shifting strategies, based on affirmanti incumbit probatio, find their way into the disputation handbook tradition in the early 17th century, and come to be applied in school disputation exercises and confessional disputes in the early to mid-17th century. But, affirmanti incumbit probatio conflicts with the rule that the respondent is not obliged to prove theses, and complicates issues of proof with post-medieval legal theory about the proof of negatives. Dannhauer attempts to remedy this state of affairs by redefining the rule in a way that renders it identical to the rule that the opponent must prove. Legacies of the ethos of affirmanti incumbit probatio, the quasijurisprudential model for disputation of which it is a part, and the transference of legal principles and processes as norms of public discourse, come back to haunt Lutheran orthodoxy; as Martin Mulsow has shown, Eisenhart 60  See Grynaeus Johann Jacob – Selnecker Nicolaus, Acta disputationis de s. coena publice in academia Heidelbergensi habitae (Jena, Tobias Steinmann: 1587) 92.

60

Felipe

in De fide historica, first published in 1679, comes to apply juridical methods to history and the credibility of witnesses, ultimately sparking debate about the presumption that witnesses to scripture are reliable.61 Burden of proof strategies play important roles in Reformation and CounterReformation debate, including Erasmus famous skeptical endorsement of Catholicism, and skeptical gambits developed in France by Juan Maldonado and others in the Jesuit colleges at Clermont and Bordeaux to attack Calvinism, noted by Richard Popkin.62 And, as the research of Hanspeter Marti has revealed, in early Enlightenment Germany, at the university of Halle, Christian Thomasius employs the method of socratic questioning as a tool for cross examination and refutation of scholastic doctrine, thereby shifting presumptions in favor of Enlightenment ideals.63 Leibniz’s interests in burden of proof and presumption, as Dascal points out, are related to far more ambitious aims, the development of the art of controversies, which addresses the logic of presumptive and contingent reasoning as well as the art of negotiation and decision in variable conditions.64 No matter how one views the ‘softer’ side of Leibniz’s art and theory of reasoning, viva voce disputation, which already takes a back seat in the production of the Specimen, the last disputation of Leibniz’s youth, falls further and further into obscurity, as disputation-performance fades as a matter of theoretical and practical importance. The disruptive legacies of affirmanti incumbit probatio, the proof of negatives, negative syllogisms, and burden of proof strategies, surely play some role in the unravelling of viva voce disputation as a viable method for investigation of truth in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and provide important background to Leibniz’s approaches to disputation and to the well known critiques of disputation in Locke, Kant, Crusius, and others. 61  See Mulsow M., Enlightenment Underground: Radical Germany, 1680–170, trans. H.C.E. Midelfort (Charlottesville: 2015) – Originally published in German as Moderne aus dem Untergrund: Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland 1680–1720 (Hamburg: 2002) E-book: Chapter 3, The Problem of Faith in De tribus impostoribus; Eisenhart Johannes, De fide historica commentarius (Helmstedt, Heinrich David Müller: 1679). 62  See Popkin R., The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle (Oxford – New York: 2003) 7–10; 65–77. 63  See Marti H., “Kommunikationsnormen der Disputation. Die Universität Halle und Christian Thomasius als Paradigmen des Wandels”, in Schneider U.J. (ed.), Kultur der Kommunikation. Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter von Leibniz und Lessing, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 109 (Wiesbaden: 2005) 317–344. 64  Dascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: The Art of Controversies xxxiv–xxxv.

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

61

Selected Bibliography

Primary Sources

Calov Abraham, Tractatus novus de methodo docendi et disputandi (Rostock, Johann Hallervord: 1637). Cellarius Balthasar, Libellus de consequentia (Helmstedt, Johann Heitmüller: 1658). Dannhauer Conrad, Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (Strasbourg, Wilhelm Christian Glaser: 1629). De Fano Martinus ‒ Herculanus Franciscus, Tractatus de probanda negativa (Cologne, Johann Gymnich: 1578). Felwinger Johann Paul, Brevis Commentatio de disputatione (Altdorf, Georg Hagen – Nuremberg, Johann Tauber: 1659). Kesler Andreas, Methodus disputandi, ed. Johann Paul Felwinger (Altdorf, Johann Heinrich Schönnerstädt: 1668). Leibniz G.W., Die Philosophischen Schriften von G.W. Leibniz, ed. C.I. Gerhardt (Berlin: 1875‒1890 ‒ Reprint, Hildesheim: 1965). Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm (Pr.) ‒ Menzel Johann Matthaeus (Resp.), Specimen quaestionum philosophicarum ex jure collectarum (Leipzig, Johann Wittigau: 1664). Leibniz G.W., The New Essays on Human Understanding, trans. and eds. P. Remnant ‒ J. Bennett (Cambridge ‒ New York ‒ Melbourne: 1981). Leibniz G.W., Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, ed. A. Farrer ‒ trans. E.M. Huggard (London: 1951 ‒ La Salle, Ill.: 1985). Leibniz G.W., The Art of Controversies, ed. M. Dascal (Dordrecht: 2008). Martini Cornelius, De analysi logica tractatus (Helmstedt, Jacobus Lucius heirs ‒ Zacharias Rabe: 1619). Martini Jacob, Paedia seu prudentia in disciplinis generalis (Wittenberg, Clemens Berger widow ‒ Christian Tham heirs: 1631). Pretten Johann, Disputandi methodus (Leipzig, Johann Scheib ‒ Johann Wittigau: 1669). Prückner Andreas, Libellus de artificio disputandi (Erfurt, Johann Birckner ‒ Paul Michael: 1656). Scharf Johann, Processus disputandi (Wittenberg, Christoph Wust ‒ Johann Röhner: 1635). [Tanner Adam, ed.], Colloquium de norma doctrinae, et controversiarum religionis judice: autoritate et in praesentia, serenissimorum atque illustrissimorum principum ac dominorum domini Maximiliani, et domini Philippi Ludovici, principum Palatinorum Rheni, ducum Bavariae etc. Ratisbonae habitum mense Novembri, anno domini M.DCI. Ex authentico, ab utriusq; partis constitutis responsoribus et notariis, subscripto et obsignato exemplari (Lauingen on Danube, Jacob Winter: 1602).

62

Felipe

Thomasius Jacob, Erotemata logica pro incipientibus accessit pro adultis processus disputandi (Leipzig, Johann Jacob Fritsch ‒ Rudolstadt, Heinrich Urban: 1705). Wendeler Michael, Breves observationes genuini disputandi processus (Wittenberg, Hiob Wilhelm Fincelius: 1650). Wesenbeck Matthäus, In pandectas iuris civilis et codicis Iustinianei lib. IIX. commentarii olim paratitla dicti: nunc ex postrema ipsius authoris, necnon aliorum quorundam iurisconsultorum recognitione multo quam antehac emendatius editi (Basel, Gymnicus: 1604). Whately R., Elements of Rhetoric, 7th Edition (London: 1860).



Secondary Sources

Ahsmann M., J.A.M., Collegium und Kolleg. Der juristische Unterricht an der Universität Leiden 1575‒1630 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Disputationen, Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte 138 (Frankfurt a.M.: 2000). Appold K.G., Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung. Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 127 (Tübingen: 2004). Armgardt M., “Presumptions and Conjectures in Leibniz’s Legal Theory”, in Armgardt M. – Canivez P. – Chassagnard-Pinet S. (eds.), Past and Present Interactions in Legal Reasoning and Logic (Dordrecht: 2015) 51‒69. Artosi A. ‒ Bernardo P. ‒ Sartor G. (eds.), Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law (Dordrecht ‒ Heidelberg ‒ New York ‒ London: 2013). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19/2 (2004) 129–187. Dascal M., Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: The Art of Controversies (Dordrecht: 2008). Dascal M., “Leibniz’s Two-Pronged Dialectic”, in Symons J. ‒ Dascal M. (eds.), Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist? (ProQuest Ebook Central: 2008) 37‒72. De Olaso E., “Leibniz et l’art de disputer”, in Heinekamp A. (ed.), Akten des II. Internationalen Leibniz-Kongresses, vol. 4, Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa 15 (Wiesbaden: 1975) 207‒228. Felipe D., The Post-Medieval ‘Ars Disputandi’, Ph. D. dissertation (University of Texas at Austin ‒ Ann Arbor, MI: 1991). Felipe D., “Ways of disputing and principia in 17th century German disputation handbooks”, in Gindhart M. ‒ Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200‒1800: Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin ‒ New York: 2010) 33‒61. Gaskins R., Burden of Proof in Modern Discourse (New Haven: 1992). Gindhart M. ‒ Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin ‒ New York: 2010).

Burden of Proof in Post-Medieval Disputation

63

Gindhart M. ‒ Marti H. ‒ Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen – Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒ Vienna: 2016). Hohman H., “Presumptions in legal argument: from antiquity to the middle ages”, Scholarship at Uwindsor; Ossa Conference Archive, 28. https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/72767545.pdf (05.04.2019). Kivistö S., The Vices of Learning: Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 48 (Leiden: 2014). Marti H., “Disputatio”, in Ueding G. (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 1 (Tübingen: 1994) 866–880. Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel in 18. Jahrhundert”, in Gindhart M. ‒ Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200‒1800: Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin ‒ New York: 2010) 63‒85. Marti H., “Das Bild des Gelehrten in Leipziger philosophischen Dissertationen der Übergangszeit vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert”, in Marti H. ‒ Döring D. (eds.), Die Universität Leipzig und ihr gelehrtes Umfeld 1680‒1780 (Basel: 2004) 55‒109. Marti H., “Kommunikationsnormen der Disputation. Die Universität Halle und Christian Thomasius als Paradigmen des Wandels”, in Schneider U.J. (ed.), Kultur der Kommunikation. Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter von Leibniz und Lessing, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 109 (Wiesbaden: 2005) 317‒344. Marti H. ‒ Sdzuj R.B. ‒ Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒ Vienna: 2017). Mulsow M., Enlightenment Underground: Radical Germany, 1680‒1720, trans. H.C.E. Midelfort (Charlottesville: 2015) ‒ Originally published in German as Moderne aus dem Untergrund: Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland 1680‒1720 (Hamburg: 2002). Paintner U., “Zum Nutzen der akademischen Jugend. Zwei antijesuitische Gymnasialdisputationen von Johann Matthäus Meyfart”, in Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), in Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur: Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012) 430‒447. Popkin R., The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle, Archives internationales d’histoire des idées 145 (Oxford ‒ New York: 2003). Rescorla M., “Shifting the burden of proof?”, Philosophical Quarterly 59, 234 (2009) 86–109. Rhode C., “The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue”, Argumentation 31, 3 (2017) 535‒554. Sdzuj R.B. ‒ Seidel R. ‒ Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur: Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012).

64

Felipe

Sdzuj R.B., “‘mandatum esse officium elencticum, quod disputando exeritur’. Zu Johann Konrad Dannhauers Disputationslehrbuch Idea boni disputatoris et malitiosi sophistae (1629) und seinem historischen Kontext”, in Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Die Universität Straßburg zwischen Späthumanismus und Französischer Revolution (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2018) 43–67. Walton D., Burden of Proof. Presumption and Argumentation (Cambridge ‒ New York: 2014). Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013).

kapitel 3

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes: Programm, Plakat und Memorialbild Sibylle Appuhn-Radtke Summary The modern term ‘thesis broadsheet’ refers to a single-leaf print with short sentences (theses, conclusiones), combined with images. It served as an invitation for festive disputations in Baroque times. The article starts with a bibliographical review of the state of international research on this topic. Invented by Franciscan scholars in the late 16th century, these prints spread to all Catholic parts of Europe. Examples include different types of broadsheets developed in Italy, France and German-speaking countries. All of them served several purposes: besides displaying the data of the disputation in ques­ tion, they acted as means of representation. They increased the renown of the inviting university, they highlighted the importance of the main persons involved in the disputation (praeses and defendens), and their iconography often centered on the glory of a patron. An unpublished source from Freiburg University (18th century) describes the ceremonies of a disputation sub auspiciis imperatoris in which the thesis broadsheet played a central role. The appreciation of prints after the end of such festive acts is illustrated by their later use: some of them were framed and exposed in public spaces to honor a successful defensio. In other cases, the images were painted over or cut out for secondary iconographic use.

1

Einführung

Große Feste müssen angekündigt werden. Dies galt auch für die feierlichen Disputationen1 an den Lehranstalten der katholischen Länder Europas, an denen oft Hunderte von Gästen teilnahmen. Lange vor der Etablierung des

1  Marti H., „Disputation“, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 2 (Darmstadt: 1994) 866–880.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_004

66

Appuhn-Radtke

kommerziellen Plakats begann man deshalb, großformatige Einblattdrucke zu produzieren, die vor einem solchen Akt ausgehängt und als Einladungen versandt wurden. Sie informierten vorab über Ort und Zeit der Veranstaltung, die aktiven Hauptpersonen und die zu disputierenden Thesen. Da die kostenträchtigen Veranstaltungen vielfach unter dem Mäzenat einer hochgestellten Persönlichkeit stattfanden, musste zuvor deren Einverständnis beantragt werden.2 Danach arbeiteten mehrere Personen an der Realisierung: der Inventor der textlichen und bildlichen Inhalte (oft der Präses der geplanten Disputation),3 ein Zeichner, der dessen Angaben in eine Bild-Text-Komposition umsetzte, und ein Graphiker, der die Vorzeichnung auf einer Kupferplatte in Kupferstich, Radierung oder Mezzotinto (Schabkunst) wiedergab. Dieser konnte identisch mit dem Drucker/Verleger sein, der das Endprodukt herstellte. Abhängig von der Technik und den Wünschen des Bestellers kamen anschließend Hunderte von Exemplaren auf Papier, oft auch wenige Vorzugsexemplare auf Seide aus der Druckerpresse, die an den Besteller versandt und von diesem weiterverteilt wurden. Für diese plakatartigen Bild-Text-Produkte, die von barocken Zeitgenossen als emblema, iconismus, theses oder conclusiones, auch theses cupro incisae bezeichnet wurden, prägten Forscher im 20. Jahrhundert die Begriffe ‚Thesenblatt‘, ‚thesis broadsheet‘, ‚thèse illustrée in-folio‘ oder ‚thèse à image‘, ‚foglio di tesi‘ oder ‚manifesto‘ bzw. ‚pliego de tesis‘. Nach ersten definitorischen Ansätzen4 wandte man sich im deutschen Sprachraum vor allem der Produktion von Augsburger Kupferstechern5 zu, denn diese übten eine Zentralfunktion für 2  Rath M., „Die Promotionen und Disputationen sub auspiciis imperatoris an der Universität Wien“, Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 6 (1953) 47–164. 3  Appuhn-Radtke S., Das Thesenblatt im Hochbarock. Studien zu einer graphischen Gattung am Beispiel der Werke Bartholomäus Kilians (Weißenhorn: 1988) 48–52; Meyer V., L’illustration des thèses à Paris dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Peintres, graveurs, éditeurs (Paris: 2002) 36; Rice L., „Los pliegos de tesis jesuitas y las sustenciones académicas festivas en el Collegio Romano“, in Ojeda E.A., De Augsburgo a Quito: fuentes grabadas del arte jesuita quiteňo del siglo XVIII (Quito: 2015) 67–80, hier 79. 4  Eibl E., „Zur Geschichte der Thesenblätter“, Kirchenkunst 8 (1936) 57–59; Henggeler R., „Schweizerische Thesenblätter“, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunst­ geschichte 10 (1948/49) 77–86; Seitz W., „Graphische Thesenblätter für St. Peter“, in St. Peter zu Salzburg, 582–1982 (Salzburg: 1982) 869–885; ders., „Die Graphischen Thesenblätter des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Ein Forschungsvorhaben über ein Spezialgebiet barocker Graphik“, Wolfenbütteler Barock-Nachrichten 11, 3 (1984) 105–113. 5  Michels A., Philosophie und Herrscherlob als Bild. Anfänge und Entwicklung des süddeutschen Thesenblattes im Werk des Augsburger Kupferstechers Wolfgang Kilian (1581–1663) (Münster: 1987); Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt; Rott S., „Zur Ikonographie und Ikonologie barocker

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

67

die Länder des deutsch-römischen Reichs und der Habsburgermonarchie aus, bevor sich auch andernorts Offizinen etablierten, die für die örtlichen Hochschulen bzw. Lehranstalten arbeiteten. Thesenblätter regten vielfach Nachschöpfungen in verschiedenen Techniken der Malerei und Plastik an, wobei der organisatorische Hintergrund der Disputationseinladung einen besonders weiten Verbreitungsradius bewirkt zu haben scheint. Die Spuren von Augsburger Blättern lassen sich in ganz Europa, teilweise sogar bis nach Südamerika verfolgen.6 Zugleich wurden Untersuchungen über italienische,7 französische,8 südnie­ derländische,9 böhmische und mährische,10 slowenische,11 ungarische12 und Thesenblätter des Augsburger Kupferstechers Melchior Küsel (1626–ca. 1683)“, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben 83 (1990) 43–112. 6  Ojeda A.E., „De Augsburgo a Quito: travesía del rococó a través del grabado“, in ders., De Augsburgo a Quito 81–107, 129–194. 7  Zu römischen Thesenblättern siehe Rice L., „Jesuit Thesis Prints and the Festive Academic Defence at the Collegio Romano“, in O’Malley J.W. (Hg.), The Jesuits. Culture, Sciences, and the Arts (Toronto – Buffalo – London: 1999) 148–169. Zu Thesenblättern in Siena und Bologna: Pezzo A., Le tesi a stampa a Siena nei secoli XVI e XVII. Catalogo degli opuscoli della Biblioteca comunale degli Intronati (Cinisello Balsamo: 2011). Zu Mailänder Blättern: Bora G., „Note sull’attività milanese di Gian Cristoforo Storer“, Arte lombarda 98/99, 3–4 (1991) 29–40; ders., „Arte, apparati, emblemi a Milano al tempo di Cesare Monti“, in Le stanze del Cardinale Monti, 1635–1650, Ausstellungskatalog Palazzo Reale (Mailand: 1994) 39–54. 8  Auf antiquarischen Interessen beruhend: Barbier de Montault X., Les thèses de philosophie des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Saint-Maixent: 1898); ein moderner Überblick bei Meyer, L’illustration des thèses sowie in weiteren Publikationen derselben Autorin. 9  Z.B. De Mets A., Reliques de l’ancienne université de Louvain au Musée Plantin-Moretus (Brüssel: 1925); Begheyn P., „Two thesis prints by Matthaeus Aloysius van Hulten (1630–1678) of Amsterdam, printed at Douai in 1648 and 1649“, Quaerendo 26/3 (1996) 207–212; De Mûelenaere G., Les thèses illustrées dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux au XVIIe siècle: étude iconologique des rapports entre arts, sciences et pouvoirs (http://hdl.handle .net/2078.1/182934; die englische Druckversion soll 2020 erscheinen: Thesis Prints in the Southern Netherlands in the 17th Century. Iconological Analysis of the Relationships between Art, Science and Power). 10  Überblick bei Zelenková P., Seventeenth-Century Baroque Prints in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Prag: 2009). 11   Appuhn-Radtke S., „Dokumente europäischer Bildung. Augsburger Thesenblätter für slowenische Lehranstalten“, in Höfler J. – Büttner F. (Hg.), Bayern und Slowenien im Zeitalter des Barock (Regensburg: 2006) 145–169. 12  Galavics G., Kössünk kardot az pogány ellen (Budapest: 1986); Rózsa G., „Thesenblätter mit ungarischen Beziehungen“, Acta Historica Artis Hungariae 33 (1987/88) 257–289; Galavics G., „Thesenblätter ungarischer Studenten im Wien des 17. Jahrhunderts“, in Karner H. – Telesko W. (Hg.), Die Jesuiten in Wien (Wien: 2003) 113–130.

68

Appuhn-Radtke

russische13 Thesenblätter angestellt. Inhaltliche Schwerpunkte der Forschung waren neben der Materialerfassung in Sammlungs- und Ausstellungskatalogen14 die Position der Graphiken in Künstlerœuvres15 sowie Bezüge zur Selbst-

13  Alekseeva M.A., „Zanr konkluzij v russkom iskusstve (17th–18th c.)“, in Russkoe iskusstvo barokko. Materialy i issledovanija (Moskva: 1977) 7–29. 14   Z.B. Eibl E., Die Thesentafeln des 18. Jahrhunderts im Kloster der Salesianerinnen zu Wien, Diss. phil. (Wien: 1934; zum gegenwärtigen Zustand der Sammlung: Telesko W., „Die Sammlung von Thesenblättern“, in Penz H. (Hg.), Das Kloster der Kaiserin. 300 Jahre Salesianerinnen in Wien (Petersberg: 2017) 216–221; Fechtnerová A., Katalog grafických listů univerzitních tezí uložených ve Státní knihovnĕ ČSR v Praze, Bde. 1–4 (Praha: 1984); http://www.manuscriptorium.com/apps/index.php#search [23.02.18]); Lechner G.M., Das barocke Thesenblatt. Entstehung – Verbreitung – Wirkung. Der Göttweiger Bestand, Ausstellungskatalog Benediktinerstift Göttweig (Göttweig: 1985); Meyer V., „Catalogue de thèses illustrées in-folio soutenues aux XVIIe et XIIIe siècles par des Bordelais“, Revue française d’histoire du livre 72–73 (1991) 2012–2065 und 74–75 (1992) 23–51; Malni Pascoletti M., Ex universa philosophia. Stampe barocche con le Tesi di Gesuiti di Gorizia, Ausstellungskatalog Musei Provinciali di Gorizia (Gorizia: 1992); Telesko W., Barocke Thesenblätter, Ausstellungskatalog Stadtmuseum Linz-Nordico (Linz: 1994); ders., Thesenblätter österreichischer Universitäten, Ausstellungskatalog Salzburger Barockmuseum (Salzburg: 1996); Schlaefli L., „Placards du Collège et de l’Académie de Molsheim (1618–1789)“, Annuaire de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Molsheim et Environs 2001, 97–123; Schemmel B., Die Graphischen Thesen- und Promotionsblätter in Bamberg (Wiesbaden: 2001); Meyer V., „Les thèses des collèges et des universités à Poitiers aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Soutenances, édition, illustration“, Revue historique du Centre-Ouest 4 (2005) 7–160. 15  Beispiele Wildenstein D., „Les œuvres de Charles le Brun d’après les gravures de son temps“, Gazette des beaux-arts 6ème pér., 66 (1965) 53–58; Rice L., „Pietro da Cortona and the Roman Baroque Thesis Print“, in Pietro da Cortona 1597–1669, Atti del convegno internazionale Rom – Florenz 1997 (Rom – Mailand: 1998) 189–200; Friedlmaier K., Johann Georg Bergmüller. Das druckgraphische Werk, Diss. phil., München 1995 (Marburg: 1998 [Microfiche-Edition]); Teuscher A., Die Künstlerfamilie Rugendas 1666–1858 (Augsburg: 1998) 295–324; Appuhn-Radtke S., Visuelle Medien im Dienst der Gesellschaft Jesu. Johann Christoph Storer (1620–1671) als Maler der Katholischen Reform (Regensburg: 2000) 292–323; Meyer V., L’œuvre gravé de Gilles Rousselet, graveur parisien du XVIIe siècle (Paris: 2004) 224–260; Zelenková P., „Karel Škréta and His Contemporaries as Designers of Prints“, in Stolárová L. – Vlnas V. (Hg.), Karel Škréta 1610–1674. His Work and his Era, Ausstellungskatalog Nationalgalerie (Prag: 2010) 367–420; dies., Martin Antonín Lublinský. Jako inventor grafických listů, pohled do středoevropské barokní graficky druhé poloviny 17. století (Prag: 2011); Rice L., „Matthaeus Greuter and the Conclusion Industry in Seventeenth-Century Rome“, in Leuschner E. (Hg.), Ein privilegiertes Medium und die Bildkulturen Europas. Deutsche, französische und niederländische Kupferstecher und Graphikverleger in Rom von 1590 bis 1630. Akten des Internationalen Studientages der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rom, 10.–11.11.2008 (München: 2012) 279–300.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

69

darstellung der Lehranstalten,16 zur fürstlichen Repräsentation17 und zum Werdegang der Beteiligten.18 Die Forschungsstränge verliefen jedoch weitgehend nach Sprachen getrennt. Diese Beschränkung will die vorliegende Darstellung aufheben, um internationale Konstanten und regionale Differenzen in der Gestaltung des Thesenblattes herauszustellen, die sich in Italien und Frankreich einerseits und in den deutschsprachigen und östlich angrenzenden Ländern Europas andererseits konstituierten. Anschließend soll an Beispielen erläutert werden, welche historische und mediale Bedeutung das Thesenblatt über seine Plakatfunktion hinaus besaß. 2

Überregionale Konstanten

Die Disputation als Form wissenschaftlichen Diskurses war im scholastischen Lehrbetrieb verankert, also weder ein Phänomen der Frühen Neuzeit noch regional begrenzt.19 In nachtridentinischer Zeit, d. h. seit dem späten 16. Jahrhundert, gewann sie in den katholischen Regionen Europas performative Qualität: Öffentliche, feierliche Disputationen, in deren Zentrum ein einziger

16  M  eyer V., „Les thèses, leur soutenance et leurs illustrations dans les universités françaises sous l’Ancien Régime“, Mélanges de la Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne 12 (1993) 45–111; Leinsle U.G., „Selbstdarstellung der Dillinger Philosophie im Promotionsakt“, in Kießling R. (Hg.), Die Universität Dillingen und ihre Nachfolger (Dillingen: 1999) 645–677. 17  Bardon F., Le portrait mythologique à la cour de France sous Henri IV et Louis XIII. Mythologie et politique (Paris: 1974) 146–147, und Lothe J., „Images et monarchie. Les thèses gravées de François de Poilly“, Nouvelles de l’estampe 29 (1976) 6–12; Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 62–74; dies., „Speculum pietatis – Persuasio Benefactoris. Zur Ikonographie illustrierter Einblattdrucke an der Universität Dillingen“, in Kießling, Universität Dillingen 559–593; Meyer V., „Aperçu sur les frontispices de thèse. Définition et méthodologie à partir de quelques exemplaires dédiés à Louis XIV“, in Barrucand M. (Hg.), Arts et culture, une vision méridionale (Paris: 2001) 91–99; Zelenková P., „‚Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem‘. Oslava Leopolda I. a následníka trůnu arcivévody Josefa v univerzitních tezích podle Antonína Martina Lublinského (1636–1690)“, in Barokní Praha – Barokní Čechie 1620–1740 (Prag: 2004) 769–801; Meyer V., ‚Thèses illustrées dédiées à Mazarin‘, in De Conihaut I. – Michel P. (Hg.), Mazarin. Les lettres et les arts (Saint-Remi-en-l’Eau: 2006) 262–275; Rice L., „‚Apes philosophicae‘: bees and the divine design in Barberini thesis prints“, in Mochi Onori L. – Schütze S. – Solinas F. (Hg.), I Barberini e la cultura europea del Seicento. Atti del convegno internazionale Rom 2004 (Rom: 2007) 181–194. 18  Rath, „Promotionen“; Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 21–26. 19  Marti, „Disputation“; Traninger A., Disputation, Deklamation, Dialog. Medien und Gattungen europäischer Wissensverhandlungen zwischen Scholastik und Humanismus, Text und Kontext 33 (Stuttgart: 2012).

70

Appuhn-Radtke

oder wenige Defendenten (‚defendentes‘, ‚respondentes‘)20 standen, dienten vorrangig als Bühne für die Exposition rhetorischer Qualitäten. Damit traten zunehmend die Inhalte zurück, die auf manchen frühen Thesenblättern noch konstitutiv für die Bildmotive waren. Stattdessen wurden die Repräsentation der Lehranstalt und die captatio benevolentiae einer oder mehrerer hochgestellter Persönlichkeiten (patroni, maecenates), denen der Akt gewidmet wurde, zunehmend wichtig, denn diese konnten sich finanziell oder institutionell als dankbar erweisen. Es lag daher nahe, dass die Universitäten und die Vorsitzenden der Disputation (praesides) die Veranstaltungen dafür nutzten, die Leistungskraft ihrer Institution dem anwesenden Patron und dem Publikum in würdigem Rahmen vorzuführen. Diese Mechanismen erklären, warum das Thesenblatt nicht nur die Gegenstände der Disputation (theses, conclusiones, assertiones) verzeichnete, sondern ein immer größerer Anteil der bildlichen und textlichen Ausstattung panegyrisch bestimmt war: Der Patron wurde in einer dedicatio angesprochen, die nicht selten das Programm des Blattes in Briefform erläuterte; häufig bezog man auch sein Porträt ein.21 Entsprechend seinem sozialen Rang konnte auch der Defendent im Bild auftreten,22 nie hingegen der Präses, der häufig Ordenspriester war; seine Darstellung wäre kontraproduktiv gewesen, denn Porträts entsprachen nicht der humilitas, die zum Tugendkanon aller Mönchsorden gehörte.23 20  Die Defendenten mussten ausreichend qualifiziert sein, um eine Disputation erfolgreich bestehen zu können. Oft stammten sie aus dem Adel, denn die Teilnahme einer bekannten Familie sicherte dem Akt allgemeine Aufmerksamkeit, und zugleich wurden die hohen Kosten einer feierlichen Disputation in vielen Fällen von dieser übernommen. Dass junge Frauen disputierten, war außerordentlich selten; es sind nur zwei Defendentinnen bekannt, die öffentlich auftraten (Venedig 1677 und Genua 1692). Beide disputierten über philosophische Thesen, nachdem ihnen eine theologische Disputation verweigert worden war. Man darf aber annehmen, dass sie zuvor Theologie studiert hatten (Pezzo, Le tesi a stampa 12). In den deutschsprachigen Ländern sind keine Defendentinnen bezeugt; selbst als Patroninnen fungierten sie selten (so Henriette Adelaide von Savoyen, Kurfürstin von Bayern). In Frankreich waren Patroninnen offenbar häufiger, aber es wurde nicht vorausgesetzt, dass sie Latein verstanden – die Dedikationen sind üblicherweise volkssprachlich (Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 69). 21  Z.B. Appuhn-Radtke, „Speculum“. 22  Üblicherweise tragen die Defendenten die Kleidung junger Kavaliere (wenn nicht ein Klerikergewand). Sie treten meistens mit eleganter Verneigung vor und präsentieren dem Patron ihren Wappenschild oder die dedicatio auf einem Blatt oder einem Schild (Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 22–23, Abb. 10–13; dies., „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein“ Abb. 1–4). 23  Zur Diskussion um die Frage, ob es Ordensleuten überhaupt erlaubt sei, sich porträtieren zu lassen, siehe Niedermeier N., „Die ersten Porträts der Beati und Santi moderni.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

71

Die ephemere Ausstattung des Disputationsortes24 mit Bildteppichen, kostbaren Draperien, Orientteppichen oder Affixiones sowie einem erhöht stehenden, thronartigen Sessel für den Mäzen25 oder seinen Stellvertreter und ein doppelstufiges Katheder für Präses und Defendenten bilden ebenfalls internationale Konstanten.26 Auch der zeremonielle Rahmen, in dem sich die Teilnehmer bewegten, scheint in ganz Europa ähnlich prätenziös gewesen zu sein, auch wenn die einzelnen Vorgaben von den Usancen der Lehranstalt abhängig waren und gelegentlich für jeden Akt speziell ausgehandelt wurden. So machten der Rektor, dessen Stellvertreter und der Syndicus der Universität Freiburg vor einer philosophischen Disputation unter dem Patronat Kaiser Karls VI. am 25. Juni 1727 dem kaiserlichen Statthalter in Vorderösterreich, Ferdinand Hartmann von Sickingen-Hohenburg, ihre Aufwartung, um mit diesem den Ablauf der Festveranstaltung zu besprechen.27 Das Plazet zu einer Widmung muss zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits vorgelegen haben. Die Ergebnisse wurden im Senatsprotokoll vom 20. Juni 1727 in knappen Punkten festgehalten: Die gesamte Veranstaltung sei im Münster abzuhalten. Der kaiserliche Statthalter solle von allen Würdenträgern der Universität im Ornat sowie den Pedellen mit den Zeptern vor dem Hauptportal des Münsters empfangen werden. Hier habe der Rektor eine feierliche Begrüßungsansprache zu halten. Porträtähnlichkeit in nachtridentinischer Zeit“, Diss. phil. Salzburg 2018. Die Arbeit erscheint voraussichtlich 2020 in der Reihe „Jesuitica. Quellen und Studien zu Geschichte, Kunst und Literatur der Gesellschaft Jesu im deutschsprachigen Raum“ in Regensburg. 24  Wenn es keinen speziellen Saal für Disputationen gab, wurde in die Aula oder den Theatersaal eingeladen. In anderen Fällen dienten eine Kirche oder der Festsaal des Rathauses (z.B. die ‚Sala del mappamondo‘ in Siena; Pezzo, Le tesi a stampa 32) dem gleichen Zweck, seltener auch ein Stadtpalast. Genau ist man über die Lage des Disputationsund Theatersaals im Jesuitenkolleg San Gregorio in Quito unterrichtet, denn hierfür existiert ein barocker Grundriss mit Funktionsbezeichnungen (Vásquez Hahn M.A., „Arte, ciencia, cultura e historia en el salón de actos de la Universidad de San Gregorio“ in Ojeda, De Augsburgo a Quito 125–128). Monastische Disputationen fanden gelegentlich auch im Refektorium oder in der Sakristei statt. 25  In Frankreich blieb der Thron oft leer, wurde jedoch von der Garde flankiert (Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 76–79). 26  Im Collegium Romanum wurde der Saal mit Blumen und für diesen Zweck entliehenen Tapisserien geschmückt (Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 158). Zu Bologna und Siena siehe Pezzo, Le tesi a stampa 13 und 48, n. 20. Beschreibungen solcher Dekorationen in Paris (1726, 1738) bei Meyer V., „Le décor de la salle lors des soutenances de thèses sous l’Ancien Régime“, in Caracciolo M.T. – Le Men S. (Hg.), L’illustration. Essais d’iconographie [Paris: 1999] 193–205; weitere französische Beispiele bei Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 26–27, 29. Zu den Kosten siehe Meyer, „Catalogue“ 206. 27  Universitätsarchiv der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br., A 10/27. Ich danke Dieter Speck, der mir Kopien der betreffenden Seiten zugänglich machte.

72

Appuhn-Radtke

Der Auszug sei entsprechend zu gestalten. Im Innern des Münsters sollten der Defendent, Joseph Anton Ignaz Baron von Tannenberg (1709–1791), und dessen Präses Moritz Chardon S.J. vor den Stufen zum Hochchor warten, denn die Disputation sollte hier stattfinden. An der Evangelienseite sei ein Porträt des Kaisers unter einem Baldachin anzubringen, vor dem der Defendent seine dedicatio vorzutragen habe. In der Mitte des Chores solle die ‚Kanzel‘ (vermutlich das Katheder) für Präses und Defendent errichtet werden, davor ein Thron für den Statthalter, während die übrigen hochrangigen Gäste hinter ihm sitzen sollten. Das Professorenkollegium sollte nach Rang geordnet im Gestühl Platz nehmen. Bei der Disputation müsse der Statthalter als erster argumentieren, falls er dies wünsche. Die übrigen Opponenten sollten nach der Rangordnung folgen.28 Es wurde also sehr genau auf die Präzedenz in Raum und Zeit geachtet – wissenschaftliche Inhalte waren in diesem Kontext unwichtig. Ein weiterer Protokolleintrag vom 25. Juni beschreibt den tatsächlichen Vorgang: Nachdem sich die Professorenschaft vor dem Münster aufgestellt hatte, fuhr der Statthalter, von seiner Garde begleitet, sechsspännig vor (obwohl sein Amtssitz nur wenige Schritte vom Münsterplatz entfernt war), während alle Münsterglocken läuteten. Danach folgten Begrüßung und Einzug in besprochener Weise. Der abwesende Kaiser wurde nun in effigie einbezogen, indem der Defendent sich vor dessen Porträt dreimal verneigte und das Thesenblatt darunter niederlegte, bevor er auf das Katheder stieg, um die dedicatio zu verlesen. Hier gab es also eine kleine Abweichung von dem besprochenen Zeremoniell – das Verlesen der Widmung vom Katheder aus war aber zweifellos wirkungsvoller, da besser hörbar. Dann begann die vom Präses eingeleitete Disputation,29 an der sich Sickingen wie gewünscht als erster beteiligte. Das Gleiche wiederholte sich am Nachmittag, gefolgt von einem Festbankett im historischen ‚Kaufhaus‘ am Münsterplatz. Tannenberg wurde für seinen Auftritt sehr gelobt. Ob dieser Akt oder sein großes Thesenblatt, das die pietas Austriaca thematisierte,30 ausschlaggebend für seine weitere Laufbahn war, ist unbekannt, aber er wurde Oberösterreichischer Hofkammerrat, machte also in kaiserlichen Diensten Karriere.31 28  Vgl. die zeremoniellen Probleme in französischen Lehranstalten (Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 83–86). 29  Zum weiteren Ablauf siehe Appuhn-Radtke S., „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein. Werbegraphik für jesuitische Lehranstalten“, in Lang S. (Hg.), Jesuiten am Oberrhein. Oberrheinische Studien 41 (Bergzabern: 2020) 163–196. 30   Erhaltene Exemplare beschrieben bei Teuscher, Die Künstlerfamilie Rugendas 297, Nr. 1169; Appuhn-Radtke, „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein“ Abb. 15. 31  Megerle von Mühlfeld J.G., Österreichisches Adelslexikon des achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Wien: 1822) 33.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

73

Während manche Motive dieser Veranstaltung andernorts sehr ähnlich überliefert sind – etwa der Einzug unter Glockengeläut, das Verlesen der dedicatio und die herausgehobene Platzierung des Patrons bzw. die Anbringung seines Porträts32 –, fehlt in Freiburg ein Aspekt, der bei römischen Disputationen eine große Rolle spielte, aber auch in Frankreich und der Schweiz belegt ist:33 die Musik. Im Collegium Romanum der Jesuiten traten z.B. 1654 bei einer Disputation bis zu acht Chöre und zwei Orchester auf; Trompeten begleiteten die Orgel.34 In der Cancelleria Apostolica wurden Disputationen in der Regel dreimal durch intermezzi musicali oder gesungene Oden unterbrochen, die für diesen Anlass geschrieben worden waren.35 Solche Auftritte machten die Feier nicht nur sinnlich eindrucksvoller, sondern sie bildeten auch einen Teil von deren Gesamtkonzeption, denn die im Thesenblatt bildlich veranschaulichten und in der dedicatio mündlich verkündigten Inhalte wurden in der Vokalmusik wieder aufgegriffen; die verschiedenen Medien ergänzten sich in emblematischer Weise gegenseitig.36 Eine fiktive Disputation, deren Darstellung wohl zeitgenössische Erfahrungen aufnimmt, zeigt ein von Johann Daniel Herz in Augsburg gestochenes Blatt: Der Bildteil stellt eine Historienszene dar: eine Disputation unter dem Patronat des Prager Universitätsgründers Kaiser Karls IV. [Abb. 3.1]:37 Am rechten Bildrand sind auf doppelstufigem Katheder der junge Defendent und über ihm der greise Präses zu sehen, beide mit einem Exemplar des Thesenblattes. Gegenüber stehen die mit ausholender Gestik argumentierenden Opponenten, die versuchen, die präsentierten Thesen anzugreifen. Das Gestühl hinter ihnen ist mit Zuhörern gefüllt, die ihrerseits ein Exemplar des Thesenblattes halten und teilweise untereinander disputieren, ebenso wie die Ordensgelehrten im Vordergrund. Auf einem Stufenthron sitzend verfolgt der Kaiser das Geschehen, flankiert von Höflingen und seinen Gardisten. Der fiktive Raum erlaubt den Durchblick in eine riesige Bibliothek, die auf die Bibliothek des 32  Für Paris: Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 29; für Poitiers: Meyer, „Les thèses des collèges“ 18–20. 33  Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 82 (Konzerte vor der Disputation in Toulouse 1721 und Arles 1730); Henggeler, „Schweizerische Thesenblätter“ 81. 34  Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 158–159. 35  Pampalone, Ceremonie 13. 36  Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 159, 164; dies., „Pietro da Cortona“ 194. Die Inventoren der Libretti und der Dedikationen waren meistens identisch. Alle Festelemente sind in einem edierten Beispiel überliefert: Allegri D., Music for an Academic Defense (Rome, 1617), (Middleton, Wisconsin: 2004). 37  Prag, Nationalgalerie, R 101579 (Vlnas V., The Glory of the Baroque in Bohemia [Prag: 2001] 216–217, nr. I/6.20).

74

abb. 3.1

Appuhn-Radtke

Johann Daniel Herz, Thesenblatt mit fiktiver Szenerie einer feierlichen Disputation in Gegenwart Kaiser Karls IV. in Prag, verwendet für eine Disputation im Kloster Kremsmünster (Österreich) 1745. Kupferstich (5 Platten), 104,6 × 87,1 cm. Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek (12 PD 085) Image © Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

75

Prager Klementinums anspielt, diese jedoch nicht abbildet. Ein in Kremsmüns­­ ter erhaltenes, 1745 für eine dortige philosophische Disputation verwendetes Exemplar mit angeleimter Schriftleiste und Bekrönung ist Joseph Dominicus von Lamberg, Fürstbischof von Passau, gewidmet.38 Der erste Zustand der Thesenblatt-Platte dürfte hingegen für eine Prager Disputation bestimmt gewesen sein, aus der sich logischer ein Bezug zu Karl IV. ergeben hätte. In Frankreich waren Disputationen im 18. Jahrhundert noch wichtiger für die Karriere der Defendenten als in den deutschsprachigen Ländern: Hier waren für jeden universitären Grad Disputationen vorgeschrieben. Darüber hinaus waren sie Teil der Bewerbung um einen freien Lehrstuhl (concours), wobei der Usus an den einzelnen Fakultäten unterschiedlich war.39 In diesen Vorschriften spiegelt sich wohl die relativ frühe Verdrängung der Ratio studiorum der Jesuiten, die 1762 definitiv ausgewiesen wurden, und ihr Ersatz durch staatliche Direktiven. Weltgeistliche und Laien traten nach 1762 an die Stelle der Patres, aber weiterhin wurden Disputationen zur Graduierung und zur Neubesetzung von Lehrstühlen durchgeführt.40 Die Auflagenhöhe solcher Blätter variierte nach Anzahl der Einzuladenden; sie betrug im deutschsprachigen Raum meistens einige hundert Exemplare.41 Ein Vertrag des Abtes Nikolaus Imfeld von Einsiedeln, der 1737 bei Gottfried Bernhard Göz und dem Verlag Klauber in Augsburg ein großes Thesenblatt für eine Disputation seiner Hauslehranstalt bestellte, informiert hingegen über seine Absicht, 8000 Exemplare drucken zu lassen. Er legte deshalb besonderen Wert darauf, dass die Druckplatte nur in Kupferstichtechnik, nicht in Radierung oder mit Hilfe von Mezzotinto bearbeitet werden solle. Diese exorbitant hohe Auflage lehnten Göz und Klauber jedoch ab, obwohl sie betonten, dass ihre Platte auch diese Zahl von Drucken aushalten würde,42 was bezweifelt werden darf.

38  Exemplare in Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 12PD085, und Kremsmünster, Sammlungen des Benediktinerstifts. Kupferstich von fünf Platten, 104,6 × 87,1 cm (Malni Pascoletti, Ex universa philosophia 64–67; Appuhn-Radtke, „Domino suo“ 59–61). Im Klementinum ist nur ein Blanco-Exemplar (vor dem Schrifteindruck) erhalten, so dass das Datum der Erstausgabe nicht überliefert ist. 39  Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 49–68. 40  Meyer, „Les thèses de collèges“ 10–14. 41  Meyer nennt 50 bis 2000 Exemplare (Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 35). 42  Henggeler, „Schweizerische Thesenblätter“ 82, 86, Abb. 4.

76 3

Appuhn-Radtke

Die Anfänge

Die institutionellen Vorgaben und zeremoniellen Erfordernisse bildeten jedoch nur die Basis zur Konzeption von Thesenblättern. Waren um 1500 noch handschriftliche oder gedruckte Thesen in Listenform auf Einzelblättern43 oder in Form schmaler Faszikel44 üblich, begann man um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts die Blätter mit Zierleisten oder kleinen HolzschnittIllustrationen, etwa Wappenschilden, zu versehen.45 Gegen Ende des Jahrhunderts wurden im katholischen Raum neben den weiter existierenden gebundenen Thesendrucken zunehmend komplexe, anlassgebundene Bilderfindungen auf Großfoliobögen verlangt, die inhaltlich über eine bloße Bekanntmachung der Texte und aktuellen Daten hinausgingen. Sie gehören in den Rahmen eines auch Bühnenbilder und Festarchitekturen einschließenden Repräsentationsbedürfnisses und eines wachsenden Bewusstseins für die Überredungskraft von Bildern. Thesenblätter wurden nun überwiegend in der Technik des Kupferstichs ausgeführt, der einen größeren Detailreichtum als der Holzschnitt und im Gegensatz zur Radierung hohe Auflagen ermöglichte. Die frühesten Thesenblätter dieser Art scheinen in Rom entstanden zu sein: Francesco Villamena (1555/64–1624) stach für den Minoriten Daniel Niger (Czarny) aus Krakau eine hochkomplexe eucharistische Allegorie mit integrierten Thesen, die Frater Daniel 1598 unter dem Vorsitz von Pater Petrus Capullio Cortonensis, Rektor des 1587 gegründeten Kollegs S. Bonaventura, in SS. Dodici Apostoli, der Kirche des Generalkonvents in Rom, verteidigte [Abb. 3.2].46 Anders als die jesuitische Dominanz des Disputationswesens im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert es vermuten ließe, wurden die ersten aufwendig gestalteten Thesenblätter also innerhalb des Franziskanerordens verwendet. Dies gilt auch 43  Beispiele aus Bologna: handschriftliches Blatt mit medizinischen Thesen, 1495, und gedruckte Liste juristischer Thesen, 1502 (Pezzo, Le tesi a stampa 14–15). In Frankreich erschienen seit der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts gedruckte Thesen (Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenances“ 87). 44  Beispiele bei: Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (Hg.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Köln – Weimar – Wien: 2017). 45  Siehe z.B. das Thesenblatt für die erste Thesenverteidigung zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades am Seminarium Romanum, 1569 (Rice, „Jesuit Thesis prints“ 149–150, Abb. 6.1) oder das Blatt für Melchior Moretus, Antwerpen 1597 (De Mets, Reliques 24–25, Taf. II). – In der Cancelleria Apostolica in Rom verwandte man noch Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts gedruckte Texte in Holzschnitt-Rahmen, in die Bilder von Kupferstich-Platten eingesetzt wurden (Pampalone A., Ceremonie di laurea nella Roma barocca. Pietro da Cortona e i frontispizi ermetici di tesi [Rom: 2014]). 46  Wien, Albertina, HB 07,01, fol. 169,801 (Leuschner E., Antonio Tempesta. Ein Bahnbrecher des römischen Barock und seine europäische Wirkung [Petersberg: 2005] 224–225, Abb. 7.7).

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

abb. 3.2

77

Francesco Villamena, Allegorie des Abendmahls. Thesenblatt für Daniel Niger O.F.M., verwendet für seine Disputation in der Kirche des Minoritenkonvents in Rom 1598. Kupferstich. Wien, Albertina (HB 07,01, fol. 169,801) Image © Albertina Wien

78

Appuhn-Radtke

für die ältesten Pariser Blätter, Kupferstiche von Léonard Gaultier: Sie stellen detailreiche Kompendien der disputierten Sachgebiete dar, so z.B. die gut untersuchten Thesenblätter des franziskanischen Philosophen Martin Meurisse.47 Obwohl Frater Martin als Thesenverteidiger auftrat, ist es in seinem Fall unstrittig, dass er zugleich als Inventor der Bild-Text-Komposition zu betrachten ist. Selbstbewusst ließ sich der Franziskaner gegenüber von Duns Scotus am Rand der Clara totius physiologiae synopsis (Paris, Jean Messager: 1615) darstellen. Die Widmung an König Louis XIII erscheint hingegen nur winzig am unteren Bildrand – sie beeinflusste die Darstellungen in keiner Weise. Sowohl der wissenschaftliche Anspruch dieses Einblattdruckes als auch dessen logische, aber nur für Eingeweihte zu durchschauende Ikonographie, in der die Welt in drei Bildzonen aufgeteilt ist, beschränkten seine Wirkung zweifellos auf einen relativ engen Zirkel europäischer Gelehrter.48 Eine panegyrische Aussage bzw. eine breite Akzeptanz in den Oberschichten, die im 17. Jahrhundert zunehmend angestrebt wurde, war in dieser Form nicht zu erreichen. Deshalb bildeten sich in den folgenden drei Jahrzehnten unterschiedliche Formtypen in den Ländern Europas aus, die bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts weitgehend stabil blieben. Ihre Ikonographie lässt sich übergreifend in die Bereiche Herrscherdarstellung und Historienbild, sakrale und profane Allegorie sowie Hagiographie gliedern, wobei es Schnittmengen zwischen diesen Gruppen gibt. Die Relationen zwischen Bild und Text folgten vielfach den Präferenzen der Emblematik, in der das Konzept nur durch das Verständnis der wechselseitigen Anspielungen zu entschlüsseln ist.49

47  Z  .B. Bauer B., „Clara totius physiologiae synopsis“, in Harms W. – Schilling M. – Bauer B. – Kemp C. (Hg.), Die Sammlung der Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, Bd. 1: Ethica, Physica, Deutsche illustrierte Flugblätter des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, 1 (Tübingen: 1985) 6–9, Nr. I,2; Gieben S., „Il lauro della metafisica di Martino Meurisse. Foglio di tesi, inci­ so da Leonardo Gaultier nel 1616“, Collectanea Franciscana 60 (1990) 683–707; Meyer V., „La représentation de la Philosophie dans les frontispices de thèses en France au XVIIe siècle“, in Cousinié F. – Nau C. (Hg.), L’artiste et le philosophe. L’histoire de l’art à l’épreuve de la philosophie au XVIIe siècle (Paris: 2007) 229–249; Berger S., „Martin Meurisse’s Theater of Natural Philosophy“, The Art Bulletin 95, 2 (2013) 269–293. 48  Dass der Ruf von Meurisse sich jedoch bis nach Ungarn verbreitete – ob durch seine Schriften oder seine bildlichen Kompendien, muss offen bleiben –, zeigt ein Bericht des Reiseschriftstellers Márton Szepsi Csombor von 1618 (Berger, „Martin Meurisse’s Theater“ 269). 49  See also Telesko, Thesenblätter 10.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

4

79

Regionale Differenzierung

4.1 Thesenblätter in Süd- und Westeuropa Nach 1600 tendierten römische Künstler dazu, Bilder und Texte auf Thesenblättern formal zu trennen und in ein oft architektonisch verfestigtes Gerüst zu integrieren. Unter einer Bildszene standen Widmung und Widmungsbrief, darunter die Ereignisdaten und die Texte der Thesen. Diese Trennung führte häufig dazu, dass nach der Nutzung nur die Szene in der Kopfplatte erhalten blieb, während die Thesen abgeschnitten wurden. Ein frühes römisches Beispiel dafür ist ein panegyrisches Blatt aus dem Collegium Romanum der Jesuiten. Es wurde 1606 bei der Disputation des Roberto Fedele aus Rimini über Thesen aus Philosophie und Theologie verwendet.50 Der (im unbeschnittenen Zustand 114 × 87 cm messende) Kupferstich von Francesco Villamena zeigt bühnenartig einen Ruhmestempel der Bourbonen, in dem König Henri IV in der Rolle Jupiters Blitze auf Laster-Personifikationen schleudert [Abb. 3.3]. Den Thesenteil in der unteren Platte rahmen ebenfalls auf den König bezogene Szenen aus dem Herkules-Mythos. Die Wahl Henris als Patron wurde wohl zu Recht mit dessen Wiedereinführung der Gesellschaft Jesu in Frankreich (1605) erklärt;51 seine gegen Widerstände durchgesetzte Entscheidung fand in Rom vermutlich dankbare Anerkennung. Die panegyrische Allegorie auf das Wirken des Königs konnte einer weiteren captatio benevolentiae dienen – ein solches Vorgehen war für die erfolgreiche Arbeit der Jesuiten im monarchischen Europa üblich und notwendig. Bekannte römische Künstler des 17. Jahrhunderts wie Pietro da Cortona52 und Gian Francesco Romanelli, die in engem Kontakt zur Societas Jesu standen, perfektionierten das panegyrische Thesenblatt und wandten hier ihre Erfahrungen in der illusionistischen Gestaltung von Monumentalmalerei auf das Medium des Kupferstichs an. Ein prachtvolles Beispiel für eine solche Monumentalisierung ist ein 1637 von Johann Friedrich Greuter nach Entwurf von Giovanni Francesco Romanelli gestochenes Blatt, das Kardinal Francesco Barberini gewidmet wurde.53 Es zeigt das ‚Goldene Zeitalter‘ mit Saturn, Ceres 50  Wien, Albertina, Mariette, Bd. II, 30. 51   Kühn-Hattenhauer D., Das grafische Œuvre des Francesco Villamena, Ph.D. dissertation (Berlin: 1979) 42–49, 241–244. 52  Rice, „Pietro da Cortona“; Merz J.M., „Pietro da Cortona und seine Kupferstecher“, in Leuschner, Ein privilegiertes Medium 279–300. 53  Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 152–153, Abb. 6.8. Erhaltene Exemplare: Diefenbacher J., The Greuter Family, III: Johann Friedrich Greuter (The New Hollstein German Engravings, Etchings and Woodcuts 1400–1700), (Ouderkerk aan den IJssel: 2016) 116–117, Nr. 61.

80

abb. 3.3

Appuhn-Radtke

Francesco Villamena, König Heinrich IV. vernichtet die Laster. Thesenblatt, verwendet für die Disputation von Roberto Fedele am Jesuitenkolleg in Rom 1606. Kupferstich in zwei Platten, ganzes Blatt 114 × 87 cm. Wien, Albertina (HB 022,02, fol. 030,284 und 031,285) Image © Albertina Wien

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

81

und Bacchus auf einem illusionistisch von Satyrn gehaltenen Bildteppich vor einer Bühnenarchitektur mit rahmenden Hermen. Ein Tondo mit dem Brustbild des Kardinals schwebt, von Genien getragen, oberhalb des Dedikationsbriefs. Die Ereignisdaten und die philosophischen Thesen, die von Lorenzo Raggi am Collegium Romanum verteidigt wurden, sind auf den Sockel beschränkt. Der mit solchen Blättern betriebene Aufwand sorgte im römischen Generalat nicht nur für Zustimmung. Bereits 1603 versuchte man die Illustrationen zu beschränken und kostbare Bildträger wie Satin zu verbieten54 – aber offenbar erwiesen sich die Blätter in der Folge als so wichtig für die Repräsentation, dass auf eine Durchsetzung der Dekrete verzichtet wurde. Auch in dem zu dieser Zeit spanischen Mailand wurden seit den 1630er Jahren Thesenblätter hergestellt, die im wesentlichen dem gleichen formalen Muster folgen: Giovanni Paolo Bianchi, ein viel beschäftigter Stecher solcher anlassgebundenen Großgraphiken, fertigte 1638 ein Thesenblatt, auf dessen Bildteil Herkules gegen die Kentauren kämpft; die Thesen Assertiones de Deo creatore, die bei den Augustinern verteidigt wurden, sind auf einem von weiteren Herkules-Szenen gerahmten Löwenfell verzeichnet.55 Den gleichen Typus vertritt ein von Johann Christoph Storer vorgezeichnetes, 1654 von Bianchi gestochenes Blatt, das den Helden als Träger des Globus zeigt; die zugehörige Disputation des Augustiner-Eremiten Angelo Francesco Porro, die dem Ordensgeneral in Cremona gewidmet ist, fand in SS. Cosma e Damiano statt.56 Eine Kampfszene zeigt auch ein von Cesare Bassano nach Vorlage von Guido Reni gestochenes Thesenblatt, auf dem Jupiter mit seinem Blitzbündel die aufsässigen Giganten stürzt [Abb. 3.4]. Die Ereignisdaten und die Conclusiones philosophicae, die Carlo Mottini 1644 am Brera-Kolleg der Jesuiten verteidigte, wurden in Letterndruck vor ein illusionistisches Velum gesetzt.57 Der Brauch öffentlicher, durch ein Thesenblatt angekündigter Disputationen scheint sich also rasch in allen Ordensinstituten, die im gelehrten Leben der Stadt eine Rolle spielten, verbreitet zu haben. Die formale Gestaltung von Thesenblättern an französischen Lehranstalten des 17. Jahrhunderts entsprach überwiegend derjenigen in Italien. Sie sind 54  Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 155–156. 55  Bora, „Arte“ 46, Abb. 10. 56  Ebd., „Note“ 38, Abb. 29. 57  Mailand, Castello Sforzesco, Raccolta A. Bertarelli. Kupferstich, 99,5 × 56,5 cm. Bora G., „Tesi“, in Alberici C. – Scotti A. – Bologna G. – Alberici C. (Hg.), Il Seicento lombardo, Bd. 3: Catalogo di dipinti, libri stampe, Ausstellungskatalog Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Mailand: 1973) 73–74, Nr. 255.

82

abb. 3.4

Appuhn-Radtke

Cesare Bassano nach Guido Reni, Jupiter erschlägt die Giganten. Thesenblatt für die Disputation von Carlo Mottini am Brera-Kolleg in Mailand 1644. Kupferstich, 99,5 × 56,5 cm. Mailand, Castello Sforzesco, Raccolta A. Bertarelli, Scan aus: Bora G., „Tesi“, in Alberici C. et al. (Hg.), Il Seicento lombardo, vol. 3: Catalogo di dipinti, libri stampe, Ausstellungskatalog Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milano: 1973) 73f., Nr. 255

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

83

seit den 1620er Jahren ebenfalls fast immer hochrechteckig und zweiteilig: Die obere Hälfte nehmen eine mythologische Szene, eine Allegorie mit Personifikationen und/oder ein Porträt des Patrons ein, während die untere (Bas de thèse) ein großes, oft rechteckiges, gelegentlich illusionistisch gezeichnetes Schriftfeld für alle Texte enthält, das ornamental, von kleinen Szenen oder von weiteren Personifikationen gerahmt sein kann.58 Der Widmungsbrief wurde entweder in die untere Schrifttafel integriert oder in eine eigene Kartusche unterhalb der Bildszene eingestochen. Bereits die bekannte Grande thèse des Jacques Callot59 folgte diesem Muster, ebenso die Blätter, die den Kardinälen Richelieu und Mazarin gewidmet wurden.60 Das Zentrum der Herstellung von Thesenblättern lag in Paris, im 17. Jahrhundert vor allem in den Händen von Guillaume Vallet und Étienne Picart61 sowie Étienne Gantrel,62 im 18. Jahrhundert von Jean-François und Laurent Cars sowie Robert Hecquet.63 Besonders prächtig sind die König Louis XIV dedizierten Blätter, so ein von Charles le Brun (Zeichner), Gilles Rousselet und Robert Nanteuil (Stecher) ausgeführtes Thesenblatt, das den König als Steuermann des Staatsschiffes zeigt [Abb. 3.5]. Es kündigte die philosophische Disputation von Abbé Charles Amelot am 2. September 1663 im Collège d’Harcourt in Paris an, der ‚pro Laurea Artium‘ auftrat, also graduiert wurde.64 Der lächelnd aus dem Bild herausschauende König steht in antiker Rüstung seitlich an dem mit den Wappenschilden und der Krone des Königreichs besetzten Heck des Schiffes; das pralle Segel wölbt sich hinter ihm – das Schiff ist in voller Fahrt. 58  Viele Beispiele bei Meyer, L’illustration des thèses; dies., L’œuvre gravé; dies., „Les thèses de droit à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Leurs soutenances, leurs illustrations. Catalogue des thèses de droit, illustrées, soutenues à Paris sous l’Ancien Régime“, Revue d’histoire des facultés de droit et de la science juridique 27 (2007) 7–393. Die Aufteilung auf zwei Druckplatten mit dem Bild in der oberen und den Texten in der unteren Hälfte erleichterte grundsätzlich eine Mehrfachverwendung. 59  Lieure J., Jacques Callot. Catalogue raisonné de l’œuvre gravé, Bd. 2 (Paris: 1927, Reprint San Francisco: 1989) 66–69, Nr. 569; Bouvy E., La gravure de portraits et d’allégories (Paris – Brüssel: 1929) 62, Nr. 95, Taf. LXII (Detail); Sadoul G., Jacques Callot, miroir de son temps (Paris: 1977) 190–197. Das bekannte Thesenblatt, das 1625 am Jesuitenkolleg von Pont-à-Mousson Verwendung fand, wurde 1635 in Mailand paraphrasiert (Appuhn-Radtke, ‚Thesenblätter am Oberrhein‘, Abb. 7–8). 60  Wischermann H., „Mazarin als Archimedes“, Schweizer Münzblätter 24/93 (1974) 12–28; Meyer, „Thèses illustrées“. 61  Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 65–152. 62  Ebd. 153–262. 63  Meyer V., „Le commerce des illustrations de thèses dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle“, Nouvelles de l’estampe 134 (Mai 1994) 41–49; dies., „Catalogue“ 211–212. 64  Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Kupferstich, 47,5 × 63,7 cm (Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 29–31, Abb. 1 (mit dem Dedikationstext); dies., L’œuvre gravé 250, 252–253).

84

abb. 3.5

Appuhn-Radtke

Gilles Rousselet und Robert Nanteuil nach Charles le Brun, Ludwig XIV. steuert das Schiff seines Reiches. Thesenblatt für die Disputation von Abbé Charles Amelot am Collège d’Harcourt in Paris 1663. Kupferstich, 63,7 × 47,5 cm. Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. Scan aus: Meyer, L’illustration fig. 1

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

85

Tugendpersonifikationen bezeugen Anspruch und Erfolg seiner Regierung: Am bedeutendsten ist Caritas, die dem König ein flammendes Herz übergibt und ihm einen Schild zeigt, auf dem die Personifikation der Religio die Häresie fesselt. Dass diese Politik gleichzeitig zum Wohlstand des Landes führt, belegt das Füllhorn voller Münzen und Früchte. Sapientia und Justitia umschweben den Mast, während Fama bereits den Ruhm des Königs verkündet und Victoria einen Lorbeerkranz hebt. Hilfreich am Ruder ist Prudentia tätig, die sich zu Providentia umdreht, denn diese weist mit ihrem Zepter den Weg. Véronique Meyer wies darauf hin, dass Le Brun sich bei dieser Komposition an Peter Paul Rubens erinnert haben könne, der im Medici-Zyklus den eben volljährigen Louis auf dem Staatsschiff, umgeben von Tugenden, dargestellt hatte. Die Disputation des adeligen Defendenten wurde von der zeitgenössischen Presse gelobt,65 so dass sie dessen weiteren Weg gefördert haben dürfte. Thesenblätter in den Südlichen Niederlanden waren offenbar formal oft den französischen ähnlich; bekannt ist z.B. ein von Peter Paul Rubens und Abraham van Diepenbeek vorgezeichnetes, von Paulus Pontius gestochenes Blatt mit dem Wettstreit zwischen Neptun und Minerva im Oberbild. Der prachtvolle, zweiteilige Stich wurde Papst Urban VIII. gewidmet und fand 1636 bei einer Disputation am Collège d’Anchin in Douai Verwendung.66 4.2 Thesenblätter in Mittel- und Osteuropa Zu Beginn der Augsburger Thesenblattproduktion ist an einigen Blättern erkennbar, dass der Zuwanderer Dominikus Custos seinen Stiefsöhnen Lucas und Wolfgang Kilian den beschriebenen französischen Typus des Thesenblattes nahegebracht hatte. Ein 1641 von Wolfgang gestochenes und möglicherweise auch entworfenes Thesenblatt für die Universität Graz zeigt z.B. die beschriebene Einteilung in Oberszene und gerahmte Schrifttafel im unteren Teil.67 Zugleich gewann aber ein Typus die Oberhand, der das monofunktionale Thesenblatt des 17. Jahrhunderts in Mittel- und Osteuropa bestimmen sollte, während er in Frankreich deutlich seltener war: eine eng verschränkte Komposition aus Bild und Text.

65  Meyer, L’œuvre gravé 252. 66  Judson J.R. – Van de Velde C., Book Illustrations and Title-Pages, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard 21, (Brüssel: 1977) Bd. 1, 356–362, Nr. 86, Bd. 2, Abb. 290, 291. Weitere Beispiele bei Begheyn, „Two thesis prints“. Es gab hier allerdings auch Thesenblätter vom mitteleuropäischen Typus (z.B. De Mûelenaere, „Double Meaning“ 436, Abb. 15.1). 67  Michels, Philosophie 166–170, Nr. 3, Abb. 23.

86

Appuhn-Radtke

Ein großes Thesenblatt für eine Prager Disputation, das Kaiser Leopold I. im Jahr 1661 gewidmet wurde, ist dafür ein bekanntes Beispiel.68 Die sowohl diplomatisch und militärisch als auch in allen Sparten der Kunst ausgetragene Konkurrenz zwischen dem Roi Soleil und Kaiser Leopold I. wirkte sich auch auf die Ikonographie von Thesenblättern aus. Von Österreich aus gesehen war der Kaiser die eigentliche Sonne, während sein Widersacher in Versailles sich diese Rolle nur anmaßte – Louis sei viel eher als Phaethon zu verstehen, der unfähig sei, den Sonnenwagen zu lenken und deshalb stürzen müsse.69 Das Prager Thesenblatt, das Karel Škréta 1661 für die Brüder Sternberg zeichnete und Bartholomäus Kilian in Augsburg stach, vertritt klar die österreichische Sicht: Es zeigt Kaiser Leopold als Apollon auf der himmlischen Quadriga inmitten seiner Vorfahren, die ihrerseits als Planeten vorgestellt sind [Abb. 3.6]. Vorfahren der beiden Defendenten bilden ‚Satelliten‘, die Leopolds Vorgänger in ihrem Amt unterstützten. Ein Argument der Panegyrik ist die Tatsache, dass die Brüder von Sternberg von den Musen Leopold-Apollon zugeführt worden seien. Sie erscheinen mit diesen in der rechten unteren Bildecke. Weiterhin wichtig ist ihre Genealogie: Ebenso wie ihre Vorfahren stellen sich die jungen Männer mit dem sprechenden, offenbar die Bildidee anregenden Namen „Stern“-berg in den Dienst des amtierenden Kaisers. Die Invention, die genaue historische Kenntnisse erforderte, dürfte der als Historiograph der Familie von Sternberg tätige Präses, Pater Johannes Tanner S.J., ersonnen haben, bevor Škréta sie in eine Komposition umsetzen konnte. Der betriebene Aufwand zeitigte eine reale gesellschaftliche Wirkung: Die Familie wurde noch im Jahr der Disputation in den Reichsgrafenstand erhoben, und beide Brüder erhielten hohe Staatsämter.70 Im Vergleich zu den herangezogenen Beispielen aus Rom und Paris ist die Konzeption des Blattes deutlich anders: Die Ikonographie und die panegyrischen bzw. genealogischen Texte sind so eng verzahnt, dass die Invention nur für diese Prager Disputation sinnvoll war. Die von den Brüdern Sternberg disputierten aristotelischen Thesen verteidigte jedoch auch Johann Friedrich Graf von Waldstein, ebenfalls unter dem Vorsitz von Pater Tanner. Für Waldstein 68  Prag, Bibliothek des Klementinums, teze 428. Kupferstich von vier Platten, 129,8 × 89 cm. Vorzeichnung in Prag, Nationalgalerie, Graphische Sammlung, K 4872. Siehe Blažíček O.J., „Dvĕ mĕdirytiny universitních thesí podle Škréty“, Dílo 30 (1939/40) 15–19; Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 91–96, Nr. 5; zum genealogischen Kontext: Zelenková P., „Vidi stellas undecim … Šternberské alegorie na grafických listech podle Karla Škréty“, Umĕní 54 (2006) 327–342. 69   Appuhn-Radtke S., „Sol oder Phaethon? Invention und Imitation barocker Bildpropaganda in Wien und Paris“, in Hofmann W. – Mühleisen H.O. (Hg.), Kunst und Macht. Politik und Herrschaft im Medium der bildenden Kunst (Münster: 2005) 94–127. 70   Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 94–95, Nr. 4.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

abb. 3.6

87

Bartholomäus Kilian nach Karel Škréta, Kaiser Leopold I. als Apollo. Thesenblatt für die Brüder Sternberg, verwendet für ihre Disputation am Jesuitenkolleg Clementinum in Prag 1661. Kupferstich (4 Platten), 129,8 × 89 cm. Prag, Nationalbibliothek Klementinum, teze 428 Image © Klementinum v Praze

88

Appuhn-Radtke

zeichnete Škréta ein eigenes Thesenblatt mit der Prager Mariensäule als Zentrum der Welt, das von Melchior Küsell (ebenfalls in Augsburg) gestochen wurde.71 Die identischen Thesen, die Tanner vorgab, erschienen also in völlig verschiedenen Kompositionen – sie beeinflussten deren Ikonographie überhaupt nicht. Generell wichtig war hingegen der Bezug auf heraldische Zeichen (hier: den Stern), denn das Wappen war ebenso wie ein Porträt Teil der Identität. Damit wurde es häufig zum fons inventionis von Thesenblättern.72 5

Vom monofunktionalen zum polyfunktionalen Thesenblatt

Die Anfertigung solcher Kupferstiche für einen einzigen Anlass stellte einen großen finanziellen und organisatorischen Aufwand dar – musste doch das Konzept mit einem Zeichner vereinbart und mit dem häufig weit entfernt lebenden Stecher bzw. Verleger abgesprochen werden.73 Erhaltene Verträge, Rechnungen und Korrespondenzakten belegen, dass das Thesenblatt zu den größten Kostenfaktoren solcher Feiern gehörte.74 Deshalb tendierte man seit den 1660er Jahren auch im deutschsprachigen Raum dazu, Bilder und Texte zu trennen. Allerdings wurden keine großen, zentrierten Schriftfelder in der unteren Blatthälfte angelegt wie in Italien und Frankreich, sondern kleinere Kartuschen, die getrennt die Ereignisdaten, den Dedikationsbrief und die Thesentexte aufnahmen. Zugleich wurden die Bilder allgemeinverbindlicher, um mehrfach verwendbar zu sein.75 Eine Allegorie der Gesellschaft Jesu, die Johann Christoph Storer in Konstanz zeichnete und Bartholomäus Kilian in Augsburg stach, lässt dieses Prinzip anschaulich werden;76 es zeigt aber auch, dass die Herstellungstechnik 71  Rott, „Ikonographie“ 74–80, Nr. 6. 72  Z.B. Palasi P., Jeux de cartes et jeux de l’oie héraldiques aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Une pédagogie ludique en France sous l’Ancien Régime (Paris: 2000) 51–68; Rice, „Apes philosophicae“. 73   Appuhn-Radtke S., „Domino suo clementissimo … Thesenblätter als Dokumente baro­ cken Mäzenatentums“ in Müller R.A. (Hg.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene, Beiträge zur Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 76–82; Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 153–156. 74   Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 44–45; Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenances“ 52. 75  Zur parallelen Entwicklung in Frankreich seit dem späten 17. Jahrhundert siehe Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 262 passim. 76  Augsburg, Staats-und Stadtbibliothek, Kilian B. 16. Kupferstich von zwei Platten sowie einer kleinen Ovalplatte für das linke Schriftfeld, 91,9 × 94,6 cm (Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 256–260, Nr. 63; dies., Visuelle Medien 308–311, Nr. D 10).

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

89

noch verbesserungsbedürftig war [Abb. 3.7]: Der Bildteil enthält eine Gnadentreppe der Liebe, die von Christus in den Wolken ausgeht und über Ignatius von Loyola reflektiert auf die in allen Teilen der Welt tätigen Jesuiten fällt. Ihre missionarischen und erzieherischen Aufgaben vertreten exemplarisch der hl. Franz Xaver mit einem getauften Inder und Aloysius Gonzaga mit einem adligen Studenten, die sie zum fiktiven Zentrum der Societas, einem Altar mit herzförmiger, von Liebe brennender Weltkarte, führen. In drei Kartuschen am unteren Bildrand findet man links den Dedikationsbrief des Defendenten Johann Andreas Feigenbuz an den Generaloberen der Jesuiten, Giovanni Paolo Oliva, in der Mitte 50 Conclusiones ex universa philosophia und ganz rechts den Namen des Präses Pater Jacob Willi S.J. sowie Ort und Zeit der Disputation verzeichnet (Universität Dillingen [Schwaben], Juni 1664). Die Thesen und die Ereignisdaten wurden in die Bildplatte eingestochen, denn letztere diente noch einer zweiten Disputation unter Willi als Grundlage; die dedicatio von Feigenbuz stammt hingegen von einer kleinen ovalen Platte, die einzeln in den Lorbeerrahmen eingedruckt wurde. Dieses grundsätzlich durchdachte Verfahren erwies sich auf Dauer jedoch als unzureichend, denn die schöne, teure Druckplatte sollte weiteren jesuitischen Disputationen an anderen Universitäten dienen: Hierfür mussten die mittlere und die rechte Kartusche beschnitten werden, was die vegetabile Rahmung unschön beschädigte. 1672 behalf man sich bei einem weiteren Zustand in Freiburg mit Texten in Letterndruck, in denen außerdem das altertümliche Motiv einer Zierleiste neue Anwendung fand [Abb. 3.8].77 Wahrscheinlich zogen Stecher, Drucker und Nutzer seit dem letzten Viertel des 17. Jahrhunderts aus dieser Problematik die Lehre, dass Bild und Texte von Anfang an vollständig getrennt werden müssten, um Polyfunktionalität zu gewährleisten. Im 18. Jahrhundert gab es daher überwiegend Thesenblätter mit zunächst leeren Schriftfeldern, die entweder in einer Leiste am unteren Bildrand zusammengefasst wurden, oder substanziell getrennte Bild- und Textleistendrucke, die einzeln bestellt, den Angaben der Besteller folgend bedruckt und anschließend verleimt wurden. Damit entfiel die mühsame Invention origineller Kompositionen, und der sekundäre Texteindruck konnte auch von einem Buchdrucker am Ort der Disputation ausgeführt werden – gleich ob im Rheinland, in den österreichischen Stammlanden oder in Böhmen. Angebotskataloge, die in der 2. Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts Bildthemen, Größen, Abnahmekontingente und Preise verzeichneten, machten

77   Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt Abb. 131.

90

abb. 3.7

Appuhn-Radtke

Bartholomäus Kilian nach Johann Christoph Storer, Allegorie auf die Tätigkeiten der Gesellschaft Jesu, gewidmet dem Generaloberen Gian Paolo Oliva, Rom. Erste Ausgabe, verwendet für die Disputation von Johann Andreas Feigenbuz an der Universität Dillingen an der Donau 1664. Kupferstich, 91,9 × 64,4 cm (zwei Platten). Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek (Kilian B. 16) Image © Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

abb. 3.8

91

Bartholomäus Kilian nach Johann Christoph Storer, Allegorie auf die Tätigkeiten der Gesellschaft Jesu, gewidmet dem Heiligen Ignatius von Loyola. Ausgabe verwendet für die Disputation von Jacob Schaubinger an der Universität Freiburg im Breisgau 1672. Kupferstich, 91,9 × 64,4 cm (zwei Platten) mit gedruckten Texten. Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg (II, 243, 300) Image © Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg

92

Appuhn-Radtke

den Bestellvorgang sehr einfach. Erhalten ist ein solcher gedruckter Katalog aus dem Verlag Klauber in Augsburg, der zugleich auch andere Waren aus Augsburger Produktion anbot wie Seidenstoffe und Silberwaren. Neben seinem Kerngeschäft fungierte der Verlag offenbar als Versandhaus für eine zahlungskräftige Kundschaft.78 Als Bildteile empfahlen sich nun solche Themen, die einem möglichst großen Rezipientenkreis verständlich und von Interesse waren. Dies waren einerseits Porträts von Standespersonen (geistlichen und weltlichen Fürsten, aber auch Prälaten großer Klöster), andererseits biblische Szenen und Heiligenbilder, von denen nicht wenige bedeutende Altarbilder reproduzierten. Damit erweiterte sich auch der Vorlagenkreis von Zeichnungen lokaler Entwerfer auf international bekannte Gemälde. Eine Verknüpfung des Bildes mit der lokalen Disputationssituation war nun nur noch über den Dedikationsbrief möglich. Bei der Wiedergabe gemalter Vorlagen half eine relativ neue graphische Technik, der Mezzotinto.79 Da diese Technik anders als der Kupferstich nicht mit Hilfe von Linien, sondern über tonige Nuancen Bilder hervorbrachte, entstand leicht der Eindruck gemalter Flächen, zumal die aufgerauhte Druckplatte eine an Leinwand erinnernde Hintergrundstruktur erzeugte. Thesenblätter nach Gemälden wurden daher häufig in Mezzotinto-Technik gedruckt, wobei die Felder der Sockelleiste bis zur eigentlichen Nutzung leer blieben. Solche Blätter konnten erhebliche Größen aufweisen wie z.B. ein vielfach verwendetes und erhaltenes Thesenblatt-Paar aus dem Verlag Klauber nach Seitenaltarbildern von Johann Georg Bergmüller in der Dominikanerinnenkirche St. Katharina in Augsburg:80 die ‚Verehrung des Herzens Jesu‘ und die ‚Verehrung des Herzens Mariae‘ durch die neun Engelchöre. Von dem 181 × 98 cm messenden, von sechs Platten gedruckten ersteren Blatt sind Exemplare in der Universität Olomouc/Olmütz,81 im Augustinermuseum Freiburg im Breisgau82 und im

78   Appuhn-Radtke, „Dokumente“ 147. Manche französischen Stecher des 18. Jahrhunderts, die sich auf diesem Gebiet spezialisiert hatten, annoncierten ab 1726 im Le Mercure de France und boten interessierten Kunden an, Beispiele für ihr Angebot zu schicken (Meyer, „Le commerce“ 42). 79   Appuhn-Radtke S., „Druckgraphik“ in Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Bd. 2 (Stuttgart – Weimar: 2005) 1138–1150. 80  Epple A. – Straßer J., Die Gemälde. Johann Georg Bergmüller 1688–1762 (Lindenberg: 2012) 125–126, Gv. 107–Gv. 108. 81  Ojeda, De Augsburgo a Quito 128, Abb. 9. 82  Gedruckt auf gelber Seide. Das Thesenblatt wurde für die Disputation von Ferdinand Maria Ernst Graf von Bissingen (1749–1831) am 28. Juli 1766 verwendet, bei der Pater Georg Bissinger SJ, Professor für Philosophie am Jesuitenkolleg von Konstanz, als Präses fungierte.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

93

Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe (aus der Zisterzienserabtei Salem)83 erhalten. Offenbar gelangte ein weiterer Druck bis nach Südamerika, denn in der Jesuitenkirche von Quito gibt es ein großes Ölgemälde mit einer weitgehend getreuen Kopie.84 Die größte Virtuosität in dieser Technik erreichten im 18. Jahrhundert die Mitglieder der Familie Rugendas. Ein typisches Beispiel ist die Kopie eines Altarbildes von Cornelis Schut, die Christian Rugendas (1708–1781) zu einem Thesenblatt umformulierte, indem er eine Schriftleiste unter ein Altarblatt mit Maria als Himmelskönigin im Kreis musizierender Engel setzte [Abb. 3.9].85 Er gab die Herkunft des Motivs jedoch zu erkennen, indem er den Rahmen des Bildes ebenfalls reproduzierte. Ein solches Verfahren macht es verständlich, dass Empfänger von derartigen Thesenblättern die Schriftleiste oft nach dem Akt abschnitten, um allein den Bildteil zur Andacht, als Wanddekor oder als Lehrmaterial weiterzuverwenden (siehe Abschnitt 6). Die seltener, aber gelegentlich ebenfalls auf Thesenblättern vertretenen Historienbilder aus der Weltgeschichte bezogen sich mehrfach auf Ereignisse, die für das Schicksal der Christenheit und speziell des Katholizismus bedeutend waren (wie die Schlacht von Lepanto, 1571, oder die Schlacht am Weißen Berg, 1620); sie konnten damit als Allegorien für die Unterstützung des Himmels in Krisensituationen dienen. Dass zugleich die Situation des ‚kämpfenden‘ Defendenten in der Disputation alludiert wurde, zeigt neben diversen Floskeln in Widmungsbriefen86 und Gesängen87 auch die Beliebtheit von Darstellungen der hl. Katharina von Alexandrien, Patronin der philosophischen Fakultät an den meisten Universitäten.88 So schildert z.B. ein von Johann Daniel Herz in Augsburg entworfenes und verlegtes Blatt die Disputation der Heiligen nicht viel anders als die eingangs gezeigte Darstellung einer Festdisputation ‚sub auspiciis Imperatoris‘ [Abb. 3.10]:89 Die Szene spielt auch hier in einem monumentalen, theatralisch komponierten Innenraum, in dem sich Massen 83  Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 98–1 (Salem, Nachtrag), Nr. 855–856. 84  Ojeda, De Augsburgo a Quito 129, Abb. 10. 85  Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, GM 56/51. Mezzotinto, 87,3 × 61,5 cm (Schemmel, Die Graphischen Thesen- und Promotionsblätter 350–351, Nr. 149); Teuscher, Die Künstlerfamilie Rugendas 318, Nr. 1251. Das als Vorlage dienende Gemälde ist nicht verzeichnet bei Wilmers G., Cornelis Schut (1597–1655) (Turnhout: 1996). 86   Appuhn-Radtke, Das Thesenblatt 74. 87  Rice, „Jesuit Thesis Prints“ 159. 88  Mehrere Beispiele bei: Telesko, Thesenblätter 16–17. 89  Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, GM 54/5. Kupferstich mit Letterndruck, Gesamtgröße mit Schriftleiste 86,2 × 83,8 cm (Schemmel, Die Graphischen Thesen- und Promotionsblätter 206–207, Nr. 81).

94

abb. 3.9

Appuhn-Radtke

Christian Rugendas nach einem Gemälde von Cornelis Schut, Maria umringt von musizierenden Engeln. Thesenblatt ohne Text. Mezzotinto, 87,3 × 61,5 cm. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek (GM 56/51) Image © Staatsbibliothek Bamberg

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

abb. 3.10

95

Johann Daniel Herz, Disputation der heiligen Katharina von Alexandrien. Thesenblatt, verwendet für die Disputation von Eberhard Laudensack an der Universität Würzburg 1747. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek (GM 54/5) Image © Staatsbibliothek Bamberg

von Zuhörern drängen. Im Vordergrund sind die gestisch beteiligten greisen Philosophen erkennbar, die Katharina im Redestreit überwinden sollten, aber von dieser bekehrt wurden. Die Rolle des – hier unwilligen – Patrons nimmt Katharinas Vater auf dem Stufenthron ein, zu dessen Füßen die Heilige steht. Das sicher mehrfach verwendete Blatt wurde durch eine (wenig professionell) beschnittene und angeleimte Schriftleiste von einer querformatigen Kupferplatte mit Texten in Letterndruck auf einen bestimmten Akt bezogen, nämlich die Disputation des Johann Eberhard Laudensack, Baccalaureus der Philosophie, die am 10. Juni 1747 unter dem Vorsitz des Jesuiten Adam Pfister, Professor ordinarius an der Würzburger Universität, stattfand. Gewidmet wurde sie dem erst kürzlich installierten Fürstbischof von Würzburg, Adam Franz von Ingelheim (1746–1754), dessen Gunst der Universität zweifellos

96

Appuhn-Radtke

nützen konnte. Ein Widmungsbrief in der rechten Kartusche spricht ihn direkt an, nimmt jedoch nicht auf Katharina Bezug, sondern auf das Kreuz im Herzschild des fürstbischöflichen Wappens. Es wird entsprechend der Konstantins-Legende als Siegeszeichen für die Amtszeit des Patrons gewertet. 6

Votivgabe, Memorialbild und fons inventionis

Abgesehen von der Funktion des Thesenblattes als Plakat90 und Einladung91 besaß es während und nach der Disputation unterschiedliche Aufgaben. Während des Aktes gab es das Programm für die Abfolge der Thesen vor, der alle Beteiligten anhand des Druckes folgen konnten. Mindestens so wichtig war aber seine Außenwirkung bei Veranstaltungen unter dem Patronat eines Fürsten, denn es enthielt den Dedikationsbrief, der in der Regel zu Beginn als Grußadresse verlesen oder paraphrasiert wurde.92 Wie ein Weihgeschenk wurde das Thesenblatt häufig am Porträt des Mäzens deponiert, oder es ersetzte sogar dessen persönliche Anwesenheit in effigie.93 Da die riesigen, häufig aus mehreren Papierbögen bestehenden Drucke nicht unmontiert präsentiert werden konnten – schon gar nicht solche auf Seide –, dürfte zumindest das Exemplar, das eine Hauptrolle während des Aktes spielte, entsprechend stabilisiert worden sein. Einzelne bildliche Hinweise sind aus den Blättern selbst zu entnehmen, denn manche der Defendenten präsentierten ihr Thesenblatt en miniature, so Hugo Adolf Heidelberger, der 1664 an der Universität Mainz disputierte: Er zeigt seinem Patron, dem Bamberger Domkanoniker Franz Georg von Schönborn, eine Miniaturausgabe des Blattes, das offenbar auf eine massive Holztafel aufgezogen ist.94 Der Verlag Klauber bot an, kolorierte Blätter auf Leinwand aufgelegt zu liefern – was deren Versand in Rollen weiterhin möglich machte.95 Die Existenz gemalter Thesenblätter auf Leinwand mit einge

90  Das Thesenblatt der Brüder Sternberg (Abb. 6) hat Spuren von Wandputz an der Rückseite; es wurde offenbar als Plakat aufgehängt, vermutlich im Klementinum. 91  Zu den zeremoniellen Einladungen durch Defendenten in Frankreich siehe Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 73–76. 92  Ebd. 79. 93  Siehe oben [7]; Belege für eine entsprechende Verwendung bei Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 76–77; Meyer, „Catalogue“ 210. 94  Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, GM 80/M 1664,1.2 (Schemmel, Die Graphischen Thesen- und Promotionsblätter 238–239, Nr. 96). 95   Appuhn-Radtke, „Dokumente“ 147.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

97

setzten Texten wäre dadurch erklärbar, dass sie als zentrale Einzelstücke der Disputationsszenerie dienten.96 Andere Exemplare auf Papier wurden gerahmt und verglast, wie z.B. eine Pariser Rechnung von 1695 belegt: Das Thesenblatt mit einem Porträt des Patrons, des ‚premier médecin du Roi‘ Guy-Crescence Fagon, erhielt einen beschnitzten und vergoldeten Rahmen. Die in diesem Fall besonders hohen Kosten für den Stich von Gérard Edelinck nach einem Gemälde von Hyacinthe Rigaud, den Druck, das Zusammenleimen der gedruckten Teile sowie Rahmen und Verglasung übernahm der Patron selbst (904,63 livres).97 Außerdem sorgte er für die Bewirtung der Gäste nach dem Akt, die generell einen festen Bestandteil feierlicher Disputationen bildete.98 Offenbar war ihm das mit dieser Widmung verbundene Prestige eine solche Ausgabe wert. Wenn Thesenblätter nach dem Akt irrelevant geworden wären, hätte sich wohl kaum ein Exemplar erhalten – das Gegenteil war der Fall: Die Graphiken blieben Zeugnisse eines ehrenvollen Aktes, einer schmeichelhaften Widmung oder einfach kostbare, großformatige Bilderdrucke von mehr oder weniger aufwendiger Ikonographie – und damit mögliche Vorlagen für weitere Inventionen. Nicht selten wurden Thesenblätter nach ihrer aktuellen Nutzung durch Kolorierung oder pastose Übermalung und sekundäre Rahmung, sogar durch Stickerei oder Spitzenbesatz zu einem dekorativen Wandschmuck oder Andachtsbild umgestaltet, so mindestens zwei Exemplare eines 143,5 × 238,5 cm großen Thesenblattes von Georg Philipp Rugendas über die Eucharistieverehrung der Habsburger (Eichstätt, Diözesanmuseum; Budapest, Nationalmuseum), das bei der beschriebenen Disputation von 1727 im Freiburger Münster

96  Z  .B. François Lemoyne, ‚Louis XIV bietet Europa den Frieden an‘, 1737, Gemälde für die theologische Disputation von Abbé Armand de Rohan-Ventadour 1738 an der Sorbonne; Strasbourg, Musée des Beaux-Arts (Giusti, A. [Hg.], Inganni ad arte. Meraviglie del trompe-l’œuil dall’antichità al contemporaneo, Ausstellungskatalog Florenz 2009, 214, Kat.nr. V.9). Ein deutsches Beispiel diente als Thesenblatt für eine Festdisputation in der Zisterzienserabtei Salem, 1704 (Mühleisen H.-O., „Das Birnauer Thesenblatt“, in Kremer B.M., Barockjuwel am Bodensee. 250 Jahre Wallfahrtskirche Birnau (Lindenberg: 2000) 114–132, Abb. 3). Gemalte Thesenblätter en grisaille ohne Text waren hingegen Vorlagen für Mezzotinto-Druckplatten, z.B. Christian Thomas Schefflers ‚Marienvision des hl. Bernhard in Speyer‘ (Telesko, Thesenblätter 19, Abb. 5). 97  De Mets, Reliques 13; Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 75. Weitere Beispiele bei Meyer, L’illustration des thèses 27. 98  Weitere Beispiele bei Appuhn-Radtke, „Domino suo“ 78.

98

Appuhn-Radtke

Verwendung fand.99 Aus Saintes ist überliefert, dass das 1756 dem Bürgermeis­ ter gewidmete, in einen vergoldeten Rahmen montierte Thesenblatt anschließend im Rathaus aufgehängt wurde.100 Im Originalzustand erhalten ist das Thesenblatt von Hieronymus Übelbacher, Propst des Augustinerchorherrenstiftes Dürnstein (Niederösterreich). Er ließ es um 1735 in die Ausstattung seines Lusthauses, des sog. Kellerschlössels, einbeziehen: An repräsentativer Stelle beherrscht der von neun Platten gedruckte Kupferstich von Pierre Landry nach dem ‚Abendmahl‘ von Peter Paul Rubens mit philosophischen Thesen aus dem Jahr 1700 eine Wand des Mittelsaals. Der Hausherr war also noch mehr als dreißig Jahre nach seinem Wiener Auftritt stolz auf seinen akademischen Erfolg und das riesige, sicher ehemals sehr teure Thesenblatt. Durch seine Anbringung dient es bis heute der Memoria der Disputation.101 Andere Aspekte scheinen für Max Willibald Truchsess von Waldburg zu Wolfegg (1604–1667) eine Rolle gespielt zu haben: Der oberschwäbische Fürst, der selbst Philosophie in Dillingen und Pont-à-Mousson studiert hatte, legte eine reichhaltige Sammlung von Graphiken an, die er nach Funktionsbereichen gliederte; sie ist bis heute in Familienbesitz erhalten. Die übergroßen Formate von Thesenblättern und Kalendern wurden durch Faltung und Einklappen passend gemacht, um in großformatigen, in Leder gebundenen Bänden aufbewahrt zu werden. Da Max Willibald sich offenbar druckfrische Produkte der Augsburger, Pariser und Mailänder Stecher schicken ließ, bietet die Wolfegger Sammlung einen hervorragenden Querschnitt durch die deutsche, französische und oberitalienische Produktion der Zeit um 1640/1650 bis zum Tod Max Willibalds. Auch wenn der weitgereiste Fürst sicher manche der präsidierenden Patres, Defendenten und Patrone persönlich kannte, scheint sein Interesse auch den ikonographischen Inventionen gegolten zu haben: Es ist nicht unmöglich, dass die Wanderung einer Thesenblatt-Komposition von Lothringen nach Mailand durch den Fürsten veranlasst wurde.102 Ein ikonographisches Interesse, wenn auch mit anderer Zielrichtung, scheint die Patres der Benediktinerabtei Wiblingen dazu bestimmt zu haben,

99  Erhaltene Exemplare: Teuscher, Die Künstlerfamilie Rugendas 297, Nr. 1169; Appuhn-Radtke, „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein“. Zur Disputation siehe oben [6–7]. 100  Meyer, „Les thèses, leur soutenance“ 73. 101   Appuhn-Radtke S., „Graphikausstattung des Kellerschlössels in Dürnstein“, in Lorenz H. (Hg.), Barock, Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich 4 (München – London – New York: 1999) 619, Nr. 316, Taf. 207. 102   Appuhn-Radtke, „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein“.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

99

sich eine Sammlung von Graphikbänden anzulegen. Die wohl zwischen dem 17. und dem späten 18. Jahrhundert zusammengestellten Bände, die sich heute in der Benediktinerabtei Ottobeuren befinden, unterscheiden sich insofern von der Wolfegger Sammlung, als die Patres nicht durchweg die gesamten Graphiken aufhoben, sondern vielfach die einzelnen Bildmotive ausschnitten, um diese ikonographisch zu sortieren. So entstand ein 35 Klebebände umfassendes enzyklopädisches Kompendium, in dem schnell ein bestimmtes Motiv, etwa die Darstellung eines Heiligen oder ein Fürstenporträt, aufzufinden war. Dieses konnte relevant für den Novizen-Unterricht, aber auch für die Absprache mit Künstlern sein, die neue Gemälde oder Bildwerke für die Abtei auszuführen hatten. Die Textpartien der Blätter gingen bei diesem Verfahren verloren – die Graphiken dienten nur als ‚Steinbrüche‘ für Bildmaterial. Hier zeigt sich ein noch lange nachwirkendes Bewusstsein dafür, dass Thesenblätter durch ihre komplexen, vielfigurigen Inventionen eine Quelle der Bildung für spätere Generationen blieben – selbst dann, wenn der aktuelle Bezug zu einer Disputationssituation verloren gegangen war. Auswahlbibliographie Appuhn-Radtke S., Das Thesenblatt im Hochbarock. Studien zu einer graphischen Gattung am Beispiel der Werke Bartholomäus Kilians (Weissenhorn: 1988). Appuhn-Radtke S., „Speculum pietatis – Persuasio Benefactoris. Zur Ikonographie illustrierter Einblattdrucke an der Universität Dillingen“, in Kießling R. (Hg.), Die Universität Dillingen und ihre Nachfolger (Dillingen: 1999) 559–593. Appuhn-Radtke S., „Dokumente europäischer Bildung. Augsburger Thesenblätter für slowenische Lehranstalten“, in Höfler J. – Büttner F. (Hg.), Bayern und Slowenien im Zeitalter des Barock (Regensburg: 2006) 145–169. Appuhn-Radtke S., „Domino suo clementissimo … Thesenblätter als Dokumente barocken Mäzenatentums“ in Müller R.A. (Hg.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene, Beiträge zur Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 24 (Stuttgart: 2007). Appuhn-Radtke S., „Thesenblätter am Oberrhein. Werbegraphik für jesuitische Lehranstalten“, in Lang S. (Hg.), Jesuiten am Oberrhein, Oberrheinische Studien 40 (Bergzabern: 2020) 163–196. Fechtnerová A., Katalog grafických listů univerzitních tezí uložených ve Státní knihovnĕ ČSR v Praze, Bde. 1–4 (Prag: 1984). Galavics G., „Thesenblätter ungarischer Studenten im Wien des 17. Jahrhunderts“, in Karner H. – Telesko W. (Hg.), Die Jesuiten in Wien (Wien: 2003) 113–130.

100

Appuhn-Radtke

Henggeler R., „Schweizerische Thesenblätter“, Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 10 (1948/49) 77–86. Malni Pascoletti M., Ex universa philosophia. Stampe barocche con le Tesi di Gesuiti di Gorizia, Ausstellungskatalog Musei Provinciali di Gorizia (Gorizia: 1992). Meyer V., „Catalogue de thèses illustrées in-folio soutenues aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles par des bordelais“, Revue française d’histoire du livre 72/73 (1991) 201–265 und 74–75 (1992) 23–51. Meyer V., „Les thèses, leur soutenance et leurs illustrations dans les universités françaises sous l’Ancien Régime“, Mélanges de la Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne 12 (1993) 45–111. Meyer V., „Aperçu sur les frontispices de thèse. Définition et méthodologie: À partir de quelques exemplaires dédiés à Louis XIV“, in Barrucand M. (Hg.), Arts et culture, une vision méridionale (Paris: 2001) 91–99. Meyer V., L’illustration des thèses à Paris dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Peintres, graveurs, éditeurs (Paris: 2002). Meyer V., L’œuvre gravé de Gilles Rousselet, graveur parisien du XVIIe siècle (Paris: 2004). Meyer V., „Les thèses des collèges et des universités à Poitiers aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles“, Revue historique du Centre-Ouest 4 (2005) 7–160. Michels A., Philosophie und Herrscherlob als Bild. Anfänge und Entwicklung des süddeutschen Thesenblattes im Werk des Augsburger Kupferstechers Wolfgang Kilian (1581–1663), Kunstgeschichte: Form und Interesse 10 (Münster: 1987). Ojeda E.A., De Augsburgo a Quito: fuentes grabadas del arte jesuita quiteňo del siglo XVIII (Quito: 2015). Pezzo A., Le tesi a stampa a Siena nei secoli XVI e XVII. Catalogo degli opuscoli della Biblioteca comunale degli Intronati (Cinisello Balsamo: 2011). Rath M., „Die Promotionen und Disputationen sub auspiciis imperatoris an der Universität Wien“, Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 6 (1953) 47–164. Rice L., „Jesuit Thesis Prints and the Festive Academic Defence at the Collegio Romano“, in O’Malley J.W. ‒ Bailey G.A. ‒ Harris S.J. ‒ Kennedy T.F. (Hg.), The Jesuits. Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts 1540‒1773 (Toronto – Buffalo – London: 1999) 148–169. Rice L., „Apes philosophicae: Bees and the Divine Design in Barberini Thesis Prints“, in Mochi Onori L. ‒ Schütze S. ‒ Solinas F. (Hg.), I Barberini e la cultura europea del Seicento. Atti del convegno internazionale, Palazzo Barberini alle Quattro Fontane, 7–11 dicembre 2004 (Rom: 2007) 181–194. Rice L., „Matthaeus Greuter and the Conclusion Industry in Seventeenth-Century Rome“, in Leuschner E. (Hg.), Ein privilegiertes Medium und die Bildkulturen Europas. Deutsche, französische und niederländische Kupferstecher und Graphikverleger in Rom von 1590 bis 1630. Akten des Internationalen Studientages der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rom, 10.‒11.11.2008 (München: 2012) 279‒300.

Formen und Funktionen des Thesenblattes

101

Rott S., „Zur Ikonographie und Ikonologie barocker Thesenblätter des Augsburger Kupferstechers Melchior Küsel (1626–ca. 1683)“, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben 83 (1990) 43–112. Schemmel B., Die Graphischen Thesen- und Promotionsblätter in Bamberg (Wiesbaden: 2001). Schlaefli L., „Placards du Collège et de l’Académie de Molsheim (1618–1789)“, Annuaire de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Molsheim et Environs 2001, 97–123. Telesko W., Barocke Thesenblätter, Ausstellungskatalog Stadtmuseum Linz-Nordico (Linz: 1994). Telesko W., Thesenblätter österreichischer Universitäten, Ausstellungskatalog Salzburger Barockmuseum (Salzburg: 1996). Teuscher A., Die Künstlerfamilie Rugendas 1666–1858 (Augsburg: 1998) hier 295–324. Zelenková P., Seventeenth-Century Baroque Prints in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Prag: 2009). Zelenková P., „Karel Škréta and His Contemporaries as Designers of Prints“, in Stolárová L. – Vlnas V. (Hg.), Karel Škréta 1610–1674. His Work and his Era, Ausstellungskatalog National Gallery (Prag: 2010) 367–420. Zelenková P., Martin Antonín Lublinský. Jako inventor grafických listů, pohled do středoevropské barok ní graficky druhé poloviny 17. století (Prag: 2011).

part 1 Britain

∵

chapter 4

In Search of the Truth: Mid-Sixteenth Century Disputations on the Eucharist in England Lucy R. Nicholas Summary This chapter reviews the accounts of several university disputations that took place in England 1547–1555. The disputations examined here have one thing in common: their entanglement with the Reformation, which centred in no small part on the immensely complex issue of the Eucharist. These disputations were held in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and in London, and comprise a mixture of public and private disputations between Protestants and other Protestants, and between Protestants and Catholics. All were organized by university men or involved them. A primary aim of the chapter is to show how each of these disputations had a broader significance for the course of religious change in England, reflecting and driving religious orthodoxy much more than previously acknowledged. The records for these disputations survive in a variety of forms. The imprint of each is embedded in a subsequent write-up (all of which may be loosely termed dissertationes). As disparate as the evidence for such disputations is, when considered side by side – chronologically and thematically – as they are here for the first time, it is possible to chart the fitful ebbs and flows of debate surrounding one of the most contested and long-lasting areas of conflict in the Reformation.

1

Introduction When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.1

Disputation is an inherently Biblical activity. It is not surprising therefore that disputations were a prominent feature of Christian life during the early 1  Acts 15:2 (King James Bible).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_005

106

Nicholas

modern period. It may be, however, that their importance in religious history has not yet been fully appreciated. This chapter will concern itself with precisely this question, exploring the phenomenon with reference to the earliest part of the timeframe covered by this volume. It will review the accounts of several university disputations that took place in England during 1547–1555, a time span that encompasses the reign of the boy king Edward VI, an administration as brief as it was radical, and the Marian regime that immediately followed it. Each of these disputations pivoted on the highly controversial issue of the Eucharist, a topic which had and would likewise sow deep divisions in mainland Europe. The disputations surveyed below were held in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and in London, and comprised a mixture of public and private disputations between Protestants and other Protestants, and between Protestants and Catholics. All were either organized by university men or involved them. I hope to show how each had a broader significance for the course of religious change in England, both reflecting and driving religious orthodoxy much more than previously acknowledged. The records for these disputations survive in a variety of forms. We are privy to the main quaestiones or theses for all of them, but in each case the imprint is embedded in a subsequent write-up (all of which may be loosely termed dissertationes). These take several forms: formal notes taken during or just after the disputation; later translations of such transcripts; and discursive (and often highly partisan) treatises written pursuant to the disputation. In some cases, other related material, such as letters, can also help build a more complete picture of these encounters. As disparate as the evidence for such disputations is, when considered side by side – chronologically and thematically – as they are here for the first time, it is possible to chart the fitful ebbs and flows of debate surrounding one of the most contested and long-lasting sticking points of the Reformation. By studying such debates through the dissertationes and the uses to which these were put, it becomes possible to identify the main flashpoints that the sacrament of the Eucharist triggered, with the same themes and grounds often being returned to again and again. We are also able to witness at close quarters the spasmodic process of response and reaction to the increasingly polarizing positions out of which theological schism itself grew. There is arguably no better medium through which to witness the pyrotechnics of the Reformation in real time. The Eucharistic disputations under immediate review here comprise: (i) the little-known disputations held in 1547 at St John’s College, Cambridge; (ii) disputations held two years later at both Oxford and Cambridge as part of the 1549 visitations; and (iii) private disputations held in London by university men in

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

107

1551. Contextualizing this discussion will also require some consideration of other debates held under Edward as well as the rather more well-known disputations that took place in the following reign of his sister, Mary I. Records reveal that debates on the Eucharist did not simply revolve around technical details of doctrine, but channelled a composite interplay between tradition, theology, and Renaissance ideas, as well as the broader social, political and intellectual culture of the early modern period. My review will therefore pursue several points of focus. To begin with, the dissertationes of the mid-sixteenth century can be used to reconstruct networks of associates and professional relationships in the university and at court; indeed we witness the repeated involvement of certain individuals in the debates. Also pertinent are the various forms of argumentation and methodologies of approach employed in each disputation, and I propose to consider how these were rooted not just in current academic conventions, but also in the growing demands of confessionalization. Along the way, it will be necessary to think about the levels of participation of lay and clerical people, and the academic disciplines of the personnel involved in these disputations; for each of these may help shed new light on the multifarious impulses that propelled such debates and possibly helped to forge new approaches to theology. Finally, the dissertationes offer valuable insights into the culture of the universities and their relationships with the regimes of the day. While it is necessary to take into account the many close connections between leading reformers within the universities and their respective governments,2 it is possible to witness a tension in all the disputations between academic freedom and counsel, on the one hand and, on the other, conformity to external authority, with disputations often being used to vindicate an official position.3 Within the broader compass of this volume, these disputations can also bring into sharper focus the ultimate purpose of university disputations, and also their changing roles and place in the broader evolution of the thesis or dissertation and their modern incarnations. 2

Disputations and the Reformation Backdrop

Before embarking upon this inquiry, some general background concerning disputations, especially within the context of the Reformation, will be helpful. It 2  Alford S., Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: 2002) 125. 3  McCoog T.M., “Review: Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626, written by Joshua Rodda”, Journal of Jesuit Studies 2 (2015) 344.

108

Nicholas

would be wrong to classify disputations as a product of scholasticism which had no relevance for later thinkers.4 The two-way debate that a disputation necessarily involved was ingrained in the dichotomies of Renaissance thought, and a continuous staple of college and university life from the fifteenth century onward.5 Scholars of the medieval disputation stressed its role as a form of teaching as effective as the lectio (‘lecture’), a view that continued to have traction in the early modern period.6 In the first of the debates discussed below, Roger Hutchinson, one of the leading participants and fully cognizant of their potential impact, claimed that people would learn more from one disputation than from ten sermons.7 Albeit the medieval subject matter was later modified, the fixed rules of disputation endured, including the formal roles of respondent/s (respondens) and opponent/s (opponens), the former having to defend the theses by answering all the objections raised by the latter, and the use of syllogistic reasoning. Disputations were considered by contemporaries to constitute one of the most effective ways to ‘test’ theological understanding, to reach truth and to combat what was false.8 The essentially scientific approach underpinning these disputations surely contributed to this faith in the veracity they could produce: the notion of reason had from the earliest origins of Christian theology rested on the binary oppositions of Greek philosophy from which it ultimately sprang, and on Aquinas’ claim that reason would necessarily uphold God’s truth.9 The syllogistic frameworks provided precision as well as a sort of objectivity. And as scholars have observed, the natural logic integral in such patterned discourse forced a mind to grasp the truth.10 For this reason they were even considered to be a devotional activity.11

4  Novikoff A.J., Medieval Culture of Disputation (Philadelphia: 2013) 1–17; Stanglin K.D., The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text and Notes (Leiden – Boston: 2010) 8; Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19, 2 (2004) 129–187, at 131–132. 5  Rodda J., Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626 (London – New York: 2016) 22; Leader D.R., A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 1 (Cambridge: 1988) 106–107; Craig H., “Religious Disputation in Tudor England”, The Rice Institute Pamphlet 37, 1 (1950) 21–47, at 21; Novikoff, Medieval Culture of Disputation 1–7. 6  Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 134. 7  Davies C., A Religion of the Word: the Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (Manchester: 2002) 92. 8  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 2–3 and 82. 9  Ibidem 5. 10  Ibidem 18; Novikoff, Medieval Culture of Disputation 166 and 170–171. 11  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 25.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

109

The disputation stood at the ‘front line’ of the Reformation, and was increasingly used as a mechanism to facilitate religious reform.12 It was set-piece disputations that had played such an important role in Martin Luther’s progression towards revolution; they had also helped to launch the Swiss Reformation in the city of Zurich in the 1520s.13 Such disputations necessarily belong to a broader cult of persuasion and conversion, and illustrate well the increased importance afforded to the practice.14 Those held in public might even be classified as form of theatre and dramatic performance.15 University debates, in particular, could assume great significance in shaping thought and steering opinion at a national level. They represented significant battlegrounds in which doctrinal issues were thrashed out, and in them, leading thinkers of the age would deploy their full intellectual energy, textual expertise and continental know-how. The arrival of European divines onto English shores, luminaries like Pietro Vermigli and Martin Bucer, only helped to inject a greater sense of urgency into such debates. A common ingredient in the disputations surveyed in this chapter was the Eucharist, and some brief comments must also be made concerning this doctrine and its development. By the time Eucharistic disputations were held in England, they were relatively well-advanced in mainland Europe, with clear divisions opening up, not just between Protestant and Catholic, but also between Lutheran and Reformed. England, however, had come late to the Eucharistic imbroglio, and it was only at the very end of Edward’s first year, in 1547, that the issue of the Mass was broached at all. Diarmaid MacCulloch is correct to observe that the Edwardian age was one in which there was an extraordinary degree of theological discussion, both formal and informal.16 At the same time, however, it is important to counter-balance this ferment with official provisions that ensured the maintenance of public order and the elimination of extremism. For example, a policy statement under the title of A Proclamation against the vnreuere[n]t disputers and talkers of the Sacrament of the body and blood

12  Ibidem 1; Craig, “Religious Disputation” 22. 13  MacCulloch D., Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: 2003) 145; and Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London: 1999) 84; and Euler C., Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich, 1531–1538 (Zurich: 2006) 30. 14  Kirby T., Persuasion and Conversion: Essays on Religion, Politics and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Leiden – Boston: 2013) 1 and passim. 15  Evans G.R., The Roots of the Reformation: Tradition, Emergence and Rupture (Downers Grove: 2012) 469; and Enders J., Rhetoric and the Origins of Medieval Drama (New York: 1992). 16  MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant 133.

110

Nicholas

of Christ was issued very early in Edward’s reign in 1547. While it made some concessions to Protestantism in its wording (referring, for example, to ‘communion’ and avoiding the name of the ‘Mass’), its clear and overriding purpose was to stop to ‘contentious and open’ speculation and discussion, including preaching and disputation, about the Eucharist.17 Despite the fact that historians tend to credit the Edwardian regime, and particularly Thomas Cranmer, with the radical doctrinal advances of the period,18 anxiety about religious control was in many ways just as important to government as the amendment of doctrine. The universities were officially exempted from decrees which curtailed Eucharistic discussion, yet the relationship between authority and academic freedom would prove to be an uneasy one throughout the period.19 If the doctrinal upheavals of the Edwardian period were played out in the universities, so too were they in the following reign under Mary I. University disputations remained crucial in the programme of reversals that were instigated at the start of her reign, and by 1554 both Oxford and Cambridge were celebrating the Mass again. The disputations of this time and their corresponding texts have, until recently, been accorded only a marginal place in historiography.20 Fortunately, we now have Joshua Rodda’s detailed and fascinating monograph on disputations from Elizabeth’s reign through to the early seventeenth century.21 Nevertheless, a full review of the religious disputations in the period immediately prior to Elizabeth remains a desideratum. The obstacles to such a review are obvious: the documentation is piecemeal and, while there are some modern translations of related Latin texts and discrete monographs on such debates, many have yet to be translated or even transcribed from the manuscript record. It is, of course, vital to acknowledge that the texts that sprang forth from these disputations are problematic in terms of their pretentions to

17  A  Proclamation against the vnreuere[n]t disputers and talkers of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ (London, Richard Grafton: 1547). 18  MacCulloch D., Thomas Cranmer: a Life (New Haven – London: 1996). 19  It should also be noted that the Lord Protector, the Duke of Somerset, had expressed some concern about the potential even for university disputations to get out of hand. In a letter of 1 January 1548 to the Vice-Chancellor, Masters, Scholars and Students of Cambridge, he stressed that disputations must always be carried out with ‘sobrietie, reverence and lowlynes of spirit’ (as set out in Lamb J.A., A Collection of Letters, Statutes and Other Documents from the Manuscript Library of Corpus Christi College (London: 1838) 85–86). 20  A sentiment echoed in Novikoff, Medieval Culture of Disputation 1, and in Shuger D., “St Mary the Virgin and the Birth of the Public Sphere”, The Huntington Library Quarterly 72, 3 (2009) 313–346, at 314. 21  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation. He also helpfully devotes some pages to the disputations of Mary’s reign at 70–73.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

111

faithful reporting as against the polemical agenda and bias they inevitably contain. This notwithstanding, these dissertationes can help shine a light on an age of doctrinal cut and thrust that can otherwise be difficult to make sense of. They can also tell us something about how the process of disputation was perceived and why it mattered. These relatively unexamined but fascinating Edwardian disputations were not simply minor stepping-stones in the longer story of the Reformation, but critical contests, and indeed ones to which later writers would revert. 3

1547 Disputations

The earliest formal disputations of Edward VI’s reign on the Eucharist that we know about were held at the end of 1547 in Cambridge, just months after the boy king’s accession to the throne. They initially took place at one particular college, St John’s, an institution at the vanguard of reform in the academic world,22 and just fell short of morphing into a university-wide disputation. In many ways they set the standards and the scene for the disputations that followed. By far the best source for details of their timing and general substance are the written records of a senior member of that college, the then interim Master and apparent overseer of the disputations, Roger Ascham (during the absence of the actual Master, William Bill).23 As Ascham describes it, at some point in November 1547 two fellows of St John’s, Roger Hutchinson and Thomas Lever, disputed the quaestio ‘de missa, ipsane caena Dominica fuerit necne’ (‘whether the Mass was the same as the Lord’s Supper or not’).24 Interestingly, both these men were evangelicals25 and, in the absence of any 22  As noted in the foreword of Linehan P. (ed.), St John’s College, Cambridge: a History (Woodbridge: 2011). 23  viz. Ascham’s letters to the de iure Master of St John’s, William Bill, and to William Cecil, Cambridge, both dated January 1548, in The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. J.A. Giles, 3 vols. (London: 1865) vol. 1. pt. 1, 153–158. (Henceforth this edition will be referred to as ‘Giles’). Translations of the Latin letters are taken from Hatch M., The Ascham Letters: An Annotated Translation of the Latin Correspondence contained in the Giles Edition of Ascham’s Works (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cornell: 1948) (henceforth ‘Hatch’) 271– 280. See also Strype J., Memorials of Cranmer, 2 vols. (Oxford: 1812) vol. 1, 233–235. The first round of disputations took place in college very much under the watchful eye of Ascham, who it is thought was then serving as acting master in Bill’s absence: Ryan L.V., Roger Ascham (California: 1963) 92. 24  Giles vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 275. 25  Jackson J.F., “Hutchinson, Roger (d. 1555)”, ODNB Online, (accessed 5 January 2019); and Lowe B., “Lever [Leaver], Thomas (1521– 1577)”, ODNB Online, (accessed 5 January 2019).

112

Nicholas

mention of conservatives who opposed them, we are left to assume that this was a disputation between Protestants of differing outlook, the conclusions of which may well have served to consolidate the central ground of a Protestant faction in college.26 Letters suggest that these debates were held ‘quietly’ and ‘in private’, that is ‘collegia privata’ (translated loosely as ‘in the privacy of college’), and presumably fell within the category of disputations authored by a professor.27 Paratextual evidence in the write-up of these disputations points to the fact that they were ‘exercitationis gratia’ (‘[written] as an exercise’).28 While these disputations may well fall within the compass of college duty, it cannot be denied that a topic that was both highly sensitive and inflammable had been selected for an airing. And yet all three parties involved were members of the Arts Faculty, not the Theology Faculty, graduates without formal theological training, and laymen rather than ordained.29 Disputations were normal procedure in all faculties at Cambridge, including the Arts,30 and it is true that the dividing line between an abstract scholarly exercise and a disquisition on a topical issue seems to have been a porous one.31 However, it does seem 26  It is generally assumed that the two were disputants on the same side: Rex, with direct reference to their participation in these college disputations, describes them both as ‘zealous Protestants’ in “The Sixteenth Century” in Linehan (ed.), St John’s College, Cambridge 46. 27  Stanglin suggests that a professor would typically compose and preside over ten such disputations per annum in The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius 13. 28  See Edward Grant’s dedicatory letter to Ascham’s Apologia pro Caena Dominica in Theological Works, ed. E. Grant (London, Francis Coldock: 1577/8), set out and translated in Nicholas L.R., Roger Ascham’s ‘A Defence of the Lord’s Supper’: Latin Text and English Translation (Leiden – Boston: 2017) 213, and all page references to and citations from the Apologia will henceforth refer to Nicholas, Ascham’s Defence. See also Ascham’s letter to Cecil in Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 275: ‘a month ago, or even more, we held a disputation in this college according to our habit (‘more nostro’)’. Ascham was also responsible for penning Themata Theologica (also in Theological Works, ed. Grant) which appear to have been composed as part of a series of disputations and are described by Grant as ‘debita disputandi ratione in Collegio D. Ioan. Pronunciata’ (‘delivered on account of the duties of disputation in the College of St John’) as per Theological Works, ed. Grant (ed.) and Nicholas, Ascham’s Defence 213. 29  Ascham was a senior figure in the Arts Faculty. Lever and Hutchinson had only recently completed their MAs in the Arts (Lever in 1545 and Hutchinson in 1544) and had not yet gained degrees in Theology; at the time of the disputations they were lecturing in rhetoric and logic respectively: Jackson, “Hutchinson” and Lowe, “Lever”; Rex, “Sixteenth Century” 46. 30  Kretzmann N. – Kenny A. – Pinborg J. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: 1982) 23. 31  A point made in Sloane T.O., On the Contrary: the Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric (Washington D.C.: 1997) 81.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

113

unlikely that a question about the Mass would have arisen as part of an Arts lecture. We should perhaps be open to the fact that the momentum for the campaign against the Mass was here coming not from trained theologians, but those qualified in the Arts. These debates, however, were not the end of the story. They generated a real disturbance and there was a ‘common demand’ by many at St John’s, encapsulated in a missive from the then (absent) Master of the college that they be stopped.32 In the face of mounting pressure, Ascham took the decision to transfer the disputations from college to the Public Schools.33 Judging from his correspondence, the main aim of such a transfer was to instigate a universitywide debate on the nature of the Eucharist which may have included Catholic opponents.34 Considerable preliminary thought went into both the purport and the parameters of the disputations; Ascham wrote: Rem quietissime aggressi sumus; communia studia nos inter nos conferebamus; scripturam canonicam nobis proposuimus; cuius auctoritate totam hanc rem decidi cupiebamus.35 We entered upon the subject most gently; we compared together our common studies and proposed the scriptural canon as our guide, desiring the entire question might be decided by its authority. Ascham indicated (albeit perhaps a little disingenuously) that the intention had been to find out: […] quid e fontibus Sacrae Scripturae libari potuerit ad defendendam Missam […]. Veteres canones ineuntis ecclesiae, consilia patrum, decreta pontificum, iudicia doctorum, questionistarum turbam, recentiores omnes, quos potuimus et Germanos et Romanos, ad hanc rem adhibuimus.36 […] what could be drawn from the founts of the sacred Scriptures in defence of the Mass […]. We applied to the subject the ancient canons of 32  Giles, vol. 1. pt. 1, 153–156; Hatch 271–275. Bill’s letter has not survived. 33  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 154; Hatch 272; and Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156–158; Hatch 275–280. See also Strype J., The Life of the Learned Sir J. Cheke (Oxford: 1821) 11. 34  Rex avers that Catholics had demanded a re-match in response to the St John’s disputations, “Sixteenth Century” 46. 35  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 276. 36  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 275–276.

114

Nicholas

the early Church, the councils of the Fathers, the decrees of popes, the judgments of the doctors, with a multitude of questionists, and all the modernists, both German and Roman, we could find. This second phase of debates came to nothing however. They were summarily prohibited by Cambridge’s Vice-Chancellor, John Madew, who had in turn possibly been influenced by concerns about the pace of events on the part of Archbishop Cranmer.37 Immediately following such ructions (probably in late December 1547), Ascham wrote up in Latin something he refers to as a ‘book on the Mass’ (the Apologia pro caena dominica), a highly partial one-sided harangue against the Mass.38 In the light of former disputations between Lever and Hutchinson, it seems legitimate to conceive of this work as a determinatio (‘summary’), the production of which, usually by the presiding master,39 was standard practice once the disputations had been completed.40 The work shows every sign of proceeding directly from a debate: it was predicated on a central quaestio – ‘Missa, ipsane caena Dominica est necne’ (‘The Mass – is it the same thing as the Lord’s Supper, or not?’) – and it was also shot through with disputational idioms.41 A long proposition (propositio) was offered, and objections to it were embedded in the text. At the same time, it is possible to think of it as a position paper ahead of the planned debate in the Schools, or as an imprint of the main quaestio of that debate. For example, it is presented as a speech set in the ‘Academia’ of Cambridge and addressed to ‘learned men’.42 A form of prayer that would be a customary part of the disputations of this period was also included: 37  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 157; Hatch 276. 38  For the text and translation, see Nicholas, Roger Ascham’s Defence. The tract was not published until 1577. 39  Chang observes how the praeses was not necessarily an impartial judge, (“From Oral Disputation” 132). 40   Kretzmann – Kenny – Pinborg (eds.), Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy 22. 41  This quaestio Ascham referred to in his letter to Cecil (Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 275) and it was twice repeated in the Apologia 28–29 and 48–49. Note the references to an ‘audience’ and phrases such as: ‘libentius ingredior in hanc disputationem’ (‘[...] I more gladly enter into this disputation [...]’) (120–121); adversarius (12–13) is a term used of opponents in disputations; ‘respondeo’ (‘I respond’) (76–77) and ‘falsum dicunt’ (‘They speak falsely’) (80–81) were common forms in the language of disputation. Chang avers that it was medieval disputations that tended to begin with a quaestio whereas early modern disputation began with theses, namely a set of proposals, though vestiges of the quaestio continued in later periods (Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 136). 42  Apologia 8–9 and passim.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

115

At priusquam libero pede ingrediar in sacraria Papisticae Missae, morem huius scholae & huius Academiae sequar […] ante omnia precor Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, ut splendore verbi sui discutiat, in hac disputatione omnes nebulas humane doctrinae, ut veritas nec pro­ sternatur […].43 However, before I go without any inhibition into the secret places of the papistical Mass, I will follow the custom of this school and this University […]. Above all, I pray for our Lord Jesus Christ to dissipate in this disputation all the obfuscations of human doctrine with the splendour of his Word so that the truth may not be overthrown […]. To the extent that Ascham’s tract captures the contours of the St John’s disputation or the intended disputation in the Schools, it is evident that such debates were deeply implicated in the confessional divisions that had begun to make themselves seriously felt at the University. The tract offers in the starkest possible terms not just a challenge to the Mass but a concrete alternative, the Lord’s Supper. Similarly, that these debates were not merely an exercise may be witnessed in the pre-existing assumption of religious schism as reflected in the classifications ‘Catholics’ and ‘papists’ applied to one side and ‘new men’ and ‘sacramentarians’ to the other.44 There is a strong likelihood that the tract replicates some of the earlier disputation’s main lines of theological argument. There is a wholesale rejection of adoration, elevation and, most significantly, the priestly sacrifice. Although at no point does the author of this tract explicitly mention the term ‘transubstantiation’, we can also be sure that the disputations broached the issue. A rejection of the doctrine was implicit in the Apologia’s analysis of the sacramental bread and wine in which it was unequivocal that the bread and wine were just that, had no other properties, and could not be considered ‘accidents’ which concealed the real Christ. In addition, there were indications in the conclusion of this disputation of an abandonment of the idea of any corporeal presence, a feature which shifts the theology of this tract from purely Lutheran to Reformed. At one point the tract categorically opposed the notion of ‘ubiquity’ (which had helped support the Lutheran view that the body and blood co-existed with the bread and wine).45 Later the Apologia, following many Reformed thinkers, made express reference 43  s chola could denote a ‘school’ or a college, for example, Ascham’s college, St John’s. Apologia 30–31. 44  Apologia passim. 45  Ibidem 6–77.

116

Nicholas

to Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father, a claim which militated against any possibility of a local presence in the sacrament.46 While the Apologia did not explicitly reject the doctrine of manducatio impiorum (or indignorum) (‘an eating by the impious (or unworthy)’), a position to which Lutherans held insofar as they maintained a certain bodily presence in the sacrament, but the Reformed came to reject, it did, like Calvin, focus on how congregants could prepare themselves for the Supper and thereby ‘eat worthily’.47 Finally, there was the tract’s evident support for a res-signum understanding of the sacrament which involved distinguishing the reality from the sign, and towards the end of the tract Ascham embarked on an extensive argument about the important role of metaphor, rather than literal interpretation, in a true understanding of the Supper.48 The approaches utilized in this dissertation are in many ways as revealing as the doctrinal positions it espoused. It is difficult to know the extent to which the text truly captures the coordinates of the debates themselves, but the emphasis on Scriptural authority is striking, and underpins the theological positions at every stage. It is possible that the Apologia’s reference to a textual contest involving two books – the Bible and the Missal (the Mass canon) – reproduces a central crux of the oral contest.49 To judge by the text, it seems likely that considerable attention was paid in the disputation to the precise words of institution, for these are quoted and analyzed at length. One plausible explanation for the lack of reference to ‘transubstantiation’ in the dissertatio (and possibly the disputation) was that the Gospels did not mention it;

46  A  pologia 130–131. Ascham stated this after declaring that Christ offered only one sacrifice. 47  Apologia 24–25, 82–83, 108–109, 122–123 and 200–201. Roger Hutchinson also dwelt on the how communicants could prepare themselves before coming to communion in A Faithful Declaration of Christes Holy Supper comprehended in Three Sermons preached at Eton (London, John Day: 1560) set out in The Works of Roger Hutchinson, ed. J. Bruce (London: 1842) 223–225. 48  Apologia 192–199. The concept of similitude was a prominent one in the (later) writings of Hutchinson who repeatedly explained how the sacrament constituted a similitude, a sign of the body and blood, for example, The image of God, or laie ma[n]s booke in whyche the ryghte knoweledge of God is disclosed, and diuerse doutes besydes the principall matter (London, John Day: 1550) set out in Works of Hutchinson, ed. Bruce, passim and 36–38; Faithful Declaration, passim, especially the second sermon where he discusses three types of similitude: nourishing, unity and conversion. See also Douglas B. (ed.), A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology, vol. 1, (Leiden – Boston: 2012) 118–120. 49  Apologia 28–29 and he made a similar point at 116–117. There is more than a strong hint of the original oral context reflected in exclamations about the sufficiency of Scripture, such as ‘solo igitur verbo Dei hanc rem decidamus’ (‘Therefore, let us settle this matter with the Word of God alone’), see Apologia 44–45.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

117

extra-Scriptural arguments about what happened in the Eucharist were simply not part of the theological approach at work here. The Apologia can perhaps tell us about a further dimension of the debates, namely use of the Fathers.50 The Fathers, including Cyprian, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Ambrose, were regularly adduced in the Apologia. Augustine featured particularly prominently, being drawn on as evidence for, inter alia, the reality of the bread and wine in the sacrament, the fallacy of the adoration in the Mass ceremony, and the notion of a repeated sacrifice.51 The weight Hutchinson, one of the participants in the disputation, places on the Fathers in his own works, gives ballast to the likelihood that patristics played a key role in the debates. It may be, however, that his opponent, Lever and others, including Ascham himself, were more circumspect about the validity of the Fathers relative to the Word of God. Indeed, there is in the Apologia as a whole a marked uneasiness about the Fathers, and there are points where their authority is explicitly made subordinate to that of Scripture.52 So exercised was the tract about the primacy of Scripture that often the main reason for quoting a Father was to demonstrate definitively the inferiority of patristics to Scripture.53 As it transpires, it was in the controversy over the Eucharist, as exemplified in all the disputations that it spawned, that this tension would be most acutely felt.54 Yet, as troubling as Ascham and others found the stress being placed on extra-Scriptural authorities, in this disputation and those that followed, patristic citation was unavoidable: if an opponent marshalled patristic testimonies, they had to be responded to, rejected, and then improved upon. Furthermore, for the newly emerging Protestantism, some form of adherence to the Church tradition in the form of the Fathers could be useful in lending a veneer of authority.55 As mentioned above, the participants in the John’s disputation on the Eucharist and the author of the tract that followed, all belonged to the Arts Faculty, and self-consciously so. It is interesting to note how in his letter to the College Master, Bill, regarding the choice to move the disputations to the 50  As George puts it, the Reformation was as much a struggle over the Church Fathers as it was over Scripture itself: George T., Reading Scripture with the Reformers (Downers Grove: 2011) 13. Those on all sides were interested in co-opting the Fathers to prop up their causes. 51  Apologia 78–83 and 194–195. 52  Ibidem 172–173 and 178–179. 53  For example, Apologia 44–45 and 174–175. 54   Chung-Kim E., Inventing Authority: the Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist (Waco, Tex.: 2011) 2. 55  Greenslade S.L., The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church – An Inaugural Lecture (Oxford: 1960) 6; McGrath A.E., The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: 1987) 168; and Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority 9.

118

Nicholas

Schools, Ascham wrote: ‘hoc faciemus non fisi eruditione, quam non agnoscimus; non aetate, non gradibus: sed fisi spiritu eius, qui potest omnem imbecillitatem coroborare’. (‘We shall do this not trusting in learning which we do not own to, in age nor in rank, but relying on His spirit which can strengthen all weakness’).56 Learning, age and rank were all necessary qualifications for the theology faculty (regarding the term ‘rank’, he used the word gradus, ‘summus gradus’ being the final destination of a University theologian). It is fascinating, furthermore, to observe some distinctly humanist approaches in the Apologia that could easily here mirror certain dynamics of the disputation. One of the best examples of this is the Greek linguistic expertise and painstaking philology on display. Page after page of the dissertatio was given over to a meticulous dissection of the actual meaning of Greek terms from Scripture in order to illustrate the truth about the sacrament. This entailed, for example, listing a number of Greek terms that could feasibly validate the Mass sacrifice.57 The nuances and connotations of each of these words were then carefully explored with reference to the New Testament: Continetne ἱλασμòς sacerdotium vestrum? Interdicit hoc Christus; nam soli Christo ἱλασμός in Scriptura tribuitur: ait enim Ioannes Epistola 1.2 καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. […]. Sed qui non audiunt vocem Domini, ibunt post inventiones suas. Ioannes iterum Cap. 4. ait, ἀπέστειλεν τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. Et Paulus ad Roman. ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεωϛ ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. Et Psalmo, ὅτι παρὰ σοὶ ὁ ἱλασμός ἐστιν.58 Does (the term) ‘hilasmos’ (propitiation) contain your priesthood? Christ prohibits this. For the propitiation is attributed in Scripture to Christ alone. John says in his Epistle 1:2 ‘And he himself is a “hilasmos” (propitiation) for our sins and not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world’. […]. But those who don’t listen to the voice of the Lord (will) go after their own inventions. John again says in chapter 4 ‘He sent his Son as a “hilasmos” (propitiation) for our sins’. And Paul to the Romans: ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a “hilasmos” (propitiation) through faith in his blood’. And in the Psalm ‘that he is a “hilasmos” (propitiation) for you’. 56  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 155; Hatch 276. 57  Apologia 126–129. 58  Ibidem 128–131. The Greek accentuation has been adapted in line with modern conventions.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

119

If this philological emphasis represented the encroachment of the liberal arts onto theological terrain, the same might be argued of rhetoric, which was unquestionably Ascham’s métier. The Apologia was entirely rhetorical in its configuration and presented as a one-sided speech, more in the manner of the closing remarks of a disputation or a moderator’s verdict. It was not just polemical but highly affective, with the devices of classical oratory being harnessed throughout. As conspicuous is absence of syllogistic reasoning, the bedrock of the traditional disputation.59 Taken in the round, the work provides an effective measure of the impact that humanist approaches from members of an Arts Faculty could have on the territory of traditional logic.60 Beyond the disciplinary transgression the John’s disputation might have entailed, it is possible that another reason why these disputations generated the outcry they did was because they were pushing doctrinal boundaries in a radical way. Their timing, at the start of a new and (for Protestants) auspicious reign does smack of opportunism. There are more than suggestions of ideological fervour in Ascham’s correspondence about the debates. In one letter, he indicated that the express purpose of the disputations was: ‘[…] nos conscientias hominum primum aramus et colimus, ut illi postea opportunius optimas leges serant’. (‘[…] we may first plough and prepare the consciences of men so that they [the magistrates] may later sow [the seeds of] the best laws more seasonably’).61 The doctrinal arguments on display in the Apologia were not exactly in lockstep with the regime’s (official) position in 1547, but more in line with ones that would prevail much later in Edward’s reign. It is revealing too that Ascham expressed his intentions of forwarding his Apologia to Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset, the most powerful man in government after the King, and the newly appointed Chancellor of the University. It looks very much as though these disputations were conceived of in part as a form of counsel whereby doctrinal positions previously thrashed out in the university could then be communicated to the regime. Indeed, the Apologia repeatedly aligned its anti-Mass campaign with the new king, Somerset and other leading nobles.62 At the same time, however, Ascham evidently envisaged a carefully calibrated arrangement in which the university academics could reach conclusions in freedom and without external interference, writing to Cecil: ‘[we took the decision] to transfer the question from our domestic walls into the public schools with the intent of finding out freely and 59  There two isolated examples of the use of syllogism at 76–77 and 196–197. 60  Mack P., Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic (Leiden – Boston: 1993); Kretzmann – Kenny – Pinborg (eds.), Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy 787–816. 61  Giles, vol. 1. pt. 1, 154–155; Hatch 272–273. 62  Apologia 46–47, 94–95.

120

Nicholas

without reserve (‘libenter et sine rubore’) […] what could be drawn from the founts of sacred scriptures in defence of the Mass’.63 The process of disputation was still at this time perceived to be the property of university men, but one with a potentially broader relevance and a form of positive action in the world. 4

1549 Disputations: Oxford and Cambridge

The disputations of 1547 anticipated by a whole year a considerable hardening of government policy on the Eucharist. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that they had applied a pressure of sorts, as well as providing a platform and a set of parameters which future debates could utilize and build on, and there is a distinct nexus between these and disputations held at both universities two years later. The 1549 disputations were orchestrated mainly by Thomas Cranmer, one of the senior figures who had called a halt to the 1547 disputations, and they were presided over by Protector Somerset, the intended recipient of the Apologia. In December 1548 a major Parliamentary debate took place when, for the first time since the accession, the issue of the Eucharist was broached in a seriously combative and divisive way.64 In this four-day debate, a new and less ambiguous government line emerged, ultimately paving the way for the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in June 1549. In particular, the consecration was considered to be of figurative significance only, and a clear distinction was drawn between the spiritual and corporal body of Christ.65 Given the timing of these Lords’ debates, a good year after the 1547 disputations, it is not difficult to see how the Cambridge disputations, as theologically illuminating as they might have been, were also problematic for a regime trying to control discussion and deliberation about the Eucharist. From this point on, there was a very marked increase in scrutiny by the State of all subsequent university disputations, including the 1549 disputations in Oxford and Cambridge, each of which aroused widespread national and international interest. The 1549 disputations were held pursuant to royal visitations to each university, and overseen by carefully selected visitors, the majority of whom had

63  Giles, vol. 1, pt. 1, 156; Hatch 275–276. 64  MacCulloch, Cranmer 398–399. The central question was ‘whether bread be in the sacrament after consecration or not’. 65  As outlined by MacCulloch, Cranmer 398–399.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

121

pre-existing ties with the university they were commissioned with. The object of these was investigatory, but with the power to reform where it was deemed necessary. Ceri Law shrewdly observes that while this was officially a governmental undertaking, it was staffed with powerful insiders, effectively blurring the lines between internal and external.66 These disputations were publicly staged and debated between leading Protestant and Conservative academics. The first took place in Oxford over a period of four days from 28 May to 1 June. It is possible that Oxford was a priority given its reputation as a troublesome epicentre of conservatism during Edward’s reign.67 The lead respondent on the Protestant side was Pietro Vermigli of Strasbourg, who had been recently parachuted into Oxford by Edward’s government as Professor of Divinity. He was a charismatic and brilliant theologian, who far outflanked any native evangelical. Apart from some brief support from a fellow evangelical, Nicholas Cartwright, he debated single-handedly with three die-hard Catholics and theological conservatives: Morgan Phillips, William Chedsey and William Tresham; Chedsey and Tresham were both priests and would find themselves temporarily incarcerated later in Edward’s reign.68 The praelector (or moderator) was the Chancellor of the University, Richard Cox, a notable evangelical. There is some evidence that the theses of this debate were pinned as a notice on the door of St Mary’s Church in Oxford prior to the debate,69 but their imprint, together with a detailed account of the proceedings, can be found in a tract composed by Vermigli, his Disputatio de eucharistiae sacramento habita in celeberrima universitate Oxoniensi in Anglia of 1549.70 These disputations would 66  Law C., Contested Reformations in the University of Cambridge, 1535–1584 (Woodbridge: 2018) 49. 67  For example, Loach, “Reformation Controversies” 367. The differing reputations of Oxford and Cambridge, the former as a hub of conservatism and the latter as more inclined to reform, is now a historiographical commonplace, but may have been overplayed. 68  MacMahon L., “William Chedsey (1510/11–1577?)”, ODNB Online, ; and Gibbs G.G., “William Tresham (1495–1569)”, ODNB Online, , last accessed April 2019. 69  McLelland J.C., The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549 / Peter Martyr Vermigli; Translated and Edited with Introduction and Notes (Kirksville, Mo.: 2000) xxviii. 70  Vermigli Pietro Martire, Disputatio de eucharistiae sacramento habita in celeberrima universitate Oxoniensi in Anglia (London, R. Wolfe: 1549). The manuscript is MS 495 Cambridge, Parker Library. There is an excellent translation and edition of this: McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation, and all quotes will be taken from this. Note too John Ab Ulmis in a letter of August 1549 to Heinrich Bullinger reported on (and included transcripts of) the 1549 Eucharistic disputations held at Oxford University: Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. T.H. Robinson, 2 vols. (Cambridge: 1846–1847), vol. 1, pt. 2, 391. For supplementary evidence written from a Catholic perspective see: Persons Robert, A review of ten publike disputations or conferences held within the compasse of four years,

122

Nicholas

also form the stimulus for his more balanced and discursive theological treatment Tractatio de sacramento eucharistiae, habita in universitate Oxoniensi.71 In Cambridge, unlike in Oxford, the disputants were all Cambridge men, a homegrown cadre; the foreign divine from Strasbourg, Martin Bucer, who might have been an obvious counterpart to Vermigli, had not yet then arrived in Cambridge.72 This three-day series of disputations took place between 19 and 25 June 1549. On the Protestant side were Andrew Perne, Edmund Grindal, James Pilkington, Edmund Guest and John Madew, the Vice-Chancellor who had also been responsible for curtailing the 1547 disputations. Nicholas Ridley, though moderator, also spoke for the Protestant side. On the Catholic side were William Glyn, Thomas Vavasour, and Thomas Sedgwick, Thomas Parker, John Young, Alban Langdale and Leonard Pollard.73 The Cambridge disputations were written up in Latin and contain not just the theses but a voluminous outline of the exchanges of the various disputants.74 It is unclear in whose hand this manuscript recapitulation is scribed, but it will almost certainly be the work of the chair (Ridley), or one of the notaries present as part of the visitation. Unlike the 1547 disputations where the precise positions of the disputants remain a matter of conjecture, for both sets of 1549 debates we have a detailed description of a disputation in action. What is immediately striking is the great respect shown to the traditional disputational format, respondents under K. Edward and Qu. Mary, concerning some principall points in religion, especially of the sacrament & sacrifice of the altar (Saint Omar, Francois Bellet: 1604) where he also sets forth Master Saunder’s version of events who was also present. 71  (London, R. Wolfe: 1549). His treatise on the sacrament is translated in McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation. 72  Bucer arrived in July 1549 and was not officially installed as Regius Professor of Divinity until December [Scott Amos N., “Martin Bucer (1491–1551)”], ODNB Online, < https://doi .org/10.1093/ref:odnb/3822>, (last accessed April 2019). In theological terms Bucer might not have towed the official line. 73  Several of them belonged to a ‘nest of papists’, as Rex puts it, that flourished at Cambridge at this time: “Ascham & Co: St John’s College, Cambridge, in the 1540s” in Law C. – Nicholas L.R. (eds.), Roger Ascham and his Sixteenth-Century World (Leiden – Boston: 2020). ‘Vavasour’ is spelled ‘Vavisor’ in John Foxe (see below). 74  For the chronology of the visitation, see CCCC (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College) MS 106, 490c–f. The propositions for disputation can be found at 490c, entry for 19 June. See also Lamb (ed.), A Collection of Letters 109–120, especially 114–115. An early modern account was composed by John Foxe in his Acts and Monuments, first in his 1570 edition of the work, and then a longer version in the 1583 edition, Acts and Monuments Online: https://www.johnfoxe.org/index.php?realm=text&gototype=&edition=1583&pag eid=1400, accessed 1 March 2019, 1400–1412, and quotations will be taken from the 1583 edition. See also Persons, A review, which expressly challenges Foxe’s account.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

123

opening the debate in each case, followed by a formal challenge by one or several opponents.75 Both disputations were then concluded with a moderator’s determination. Vermigli’s account conveys well the degree of consternation caused when correct disputational protocol was not followed, Chedsey at one point accusing Vermigli of now handling ‘the subject as if I should change my role and instead of an opponent become a respondent […]. Now you have summarised out of order which you should not have done’.76 Also evident in these dissertationes, and something largely absent in those of 1547, was the prominent and elaborate use of syllogism, the time-honoured engine of the disputational form.77 The rigid delineations of argumentation whereby a syllogism was proposed and subsequently accepted or denied on the grounds of a faulty major or minor premise punctuate both these disputations. It is striking to observe how seriously the mechanism is taken and, at one point, a quarrel erupts in Cambridge over one of Pilkington’s syllogisms which Glyn rejects on the basis that ‘there be four termines’.78 As though in some chess games, disputants deploy a variety of syllogisms strategically. A good example of this occurs in the feisty exchange between Ridley and Vavasour, the latter quoting back the former’s sorites but without unpacking it.79 He simply substitutes it with a new one: And herein you framed a Syllogisme after this maner. What Christ tooke, that he blessed, what he blessed, that he brake, what he brake that he gaue, Ergo, what he receyued he gaue, &c. Whereto I aunswer wyth a lyke Syllogisme out of Genesis. God tooke a ribbe out of Adams side, what hee tooke, he built, what he built that he brought, what he brought, that hee gaue to Adam to be hys wyfe, but he tooke a ribbe, Ergo, he gaue a ribbe to Adam to wyfe, &c.80 The pulverizing logic of the syllogistic method played a similarly central role in the Oxford disputations. In the 1549 disputations, unlike the ones of 1547, the personnel on both sides were very obviously of a theological and clerical background. Almost all had a 75  In Oxford Vermigli opened, and then on each subsequent day thereafter was opposed by a Catholic who opened. In Cambridge, the respondent on the first day was a Protestant (Madew), on the second a Catholic (Glyn), and on the third another Protestant (Perne). 76  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 261. 77  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 17. 78  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 408. 79  sorites was a type of syllogism. 80  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1410.

124

Nicholas

degree in Theology or Divinity or would go on to acquire one, and many would go on to hold senior positions in the Church. It would be fair to say that the Eucharistic concepts used in these 1549 accounts are explored far more discursively than in the Apologia of 1547, and there is present more of what we might term theological terminology and jargon. And new lines of argument were introduced, most notably, the analogy of the sacrament of the Eucharist with that of baptism.81 The propositions were also more specific: in Oxford these were: ‘There is no transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament’ and ‘The body and blood of Christ are not the bread and wine carnally and corporeally not as others say under the species of bread and wine’;82 in Cambridge: ‘Whether transubstantiation could be proved by plain and manifest words of Scripture’ and ‘Whether it might be collected and confirmed by the consent of Fathers and confirmed by the consent of the Fathers’. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the effluxion of two years and a seminal debate in the Lords, the term ‘transubstantiation’ was also now explicitly and robustly mooted, and along markedly confessional lines, with (for example) Perne saying: Wherby it may appeare that transubstantiation is a most blasphemous, sacrilegious, and damnable errour, and a most vayne, vnsauory, and diuelish papisticall inuention, defended and maintayned onely by the papistes, the professed and sworn enemies of all truth.83 The conundrum of the real presence was similarly more conspicuously and confessionally entrenched, particularly in the Oxford disputations. Yet, even as things had progressed, there was also considerable overlap with the disputations of two years before in respect of many of the doctrinal areas broached, including notions of faithful eating, ubiquity, accidents, commemoration and thanksgiving, and signs, figures and tropes (and, in the case of Cambridge, adoration). A central issue in these 1549 disputations was transubstantiation. It proved to be a remarkably tenacious doctrine, and Vermigli’s account of the Oxford disputation, in particular, highlights the degree to which his opponents were reluctant to let him leave the issue and move to the issue of the real presence.84 81  For example, Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1402. 82  The third proposed thesis was not actually debated viz. that the body and blood of Christ are united with bread and wine sacramentally (McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation xxvii). 83  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1409. 84  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation xxxiv.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

125

It even looks from comments Vermigli made, that the propositions of the disputation (which were agreed upon by both parties), had, in starting with transubstantiation, failed to follow the logical order (‘dialecticam methodum’) of asking first whether something exists and, afterwards, why and for what it is.85 Both debates, too, illustrate well the precariousness of the Protestant position, whereby the business of dismantling Catholic dogma tended to be prioritized over the adumbration of a more concrete doctrinal standpoint. To the extent that more constructive statements were made, these had to be framed not just within a highly polemical Catholic-Protestant dichotomy, but also within a broader matrix of Protestant difference. This is exemplified especially by Vermigli’s attempt to formulate a Reformed stance on the presence that carved a middle way between what he saw as the extremes of Lutheran and Zwinglian teaching. Vermigli would argue robustly for a spiritual signification accompanied by a stress on the presence and mutation of the elements and the feeding of believers.86 Accordingly, one important line of attack on the Catholic side was to expose the divisions on the Protestant side. In the Oxford debate Tresham would refer to Bucer’s subtly different stance on the communion, and Phillips would highlight the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli. In the Cambridge disputation Vavasour would waspishly comment: Which thyng that I may ouerpasse in Berengarius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and many others, who are certaynely knowen to be of no lesse variaunce amongest themselues, then vncertayn of theyr fayth what to beleeue.87 85  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 136. 86  Ibidem, for example, 254. For a fuller explanation of Vermigli’s approach to the Eucharist, see Opitz P., “Eucharistic Theology”, in Kirby T. – Campi E. – James III F.A. (eds.), A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli (Leiden – Boston: 2009) 387–400. 87  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 152 and 211; Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1410. These charges were not unfounded. It is very evident from correspondence between Bucer and Vermigli that Bucer was alarmed by Vermigli’s stance in the 1549 disputation since to Bucer he seemed to be denying that the body and blood of Christ were given under forms of bread and wine, and he disliked Vermigli’s use of the word ‘signify’ since it was unscriptural and tended to give the impression that the bread and wine were empty signs: Gorham G.C., Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears (London: 1857) 82–93. Such a tension was also identified in Foxe’s account, as when he added: ‘Here is to be noted, that Pietro Vermigli in his aunswere at Oxford did graunt a chaunge in the substaunces of bread and wine, which in Cambridge by the Bishop Doct. Ridley was denyed’ (Acts and Monuments Online 1404). Persons likewise repeatedly returns to the doctrinal inconsistencies in the Protestants’ positions in the 1549 disputations, lamenting, for example: ‘For that they sometimes said Christ’s body was present in the sacrament by signification and then by representation, then by meditation, then by appellation, sometimes by propriety,

126

Nicholas

Scriptural corroboration was, like the 1547 debates, central to these disputations. As in the Apologia, the words of institution were a focal point.88 There was a clear emphasis on humanist philology,89 and close attention was paid to individual terms, which were in some cases analysed grammatically and against the Greek equivalent, for example in the Cambridge disputation: Right worshipful Master Doctor, I do also aske of you first of all, whether the greeke article ‘this’ of the neuter gender be referred to the word ‘bread’ or to the word ‘body’ if it be referred to the worde ‘bread’ then Christ woulde not haue sayd this, in the neuter gender, but rather this, in the masculine gender.90 And there are many similar examples in both sets of disputations, though it should be observed that such cases occurred not nearly to the same degree as in Ascham’s Apologia, the best record we have of the 1547 disputation. While both sides in the 1549 debates were willing and able to offer Biblical authentication for their arguments, the emphasis placed on Scripture appears more pronounced in the Protestant camp, with Perne in Cambridge at one point charging his opponent with lack of Scriptural attention and reminding him that ‘Christe sayth scrutamini scripturas, searche the Scriptures’.91 Conversely, the Catholic Phillips in Oxford suggested that the Scriptures were ambiguous and ‘must be clarified by the light of the Fathers’.92 Inevitably, authentication of the Fathers was also a priority in this royal visitation (and we just need to look at the wording of the second thesis in Cambridge to see this). Patristic sparring featured prominently in both debates. As with Biblical proofs, the debate sometimes pivoted, not on the marshalling of opposing Fathers, but on an interpretation of the same one. We see, for example, Glyn accusing Ridley of a selective reading of Augustine: ‘You omit many other thinges which August. sayth, & I confesse that he caried himselfe other times by nature, then by power, then again by grace, then by memory or remembrance then by virtue or energy and by many other devises of deluding or shifting of the matter’ (A review 49–50) and see also 44, 47, 63 and 65. 88  Madew in his opening speech of the first disputation warned against not giving Scripture in full (Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1400). 89  There is a broad consensus among scholars of Vermigli that both scholastic methodology and humanism were evident in his overall approach and could coexist, as outlined in Zuidema J., Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace (Göttingen: 2015) 30–31. 90  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1404. 91  Ibidem 1406. 92  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 211.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

127

in his own handes after a sort, but August. deliuereth this vnto vs, and as a great miracle’.93 It is also possible to observe the differing treatment of the Fathers in the disputations themselves, a feature that captures very effectively a point made by Esther Kim-Chang that, while Fathers sometimes helped provide depth of argument (usually in the case of Augustine), at other times they were more superficially listed. For example, regarding the issue of adoration, Glyn maintained: As I remember you sayd, that adoration did followe vpon transubstaunciation, but the fathers for one thowsand yeares past doe graunt adoration of the sacrament therefore transubstantiation also. The minor I proue by the most cleare testimonies of S. Austen, S. Ambrose, S. Denise, S. Basile, and S. Chrisostome;94 and Perne embellishes his criticisms by citing ‘the Fathers confusedly, & without order’.95 The Fathers would be accorded the same space as was given to Scripture in Ridley’s summing-up. They also played a significant role in the 1549 Oxford disputations, with Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian and Irenaeus being scrutinized in some depth.96 Two additional patristic texts that Vermigli brought with him from the continent and would promote in this disputation were Chrysostom’s Ad Caesarium Monachum and excerpts from Theodoret’s Two Dialogues.97 It is noticeable that the Protestant participants in these officially sanctioned debates appeared very willing to engage with the Fathers. It has been commented by scholars that Vermigli’s approach to the Fathers was appreciably more positive than that of many of his colleagues.98 Yet, it still seems that there was a residual anxiety among many Protestants, as there was in 1547, about their ability to distract. Even Vermigli himself would at one point clarify that he would only adhere to Fathers where they follow Scripture, accusing others of being ‘addicted in a superstitious way to scriptures and forever crying

93  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1407. 94  Ibidem 1402. 95   Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority 11; Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1406. 96  Haaugaard W.P., “Renaissance Patristic Scholarship and Theology in Sixteenth-Century England”, Sixteenth Century Journal 10 (1979) 37–60, at 52. 97  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation xxxii. 98  Loach J., “Reformation Controversies”, in The History of the University of Oxford, 8 vols., (Oxford: 1984–1997), ed. McConica J., vol. 3, 363–396, at 371.

128

Nicholas

“the Fathers, the Fathers!”’.99 Cox in his summing up would explicitly remind disputers not to take them as their principia.100 He stressed that he would not have the audience deceived by the probable words of human wisdom, urging them instead ‘to keep fast to the Word of God, the queen to which every academic discipline should be a handmaiden’.101 The set-piece disputations held as part of the 1549 royal visitation were far more carefully choreographed than those of 1547. Disputations were even highlighted in the terms of the visitation commission, which included a right on the part of the commissioners to: ‘change the terms of […] disputations, public lectures […] and substitute others more reasonable’.102 Statutes issued by the visitors referred to ‘[placing] limits and terms to the public disputations’ and issuing detailed rubric about the general management of disputations.103 Records of the 1549 disputations certainly point to the close monitoring of the debates by officials (via, for example, directions being issued at certain junctures), and even a sense of fait accompli: as Law puts it, ‘the verdict in favour of the propositions in Cambridge, announced by Ridley, was never in much doubt’.104 Persons, in his summary of these disputations some fifty years later, adds further detail that reinforces this sense of control. He suggests that the colleges of Cambridge were no sooner visited by the King’s commissioners but there appeared on all the gates two conclusions set up, the first against transubstantiation and the other against the sacrifice of the Mass. Presently bedels of the university went about to give warning that if any man had anything to say against these conclusions, that he should come forth the third day after to dispute or otherwise be bound to perpetual silence.105 Such curbs and constraints should come as little surprise, since these disputations were carefully organized to coincide with the publication and

99  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 209. 100  Greenslade, The English Reformers and the Fathers 3. 101  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 290. 102  Cooper C.H., Annals of Cambridge, 5 vols. (Cambridge: 1842–1908), vol. 2, 24. 103  Heywood J., Collection of Statutes for the University and Colleges of Cambridge: Including Various Early Documents (London: 1840) 5 and 8–26. In Oxford new statutes were presented following the disputations which inter alia regulated disputations in the faculties of arts, law and theology: Cross C., “Oxford and the Tudor State from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of Mary”, in History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3, 117–149, at 137. 104  Law, Contested Reformations 56. 105  Persons, A review 48.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

129

promulgation of the Book of Common Prayer at the start of June 1549.106 The staging of both events was of direct relevance to the religious policy in the wider realm, and it is clear that ground won in Oxford and Cambridge was valued very highly.107 It is even possible that the impact of these debates extended beyond the Academy: in a description that may be more polemical than true, Persons makes clear reference in his tract to the ‘poor people that heard it [viz. the disputation] or heard of it’ and ‘followed the resolution therein set downe, to hange their souls upon the certainty thereof’.108 It is also not insignificant that some three decades on, the Swiss theologian, Josias Simler, in his life of Vermigli published in 1583, commented that he did not need to rehearse the details of the Oxford disputation as they were ‘in al mens hands to be seene’.109 Yet, the implicit control system was, it seems, predicated as much on the avoidance of public disorder as on the presentation of correct doctrine. It is an interesting fact that the 1549 Oxford disputations had been preceded by a near riot following a series of highly provocative lectures delivered by Vermigli. A public disputation, with all its rules of engagement, was an obvious way to defuse a potential powder-keg and a means of channelling dissidence.110 Moreover, however carefully stage-managed these disputations were, the choice of a debate, or even dialogue, as a means to clarify orthodox doctrine deserves further comment. There can be no doubting the palpable sense of deep discord when we read the disputations. These debates were arranged in such a way that the Protestant side was compelled to work particularly hard: the Catholic opponents in these head-to-heads were hardly inadequate nonentities who were there to provide the mere impression of a contest; they were in fact some of the most troublesome conservatives and most formidable proponents of papal positions in the country. Of course, the worthier an opponent the more meaningful a victory, but the contrived clash of such 106  The universities were required to endorse the Book of Common Prayer in these visitations. Vermigli’s influence on official formulations is particularly attested to in MacCulloch D., “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer” in Campi E. – James III F.A. – Opitz P. (eds.), Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation (Geneva: 2002) 173–201, especially 178, and McNair P.M.J., “Peter Martyr in England” in McLelland J.C. (ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Ontario: 1980) 85–105. 107  Law, Contested Reformations 7. 108  Persons, A review 46. 109  Simler Josias, An oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divine D. Peter Martyr Vermillius, etc. in The Commonplaces of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter Martyr (London, Henry Denham [and others]: 1583), sigs. Ppiir–Rriiv, at sig. Qqiiv. 110  The presence of the visitors at least prevented further disturbances: Cross, “Oxford and the Tudor State” 137. See also Evans G.R., The University of Oxford: a New History (London – New York: 2010) 146.

130

Nicholas

impressive figures was surely also related to the broader search for the truth that was emphasized at each stage of all these disputations, for instance in the prayers that prefaced each day’s debate, and also in the opening speeches and moderators’ addresses. It was the very condition of confrontational disputation, it seems, that allowed the truth to be actualized. Vavasour’s comment in the Cambridge debates ‘[…] gods truth beyng in controuersie’ is telling.111 Vermigli too proclaimed ‘We should be of such a mind that freely and of our own accord we yield to known truth showing itself in discussion. In fact this is no small part of divine worship […]’, adding ‘in the conflict of dispute minds are stirred up and come alive’.112 It is likewise significant that books to which the dissertationes frequently make reference formed the basis of these disputations. In these debates it was not so much personal viewpoints that were being volunteered, but objective, external and textual evidence. While a moderator may reach a formal verdict on the official ‘winner’ of the debate, the merits of each side could also be weighed up by any individual. Indeed, the officially sanctioned letter that prefaced Vermigli’s account of the Oxford disputation addressed the reader as follows: We entrust judgment to you; we want to set you up as arbiter: is victory in a most just cause to be assigned to Peter or to Tresham, Chedsey and Morgan?113 In the Cambridge debates, Ridley repeatedly urged the audience to read the various authorities cited at home.114 MacCulloch has suggested that these set piece debates constituted evidence of the regime’s efforts to persuade rather than coerce its opponents.115 There is much in this. In the early modern mind, the disputational form, including any subsequent publication, spoke for itself: truth lay in and sprang from the dialogue.116 John Foxe’s 1570 recapitulation of the 1549 disputations in his immensely influential Acts and Monuments reflects this well. He included at every stage the syllogism (including the type 111  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1410. 112  McLelland, Oxford Treatise and Disputation 135. 113  Ibidem 130. Cox in Oxford, unlike Ridley in Cambridge, did not issue a formal verdict in his determination. 114  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1407 and 1411. 115  MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant 133. 116  The form was accorded such efficacy going into the following century: see Persons, A review, preface, and 17 and 20, where he stresses that the unlearned as much as the learned search out the truth.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

131

of syllogism) discussed by the disputants and the ensuing debate. Foxe is often criticized by modern historians for being highly selective in his choice of material, but there are two sides conspicuously on display in his write-up of the Oxford and Cambridge disputations.117 As far as Foxe was concerned, his Acts and Monuments commemorated the truth, and he insisted on that standard throughout the work.118 It is noteworthy that the accounts of the 1549 debates were not included in his more triumphant edition of 1563, but only in his 1570 edition and even more fully in 1583, a period marked more by the failures and fears that followed a series of setbacks for Protestant hopes.119 It was as though Foxe hoped that these disputations would not only remind the reading public how sensible a subscription to a Reformed Protestant Eucharist was, but also show as much. 5

1551 Private Disputations in London

The landmark disputations of 1549 did not put an end to theological debates in the university. 1550 witnessed some bitter and highly acrimonious disputations between Martin Bucer and three Catholics of the university, including Young and Sedgwick, two of the Catholic disputants in the 1549 Cambridge Eucharistic debates. This disputation centred on justification rather than on transubstantiation. There is no time to discuss the controversy here, other than to note that the disputation generated much written material from both parties, both sides claiming success and with relative impunity.120 More 117  For a useful review of the ways in which Foxe has been engaged with, see Collinson P., “John Foxe and National Consciousness”, in Highley C. – King J.N. (eds.), John Foxe and his World (Oxford – New York: 2002) 10–36. Persons’ Review, which constitutes a direct response to Foxe, is hypercritical of Foxe’s version; his account adduces alternative testimonies from other Catholics present at the disputation, including from Masters Saunders and Langdale. 118  Loades D., John Foxe and the English Reformation (Aldershot: 1997) 210 and 212; and Elton G.R., Reform and Reformation: England, 1509–1558 (London: 1977) 386. 119  Loades, Foxe 3 and 213. 120  Scripture once again played a vital role in the debate, and the first of the three theses was ‘the canonical books of Scripture alone abundantly teach those who are regenerate all things which concern their salvation’. An account of this disputation was printed in Hubert Conrad, Martini Buceri scripta Anglicana fere omnia (Basel, Petrus Perna: 1577) 711–784. Urgent work is needed on this Latin imprint for which no translation currently exists. A good brief account of the affair can also be found in Gorham, Gleanings 163– 165. It is also discussed in Wright D.F., Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community (Cambridge: 1994) 150–152 and Scott Amos N., Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism: The Exegete as Theologian (Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London: 2015) 54–56.

132

Nicholas

significantly, perhaps, disputations on the sacrament of the Eucharist did not stop,121 but from this point on, the debates on this subject seemed to acquire a new and rather less palatable purpose. Between November and December 1551, two private disputations were held in London to debate the Mass. While not strictly speaking held in a university setting, a number of university men were involved in these disputations, including several who had taken part in earlier debates covered in this chapter. This round of disputations constitutes a useful reminder of the close nexus between court and college that existed in midTudor England. Their imprints also bring us face to face with an even more discernible form of duress that had suddenly crept into the disputational form. Both disputations plus theses were written up in manuscript form during or immediately after their delivery. As with the 1549 disputations, they list the names of those involved (including the auditors) and reproduce interchanges and the flow of the debate.122 The first of them took place on 25 November at the House of William Cecil, former Johnian of Cambridge, then recently knighted, and a junior secretary in government. The main disputants for the Protestant side were a mixed team of laity and clerics: the layman John Cheke, Privy Councillor, but also Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, a very close friend of Roger Ascham, and also the brother-in-law of Cecil;123 and Edmund Grindal, future Archbishop, who had also taken part in the 1549 disputations in Cambridge, and was an intimate of both Bucer and Ridley.124 On the Catholic side appeared John Feckenham, the future Dean of Paul’s and Abbot of Westminster, educated at Oxford, and an outspoken opponent of evangelicalism. John Young, the Catholic agitator who had participated in disputations in 1549 and 1550, supported him. Yet this disputation entailed little sense of equality: Feckenham was a state prisoner in the Tower, from where he was granted temporary release expressly for this debate. The second (and slightly longer) of these private disputations took place just a week later, on 3 December at the house of Richard Morison, a prominent politician and one of the commissioners to Oxford in 1549. Once again Cheke and 121  Vermigli’s opponents in Oxford tried to make use of public disputations in September 1550 to hold him to account again on transubstantiation but the Vice-Chancellor refused to let them go ahead anxious about disturbance: Loach, “Reformation Controversies” 372–373. 122  C CCC MS 102, 253–258, 259–266. These have not been transcribed or translated in modern times. There is a translation in Strype, Life of Cheke 90–112. 123  Cheke had also been involved in the 1549 visitation of Oxford and Cambridge and his hand can clearly be detected in them: Bryson A., “Cheke, Sir John (1514–1557)”, ODNB Online, , accessed 5 January 2019. 124  Robert Horn and Hugh Whitehead also took minor roles on the Protestant side.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

133

Grindal took the Protestant position, this time against Feckenham (again) and the Catholic Thomas Watson, the future Bishop of Lincoln, another Johnian, and previously a close acquaintance of Cheke and Ascham. He was also on release from the Fleet prison where he was currently being held at the King’s pleasure for lack of orthodoxy. In attendance at each disputation were a clutch of senior nobles and courtiers, including Anthony Cooke, Cecil’s then new father-in-law. The documentation reveals that the layman Cecil took the role of moderator in each debate. Be that as it may, records suggest that the direction of debate was dictated to a large degree by Cheke, another layman, and quite mercilessly so. Strype’s comment that these disputations were occasioned because a prior examination of Feckenham by Cheke had already failed to achieve a change of mind comes as no surprise.125 And at the very start of the first disputation, Cecil had to warn Cheke, who begins to pontificate, to allow Feckenham to state his opinion.126 It is a potent reflection of the sense of entitlement that laymen now felt in building and directing the course of the Protestant Church. These disputations, while they adopted the format of traditional disputations, felt more like a trial of will than a test of reason. Opponent had become defendant. Syllogism was applied, but at points it almost felt as though syllogisms were there to tick the box, and to provide a veil of order and respectability. For example, at one point Cecil requested that someone propound a syllogism which might evince the sacrament to be a trope ‘so that Watson might answer’.127 However, another dimension to these private debates can also be usefully explored. The choice of quaestiones in these debates is interesting. The quaestio posed in the first disputation was ‘What was the true and genuine sense of the words of the Supper: “This is my body” and also “whether the words be taken in the grammatical sense or some other”’; and the quaestio in the second was: ‘Whether the words of the supper are to be understood in the grammatical sense or figurative sense’. While many of the topics covered in previous Eucharistic disputations were ventilated in these disputations too, including ubiquity, faithful eating, transubstantiation, the nature of the presence and, following on from the 1549 disputations, the analogy of baptism, the crux of both of these debates seems to have been linguistic usage. This may well reflect the interests of those involved. Cheke and Watson, in particular, were

125  Strype, Life of Cheke 91. 126  Ibidem 92. 127  Ibidem 104.

134

Nicholas

committed humanists who were both accomplished classical linguists.128 With direct and dogged reference to the words of institution, the disputants clashed over the extent to which figurative language was being utilised. Cheke asserted the use of a trope, whereas both Feckenham and Watson insisted that the matter of the sacrament was two-fold – the natural body of Christ, and yet also his mystical body. The argument often revolved around forms of speaking; for example, Watson, in response to the main quaestio, answered ‘that there were two kinds of speaking, the “narrator” and the other “operatory”’.129 This tension over the use of speech (figurative or otherwise) was also played out with reference to the Fathers, most prominently Augustine. As we saw in the 1547 disputations, laymen whose training was predominantly in the Arts rather than Theology, could influence the contours of these doctrinal debates in quite significant ways. How, then, do we evaluate these private disputations? They were kept in manuscript form and not published until many years later.130 Their timing is relevant. They closely prefigured the publication of the second Book of Common Prayer of 1552 which would go considerably further than that of 1549. It was perhaps the view that for this next iteration of the Prayer Book to have maximum effect, high-profile opponents needed to be silenced or converted. Yet, given the intimacy of these disputations, it feels as though their purpose was rather more personal than truth-seeking. Cheke and Watson disputed on terms that were familiar to them, and it may be that Cheke and others present who knew Watson well were keen to reach agreement with someone with whom they shared a common background and a long-standing amity. With Young and Feckenham, the agenda was different, and more bound up with intimidation. Young, the gadfly in the 1549 disputations and in clashes with Bucer the following year, needed to be brought to heel. And Cheke was particularly uncivil with Feckenham, at one point classifying Feckenham’s claim that the body of Christ was in more places at once, both in heaven and the sacrament, as ‘monstrous words’.131 It seems probable that Feckenham had been a ringleader in stoking up public unrest in Oxford since October 1549.132 Rebellion was a subject close to Cheke’s heart; he had written a tract against it two years 128  Cheke had participated in the 1542 rows in Cambridge about the pronunciation of Greek; Watson has been described by one contemporary as a ‘fussy and pedantic classicist’: Richards J., Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature (Cambridge: 2003) 124. 129  Strype, Life of Cheke 101. 130  Persons in his review of the disputations of this period quite explicitly omits them: A review 86. 131  Strype, Life of Cheke 95. 132  Knighton C.S., “Feckenham, John (1510–1584)”, ODNB Online, https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/9246, accessed 5 January 2019.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

135

earlier, and this was perhaps another expression of his determination to stamp it out.133 That this showdown was a form of intimidation is best seen in the fact that five years later, when fortunes had been reversed under Mary I, and Cheke, who had been arrested, was refusing to recant, it was Feckenham who was sent to ‘persuade’ Cheke by reminding him that the alternative to recantation was burning. This was perhaps a sweet moment of revenge for someone who had been made to feel so humiliated in 1551, the year when the coincidence of the disputational form with the exigencies of the Reformation was beginning to alter the very essence of the institution of the disputation. It had become less of a neutral forum in which the truth could be elicited in objective fashion, and more a vehicle for intimidation, personal vendettas and the validation of a ‘correct’ confession. These tendencies would continue in the following reign to which we now briefly turn. 6

The Eucharistic Disputations of Mary’s Reign

Edward died in July 1553, and his half-sister Mary acceded to the throne. The monarchy had changed and with it the official religion of the country, but university disputations continued to be accorded the highest importance. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to recapitulate in full the Marian disputations, but a few overarching observations about the direction of travel following the Edwardian period are set out below. The first official disputation took place early on in the reign. It was not university-based, but several of its dramatis personae were the same as in earlier university disputations. It also provided an interesting prelude to the Oxford disputations of the following year. This one occurred at Convocation House at St Paul’s Church in London, in mid-October 1553, lasting six days.134 The main topics were once again transubstantiation and real presence. They were held to some measure in the academic format: there was syllogistic reasoning, a firm separation of the roles, and a named moderator.135 The chief disputant on the Protestant side was John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, but others included James Haddon and John Aylmer. The chief spokesmen for the Catholics were Hugh Weston, William Chedsey and Thomas Watson. The proceedings had official backing – they were organized in parallel with the restoration of

133  Cheke Sir John, The Hurt of Sedition (London, W. Seres: 1549). 134  It began on the 18 October. 135  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 70.

136

Nicholas

Catholicism in Parliament,136 and, as Foxe reports, were held at the ‘Quenes commaundement’.137 As with the 1549 disputations, various dissertationes exist through which it is possible to make sense of this debate.138 Accounts by Foxe and Philpot himself draw attention to the inequitable nature of the debate, presenting it as a travesty and in contravention of the normal ‘rules’ of disputation. For example, Foxe wrote: ‘Wherin D. Weston was chief on the Popes part, who behaued him selfe outragiously in tauntyng and checking’.139 By contrast, Persons stresses the orderly and consensual nature of this event, which was disrupted only by the Protestant dissenter; he censoriously describes Philpot as ‘busy’ and as ‘vauntinge and chalenginge the whole company to dispute’.140 Persons is once again keen to highlight the divisions between the Protestants and, with reference to previous debates, he states that Philpot’s view tallied in no way with Perne’s, as approved by Ridley as moderator, adding that ‘these men must not be taken at their words’.141 The truth of the matter probably lies somewhere in between these conflicting accounts, but what cannot be denied is that, as Foxe, Philpot and Persons all indicate, the disputation was not held to call any points of Catholic religion into doubt, but was a necessary stepping stone to securing the subscription of those who had failed to vote for the doctrinal line proposed by Convocation. The situation was in fact not dissimilar to the 1551 disputations of Edward’s reign, albeit this disputation was held in a more public setting. The dynamics were the same, insofar as an official line demanded conformity, and pressure was being placed on (high profile) dissenters to acquiesce. Furthermore, it was almost certainly the case that Philpot’s approach in this disputation (and in the subsequent publication of his Trew Report) was a significant factor in his imprisonment the following year and execution two years later in 1555. Yet alongside the darker presence of oppression and manipulation, it still appears that those taking part in the disputation were ready and programmed to debate in a serious and scholarly way. Books again would play a role: so, for example, Foxe at one point writes:

136  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 70. 137  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1609. 138  The dissertationes can be found in Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1610–1615 and Philpot John, Vera expositio disputationis institutae mandato D. Mariae reginae (London, H. Singleton: 1554) translated into English as The trew report of the dysputacyon (Basel, A. Edmonds: 1554). 139  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1609. 140  Persons, A review 71–72. 141  Ibidem 72.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

137

Then did Maister Haddon take out of his bosome a Greke booke, wherein he shewed forth with hys finger the same wordes, which M. Watson could not deny. Hys Argumentes further I omyt to declare at large, because they were for the most part in Greke, about the bultyng out of the true signification of οὐσία.142 This notwithstanding, it is remarkable that when Philpot was on the point of making an oration in Latin on the matter of Christ’s presence, he was forbidden from doing so, and instructed that ‘hee should make no argument in latine, but to conclude on hys arguments in Inglysh’. Why should this have been so? It was almost certainly a means to undermine him. Latin was the orthodox language of disputation and, as Philpot himself pointed out, a demand for English ran contrary to the pre-disputation agreement that all arguments be made in Latin. As Philpot also intimated, the failure to use Latin was a mark of a lack of learning, and hence of the cachet of erudition that could persuade others. This particular episode surely marks the paradoxical nature of the disputation at this point in the Reformation: on the one hand, intelligent and well-supported debate was deemed desirable in a theological matter of such weight; but on the other, there was a very strong instinct to obstruct incompatible doctrinal views. A key locus for the religious reaffirmation of Marian Catholicism was the university, and just as was evident during Edward’s reign, the strong hand of government was conspicuous in these disputations.143 During the following year, 1554, arguably the best known of the university disputations of this period took place in Oxford. These were the Eucharistic disputations held in public before town and gown, involving Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. These culminated in their summary executions – all three were burnt at the stake in Oxford in 1555. The details of these disputations were once more recorded in tracts that were deeply implicated in the Reformation and clearly meant for conversion purposes, including Foxe’s Acts and Monuments and Ridley’s Account of the Disputation at Oxford.144 Loach comments that these disputations bore a strong resemblance to those of 1549.145 She has a point but, in many respects, they were more like a macabre simulacrum of the 1551 disputations involving Feckenham. Like Feckenham, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were given temporary release from prison to attend these Oxford disputations. Those 142  Foxe, Acts and Monuments Online 1614. 143  Ceri Law, Contested Reformations 66–67. 144  Ridley’s own preface to the disputation Foxe translated into English and sets in his own Acts and Monuments. 145  Loach, “Reformation Controversies” 375.

138

Nicholas

appointed to dispute with them were figures who had already been heavily involved in the Eucharistic disputations surveyed in this chapter, and whose names will by now be very familiar, including Weston (as moderator), Tresham and Feckenham from Oxford. Also coopted were six divines from Cambridge, including Sedgwick, Glyn, Watson and Young, the latter two having recently been awarded masterships at Cambridge. Many of these were figures who had already met Ridley in the disputational ring, and this time they could apply their own knock-out blows, delivering their ecclesiastical hunch with a punch. It is also striking how many of the same frameworks and arguments as had been utilized in previous disputations of the period were re-used here. The articles or questions to be disputed were (i) Whether or not the natural body of Christ was really in the sacrament after the words spoken by the Priest; (ii) Whether in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, any other substance remained than the substance of the body and blood of Christ; and (iii) Whether the Mass was a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead? Only one of the three articles debated – the question of the Mass as a sacrifice – touched on a fresh topic.146 The government, when it sent Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley to Oxford, evidently viewed this as a way to publicly reverse the results of the earlier disputations.147 These disputations are often classified as ‘show trials’ or ‘examinations’ in historical accounts, and there was indeed a strong element of that. It is very apparent, from the fact that all three were asked to subscribe to Catholic doctrine before the arguments, that conformity was the main goal. Although Ridley’s account is highly biased and cannot be taken as straightforward evidence, it is hard to ignore the searing allegation that ‘It is manifest that they never sought for any truth, but only for the glory of the world and a bragging victory’.148 At the same time, it is important to remember that the debates adhered closely to scholarly format. They were ostensibly also woven into the ritual life of the university, with, for example, Cranmer being allowed to present arguments at the doctoral disputation of John Harpsfield.149 Full syllogistic arguments were adumbrated and buttressed through an appeal to supportive authorities. The semblance of ‘a fair fight’ was also maintained, with overseers and notaries being appointed. It is clear that, even as the exigencies of a hardening religious schism bit more keenly, the notion of the disputation as an institution and independent mechanism for mediating theological discussion continued to have traction. In reality, fact and faith concerning disputations were no longer 146  Loach, “Reformation Controversies” 375. 147  Cross, “Oxford and the Tudor State” 142. 148  The Works of Nicholas Ridley, ed. H. Christmas (Cambridge: 1841) 303. 149  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 72.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

139

aligned, but the ongoing power of that faith meant that the symbolic power of disputations, especially those at the Academy, could still lend legitimacy to doctrinal authoritarianism, and still had the power to convert. It is revealing that future statutes under both Mary and indeed Elizabeth would regulate university disputations much more carefully.150 The Marian Injunctions issued to the universities also required that all questions for theological disputation be approved by the Vice-Chancellor and two senior members of the divinity faculty; and, further, that during the disputation itself, anyone who ‘proposed anything against the truth of the orthodox faith’ was to clarify for the audience that they did so ‘only for the sake of the disputation’, thereby affirming orthodoxy.151 Such strictures, however, seem to reflect not just the continued influence of the disputational format, but also a deep concern for the risks of provocation and challenge they entailed, particularly those held in public. Words have wings, but do not always fly where they would, and the simple fact that a disputation involved a respondent and an opponent meant that unacceptable views could be given a very public airing. It is perhaps significant that the Council of Trent forbade disputation with heretics in an effort to prevent any such outcome152 – a form of enforced reticence to control resonance. 7

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter has been twofold. One goal has been to draw greater attention to these mid-Tudor debates and suggest their importance in the evolution of the English Reformation. Secondly, this essay has tried to understand the disputations that took place under Edward and Mary as part of a broader web of debates whose strands were interwoven and related. The vital connecting tissue comprised the theological subject matter itself – the doctrinal components of the Eucharist – but these disputations were also fundamentally linked in other ways, via the people involved, the arguments marshalled, and the sentiments articulated. When these disputations are set side by side, points of overlap can start to be identified between events not previously deemed to be associated, and it becomes possible to view them as a series of venn diagrams.

150  Morgan V., A History of the University of Cambridge 1546–1750 (Cambridge: 2004) vol. 2, 129. 151  Law, Contested Reformations 80; Shuger, “St. Mary the Virgin and the Birth of the Public Sphere” 335–336. 152  Rodda, Public Religious Disputation 73.

140

Nicholas

While many components of these disputations remained the same or similar, there was also a developmental trajectory. That was propelled by the dialectic that lay at the heart of the disputation itself and necessarily entailed response and reaction, as the construction of a platform in one debate provided a springboard for arguments in the next. This was particularly apparent in the treatment of the Fathers. To this extent, these disputations not only capture the nature of the theological schism which grew out of them, but also offer important insights into the intellectual reflexes and dynamics of the age. Increased interference by the authorities in academic life also helped shape the essence of these Eucharistic disputations. The imperatives of more rigid and carefully delineated religious settlements had an immeasurable impact on university disputations which had previously been accorded so much more freedom, and had been deemed to yield truths in and of themselves. Indeed, it was partly because of assumptions about a disputation’s power to access the truth that the entire disputational process became so heavily confessionalized.153 For Protestants especially, disputations became integral to the construction of an identity that defined itself against the Catholic Church. In the space of just a few years, the disputation became a key means to signal programmes of renewal and to demarcate certain official Reformation positions, an impetus that could emerge from the university just as much as from the regime. In turn, while the idea of the disputation as an equitable and useful forum for the production of sound conclusions continued to be held up almost as an article of faith, in practice, the debates themselves became increasingly constrained. Religious disputations by the 1550s more and more became a zero-sum game wherein one side wins and another loses, as opposed to a scenario in which two sides work equitably towards the truth. In parallel, it has also been possible to consider how further factors during this period impacted disputational form and practice. The dissertationes of 1547 and 1550 illustrated how individuals with an Arts affiliation began to trespass incrementally into traditionally theological terrain, applying their humanistic training and possibly helping to alter an established theological methodology. Part of the developmental story here concerns the important interplay between lay and clerical. Also of note was the extent to which personal 153  Novikoff, Medieval Culture of Disputation 171; Kretzmann – Kenny – Pinborg (eds.), Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy 27; Mobley S.S., Confessionalizing the Curriculum: the Faculties of Arts and Theology at the Universities of Tübingen and Ingolstadt in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century (Ph.D. dissertation University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1998) 137.

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

141

impulses, grievances and antagonisms left their marks on the disputations of this period. How could they not? The participants were real human beings, not just mouthpieces. Many were also members of the same circles, inhabiting and working in the same spaces. Several even knew each other very well, often from boyhood; proximity and intimacy might breed friendship, but it could also breed antipathy. As with the demands of confessionalization, such dynamics almost certainly contributed in practice to a certain diminution of real debate and to the ultimate truth-seeking goal of the disputation. This chapter has confined itself to a consideration of disputations which became inextricably bound up with the all-consuming and uncompromising maelstrom of Catholic and Protestant conflicts. Within the remit of the Eucharist, the disputational form was accorded a major role in the evolution of thought and official positioning, and it came to be manipulated and excessively directed. At the same time, belief in the disputation’s ability to deliver the truth suffered little erosion. I close this chapter with the thought that it was this increasingly exalted sense of the institution of disputation and the continued belief in its efficacy to arrive at meaningful conclusions that would be so relevant in the years that followed. Bibliography

Primary Works

A Proclamation against the vnreuere[n]t disputers and talkers of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ (London, Richard Grafton: 1547). Ascham Roger, Apologia pro Caena Dominica in Theological Works, ed. E. Grant (London, Francis Coldock: 1577/8). Ascham Roger, The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. J.A. Giles, 3 vols. (London: 1865). CCCC (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College) MS 102. CCCC MS 106. Foxe John, Acts and Monuments Online (1983) at , accessed 1 March 2019. Hutchinson Roger, The image of God, or laie ma[n]s booke in whyche the ryghte knoweledge of God is disclosed, and diuerse doutes besydes the principall matter (London, John Day: 1550) in The Works of Roger Hutchinson, ed. J. Bruce (London: 1842) 1–208. Hutchinson Roger, A Faithful Declaration of Christes Holy Supper comprehended in Three Sermons preached at Eton (London, John Day: 1560) in The Works of Roger Hutchinson, ed. J. Bruce (London: 1842) 209–288.

142

Nicholas

Persons Robert, A review of ten publike disputations or conferences held within the compasse of four years, under K. Edward and Qu. Mary, concerning some principall points in religion, especially of the sacrament & sacrifice of the altar (Saint Omar, François Bellet: 1604). Philpot John, Vera expositio disputationis institutae mandato D. Mariae reginae (London, H. Singleton: 1554) translated into English as The trew report of the dysputacyon (Basel, A. Edmonds: 1554). Ridley Nicholas, The Works of Nicholas Ridley, ed. H. Christmas (Cambridge: 1841). Simler Josias, An oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divine D. Peter Martyr Vermillius, etc. in The Commonplaces of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter Martyr (London, Anthony Marten: 1583), sigs. Ppiir–Rriiv. Vermigli Pietro Martire, Disputatio de eucharistiae sacramento habita in celeberrima universitate Oxoniensi in Anglia in McLelland J.C., The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549 / Peter Martyr Vermigli; Translated and Edited with Introduction and Notes (Kirksville, Mo.: 2000) 133–292.



Secondary Works

Alford S., Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: 2002). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19, 2 (2004) 129–187. Collinson P., “John Foxe and National Consciousness”, in Highley C. – King J.N. (eds.), John Foxe and his World (Oxford – New York: 2002) 10–36. Cooper C.H., Annals of Cambridge, 5 vols. (Cambridge: 1842–1908) vol. 2, 24. Craig H., “Religious Disputation in Tudor England”, The Rice Institute Pamphlet 37, 1 (1950) 21–47. Cross C., “Oxford and the Tudor State from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of Mary”, in McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3 (Oxford 1986) 117–149. Davies C., A Religion of the Word: the Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (Manchester: 2002). Elton G.R., Reform and Reformation: England, 1509–1558 (London: 1977). Enders J., Rhetoric and the Origins of Medieval Drama (New York: 1992). Euler C., Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich, 1531–1538 (Zurich: 2006). Evans G.R., The University of Oxford: a New History (London – New York: 2010). Evans G.R., The Roots of the Reformation: Tradition, Emergence and Rupture (Downers Grove: 2012). George T., Reading Scripture with the Reformers (Downers Grove: 2011). Gorham G.C., Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears (London: 1857).

MID-16TH CENTURY DISPUTATIONS ON THE EUCHARIST IN ENGLAND

143

Greenslade S.L., The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church – An Inaugural Lecture (Oxford: 1960). Haaugaard W.P., “Renaissance Patristic Scholarship and Theology in Sixteenth-Century England”, Sixteenth Century Journal 10 (1979) 37–60. Heywood J., Collection of Statutes for the University and Colleges of Cambridge: Including Various Early Documents (London: 1840). Kirby T. – Campi E. – James III F.A. (eds.), A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli (Leiden – Boston: 2009). Kirby T., Persuasion and Conversion: Essays on Religion, Politics and the Public Sphere in early Modern England (Leiden – Boston: 2013). Kretzmann N. – Kenny A. – Pinborg J. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: 1982). Lamb J.A., A Collection of Letters, Statutes and Other Documents from the Manuscript Library of Corpus Christi College (London: 1838). Law C., Contested Reformations in the University of Cambridge, 1535–1584 (Woodbridge: 2018). Leader, D.R., A History of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge: 1988). Linehan P. (ed.), St John’s College, Cambridge: a History (Woodbridge: 2011). Loach J., “Reformation Controversies”, in McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 3 (Oxford 1986) 363–396. Loades D., John Foxe and the English Reformation (Aldershot: 1997). MacCulloch D., Thomas Cranmer: a Life (New Haven – London: 1996). MacCulloch D., Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London: 1999). MacCulloch D., “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer” in Campi E. – James III F.A. – Opitz P. (eds.), Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation (Geneva: 2002) 173–201. MacCulloch D., Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London: 2003). Mack P., Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic (Leiden – Boston: 1993). McCoog T.M., “Review: Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626, written by Joshua Rodda”,  Journal of Jesuit Studies 2, 2 (2015) 343–345. McGrath A.E., The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: 1987). McNair P.M.J., “Peter Martyr in England” in McLelland J.C. (ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Ontario: 1980) 85–105. Mobley S.S., Confessionalizing the Curriculum: the Faculties of Arts and Theology at the Universities of Tübingen and Ingolstadt in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1998). Morgan V., A History of the University of Cambridge 1546–1750 (Cambridge: 2004).

144

Nicholas

Nicholas L.R., Roger Ascham’s ‘A Defence of the Lord’s Supper’: Latin Text and English Translation (Leiden – Boston: 2017). Novikoff, A.J., Medieval Culture of Disputation (Philadelphia: 2013). Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. T.H. Robinson, 2 vols. (Cambridge: 1846–1847). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (‘ODNB’) online at https://www.oxforddnb .com, accessed 1 March 2019. Rex R., “Sixteenth Century”, in Linehan P. (ed.), St John’s College, Cambridge: a History, (Woodbridge: 2011). Richards J., Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature (Cambridge: 2003). Rodda, J., Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626 (London: 2016). Ryan L.V., Roger Ascham (California: 1963). Scott Amos, N., Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism: The Exegete as Theologian (Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London: 2015). Shuger D., “St Mary the Virgin and the Birth of the Public Sphere”, The Huntington Library Quarterly 72, 3 (2009) 313–346. Sloane T.O., On the Contrary: the Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric (Washington D.C.: 1997). Stanglin K.D, The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text and Notes (Leiden: 2010). Strype J., The Life of the Learned Sir J. Cheke (Oxford: 1821). Wright D.F., Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community (Cambridge: 1994). Zuidema J., Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace (Göttingen: 2015).

chapter 5

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford Tommi Alho Summary In this chapter, I present an overview of public disputations at seventeenth-century Oxford, discussing the central role they played not only as regular exercises but also as degree requirements. First, I give a brief survey of the seventeenth-century Oxford curriculum and the organisation of disputation exercises. Second, I address specific types of disputations, discussing some of the surviving examples. The discussion is mostly confined to the seventeenth century, when a humanistic character had been reinstated to the undergraduate curriculum, giving new vigour to public disputations.

In 1602, a speech by John Howson entitled Uxore dimissa propter fornicatio­ nem aliam non licet superinducere (‘Having put aside a wife for adultery it is not lawful to take another’) was published by the Oxford university printer.1, 2 According to the title-page, the speech was the third thesis proposed and disputed by Howson when he incepted as doctor of theology in 1602. The theses (or questions) he disputed, together with those of several other incepting doctors, were attached at the end of the volume. Howson’s questions were: An matrimonium sit sacramentum? Neg. An liceat causa adulterii uxorem dimittere? Aff. An uxore adultera dimissa liceat aliam superinducere? Neg.3

1  I am grateful to William Barton, Anthony W. Johnson and Richard Serjeantson for valuable comments on a draft of this paper. Moreover, I wish to thank Elizabeth Sandis for her assistance with the Oxford congregation registers. 2  Howson John, Uxore dimissa propter fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1602). For Howson’s speech, see also Mack P., Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: 2002) 60–61; Mack P., “Declamation in Renaissance England”, in Calboli Montefusco L. (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric VIII. Declamation (Rome: 2007) 129–155 (147–148). 3  Howson, Uxore dimissa, sig. A2v.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_006

146

Alho

Is marriage a sacrament? Neg. Is it permissible to divorce a wife on grounds of adultery? Aff. Having put aside a wife for adultery is it lawful to take another? Neg. While by the early seventeenth century the printing of disputation questions beforehand had become customary at Oxford, Howson’s speech presents us with a rare example of a printed disputation text that survives from early modern England.4 Dearth of surviving disputations may be one of the reasons why relatively little attention has been paid to the English university disputations so far. Further, the existing scholarly work on the topic has, understandably enough, focused on specific types of disputations, leaving the overall picture somewhat obscure.5 In this chapter, I attempt an overview of the university disputations at Oxford, discussing the central role they played not only as weekly exercises but also as degree requirements. Moreover, I shall confine my discussion to the seventeenth century, when a humanistic character had been restored to the undergraduate studies, giving new vigour to disputations.6 Accordingly, most of our source material comes from this period. However, to put the disputations in context, a brief survey of the seventeenth-century Oxford curriculum will be in order. The curriculum for the BA and MA degrees was stipulated by the Nova sta­ tuta of 1564–5 until 1636, when these were replaced by the Laudian statutes.7 I will outline the curriculum as prescribed in the Laudian statutes, which go 4  Cf. p. 157 fn. 44 below. The only complete disputation as yet to come to light from early modern England is an MA disputation from late sixteenth century Cambridge (British Library, Cotton MS Faustina D II). For a discussion on this disputation, see Costello W.T., The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Cambridge, MA: 1958) 19–27. 5  Apart from Costello’s study, some other exceptions include Fletcher J.M., “The Faculty of Arts”, in McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. III: The Collegiate University (Oxford: 1986) 157–199; Feingold M., “The Humanities”, in Tyacke N. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford: vol. IV: Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: 1997) 211–357 (302–305); Frank R.G., “Medicine”, in ibidem 505–558 (526–532); Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric 49–75; Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society Monograph 15 (Cambridge: 2009). 6  McConica J., “Humanism and Aristotle in Tudor Oxford”, The English Historical Review 94 (1979) 291–317 (294); Sanderson Robert, Logicae Artis Compendium, ed. E.J. Ashworth (Bologna: 1985) xxxiv–xxxv; Feingold, “The Humanities” 302–304. 7  Statuta antiqua universitatis Oxoniensis, ed. S. Gibson (Oxford: 1931) 378–390; Statutes of the University of Oxford Codified in the Year 1636 under the Authority of Archbishop Laud, Chancellor of the University, ed. J. Griffiths (Oxford: 1888), hereafter cited as Statutes. For an English translation of the Laudian statutes, see Oxford University Statutes, vol. 1, trans. G.R.M. Ward (London: 1845).

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

147

on to delineate the syllabus in somewhat more detail while introducing little change. Each year was divided into four terms, and of the four years leading to the degree of BA the first was devoted to grammar and rhetoric. From their second year on until they were presented for the degree of BA, scholars were required to attend lectures on logic and moral philosophy. Greek began in the third year and continued until the bachelors were promoted to the MA degree. Geometry was also studied after the second year but continued only until the completion of the first bachelor year, being then replaced by lectures in astronomy. History, natural philosophy, metaphysics and Hebrew were reserved for the studies leading to the degree of MA, which took up to three years to complete. Furthermore, students were required to attend musical exercises once a week for two hours.8 After being promoted to the MA degree, the young scholar could continue his studies in one of the higher faculties of theology, law or medicine. Three more years of study were required for anyone wishing to be admitted to the bachelor’s degree in law or medicine, whereas the statutes prescribed four more years for the doctorate. Seven and four years, respectively, were required to complete the equivalent degree within theology.9 Apart from attending lectures, and for the higher degrees also giving lectures, the scholars were required to participate in several disputations stipulated by the statutes for each degree. Perhaps the best description of the organisation of these exercises, as no complete disputation seems to have survived from early modern Oxford, is offered by Robert Sanderson’s Logicae artis compendium (1615). Sanderson’s work, which was to become the most popular logic textbook in seventeenth-century England, was the result of lectures he gave while a reader in logic at Lincoln college, Oxford, from 1608 to 1610. The treatise consists of three parts, where Sanderson summarises the chief Aristotelian doctrines, and two appendices, of which the first, among other things, instructs its readers in the writing of themes and the argumentation of disputations.10 In his use of dialectic, Sanderson’s approach to disputations is humanistic, reflecting the educational changes of the previous century, which gave the study of classical languages and literature a central role in the curriculum.11 Consequently, the disputations changed in character so that in place of ‘logical subtleties and the deft handling of sophisms’, as Ashworth has 8  Statutes 34–38, 247–248, 262–263. 9  Ibidem 60–65. In relation to lectures, terms, residence and similar provisions, the statutory requirements were often dispensed with, and should therefore be taken as general guidelines. For an impressive list of dispensations, see Register of the University of Oxford, vol. ii, pt. 1, ed. A. Clark (Oxford: 1887) 11 pp. and passim. 10  Sanderson, Logicae 243–329. 11  Feingold, “The Humanities” 214–215; Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric 57.

148

Alho

it, ‘is an emphasis on the presentation of straightforward, clear arguments, intended to establish truth’.12 After some preliminary remarks,13 Sanderson explains in his appendix that at English universities it is customary to present a specific thesis (such as ‘Metalla sunt invicem transmutabilia’ ‘Metals are mutually transmutable’) or a question (‘An metalla sint invicem transmutabilia?’ ‘Are metals mutually transmutable?’). The question should be put forward by the opponent or the moderator, whereas the respondent is to declare his opinion on the question in what Sanderson calls the suppositio. It should be either rigid and peremptory (‘rigida et peremptoria’) or rational and satisfactory (‘rationalis et satisfactoria’). The first suppositio consists only of a simple statement of affirmation or denial, and is to be used in the ordinary disputations of scholars and bachelors in Oxford public schools. The second, consisting of a detailed account of the respondent’s reasons for answering in affirmative or negative, is to be reserved for disputations in private colleges, as well as for the solemn public disputations. A full account of different types of disputations will be offered below. Next, it is the opponent’s turn. He should begin with a short preliminary statement (oppositio), particularly in solemn disputations, before proceeding to his first argument, which should counter the respondent’s conclusion. The respondent replies by first repeating the opponent’s objection and then by denying it. In reply, the opponent may demand a more detailed response or present a new argument. Then the respondent will repeat the argument and deny or accept it, whereas the opponent may again demand a more detailed reply or propose a new argument. The disputation continues until the respondent has nothing left to deny (e.g. when the opponent has won the argument) or when the time allotted for the exercise has elapsed. The moderator’s duty is to make sure that the disputants adhere to the prescribed forms, to help the disputants in their argumentation when needed, and to conclude the disputation with a brief decision on the question and to give a summary of the whole disputation.14

12  Ashworth in Sanderson, Logicae xxxv. 13  Among other things, he gives some examples of questions not to be discussed in disputations. These include, e.g., those that are empty, senseless and worthless (‘vanae, ineptae et nugatoriae’), such as ‘An vulpes saltans in vacuo excitet pulverem?’ (‘Does a fox dancing in a vacuum raise dust?’). See Sanderson, Logicae 284. 14  Sanderson, Logicae 282–308. See also Ashworth in Sanderson, Logicae lii–liii; Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric 58–59.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

149

The first exercises junior students working for the degree of BA had to attend were known as disputations in parviso (or in parvisis).15 These exercises took place on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 1 pm until 3 pm in the public schools of arts, and scholars were bound to attend them from the end of their first year until they took the degree of BA. Every scholar had to dispute at least twice, once as a respondent and once as an opponent. Three scholars disputed at one time on three questions, which were to be on grammar or logic. The most senior of the three acted as respondent and the two others as opponents. After the student had completed two years at the university, he could respond pro forma. The questions had to be presented one week in advance to the four regent masters (known in this capacity as the magistri schola­ rum), nominated by the proctor to preside over the disputations.16 At eight o’clock, on the morning of the disputation day, the respondents were obliged to post their questions, together with their names and colleges, on the doors of the public schools. Then the scholars assembled at the university church of St Mary’s from where they were escorted to the public schools by sub-bedels. When the disputations were over, the scholars who had disputed pro forma gathered in the school of natural philosophy in order to be created general sophists (sophista generalis). There one of the four regent masters made a short speech in which he was required to exhort the scholars to the study of classical literature and to praise Aristotelian and genuine dialectics. Thereafter the regent master handed each candidate a copy of Aristotle’s Logic and placed a simple hood over his shoulders and around his neck. The new general sophists were required to continue attending the disputations in parviso at least once a term, obviously in order to provide opponents for the exercises, until they supplicated for the BA degree. Apart from disputing in parviso, the students, having spent at least four terms studying logic, were required to respond twice for an hour and a half under a bachelor who was going to ‘determine’ at Easter (see below).17 When the student had attended lectures and gone through his disputations, he could apply to be presented to the degree of BA.18 While – statutory requirements excluded – nothing seems to survive of the above-discussed exercises (which were, after all, viva voce), we are somewhat 15  The term seems to derive from a Latinisation of the French loanword ‘parvis’, referring to the portico of a church or the room above it. The disputations came to be called ‘in parviso’ from being originally held there: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ‘parvis’. 16  Regent masters were newly created MAs who had to remain at the university for approximately two years lecturing to the arts students. For the regency system, see Fletcher J.M., “The Faculty of Arts” 185–187, 197–198. 17  Statutes 45–49. 18  For this rather intricate process, see Register 27–49.

150

Alho

more fortunate when it comes to the disputations prescribed for the degree of MA. Four types of exercises were stipulated for this degree: determinations during Lent, quodlibet disputations, Austin disputations and declamations. The newly created bachelors were bound by the statutes to attend the disputations known as ‘determinations’ during the Lent following admission (determi­ nationes quadragesimales). On the Saturday before Ash Wednesday (known as Egg Saturday), the determining bachelors elected two ‘collectors’ (collectores determinantium) from among their ranks. The collectors had two obligations. First, they had to divide the determiners into ‘classes’ so that everyone could dispute twice. In the second half of the seventeenth century, it became customary to print these timetables as single-sheet charts. Accordingly, in 1668 the bachelors were divided into twelve classes, which was the usual number. The first class had their first disputation on February 10th, the second class on 11th and with subsequent classes following suit, while the second disputation of the first class took place on the 27th, of the second class on the 28th and so on. There were twelve determiners in 1668, again the usual number, of which the first disputed in the school of natural philosophy, the second in the school of anatomy, and likewise through the other schools represented.19 The second obligation of the collectors had to do with levying the fees for the University and the officials involved. The disputations began with a formal ceremony on Ash Wednesday, when the determining bachelors led by the deans proceeded from the colleges to their respective schools. The Laudian statutes are rather vague in discussing what happens next, simply stating that the dean or the presenting officer proposed questions accompanied by explanatory verses to each of the determining bachelors. The determining bachelor was to repeat the questions after which one of the senior bachelors answered the questions on his behalf. When the disputations were ended, the first determining bachelor in each school gave thanks to the dean or the presenting officer and to the senior bachelors. However, John Ayliffe, a lawyer and a fellow of New College, who became BA in 1699,20 gives a somewhat different description of these disputations: [T]he Dean or Presentator mounts the Pew, and has three Questions propounded to him in Natural Philosophy, with Verses read, briefly explaining 19  O  rdo Baccalaureorum determinantium in Acad[emia] OXON[iensi] per Quadragesimam. An[no] 1667/8. Besides 1668, the charts of determining bachelors survive at least from the years 1670, 1672, 1674–1678, 1680–1695 and 1698. 20  Barnes J., Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford 1500–1714, vol. 1 – early series (Oxford: 1891) 48, s.v. ‘Ayliff, John’.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

151

the Sense thereof, by each of the Determiners; which Questions and Verses, as soon as propounded and read, one of the Senior Batchelors takes upon him to answer the Dean, who is always Opponent, after the Dean has propounded a Syllogism or two to his Determiner; who thereupon prays his Aristotle (for so is the Senior Responding Batchelor called) to answer for him, as long as the Dean shall think fit: And these Disputations hold and last from One a Clock till Five in the Afternoon, when the first Determiner in each School, in the Name of the rest surrounding, on his bended knees, ought to return Thanks to the Dean and the Aristotles, or Senior Batchelors, under a certain Form of Words too needless here to express[.]21 In other words, Ayliffe reports that the determining bachelors proposed the questions and verses to the dean, who acted as opponent. A collection of printed determination verses from 1723, which shall be discussed below, indeed suggests that the verses were composed by the bachelors themselves. The determinations proper began on the first Monday of Lent and took place on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday afternoons and on Friday mornings, continuing until the Friday preceding Palm Sunday. The questions on Friday were on grammar, rhetoric, politics or moral philosophy, and on other days on logic. According to the Laudian statutes, the bachelors were expected to adhere to the Aristotelian doctrines in their answers.22 At least two examples pertaining to the Lenten determinations survive in print. In 1723, a collection entitled Carmina quadragesimalia was printed in Oxford. It contains Lenten poems composed by students of Christ Church and recited in the School of Natural Philosophy by the determining bachelors of the same college.23 Thomas Hearne, an Oxford antiquarian writing in the early eighteenth century, reports that the collection contained ‘all the considerable Verses at our Ashwednesday’s Exercises, that have been made by the Christ-Church Gentlemen, w[hi]ch, indeed, have been remarkable for their Excellency’.24 The volume consists of 166 poems in elegiac couplets between six and twenty lines long. It seems that the questions were recycled to a certain extent. For instance, the volume records three different poems for the 21  Ayliffe John, The Antient and Present State of the University of Oxford, vol. ii (London, Edmund Curll: 1714) 122; cf. Hall, Cambridge Act 76–77. 22  Statutes 50–55. 23  Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab ejusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata (Oxford, Sheldonian Theatre: 1723). A second volume under the same title was published in 1748. 24  Quoted in Bill E.G.W., Education at Christ Church Oxford 1660–1800 (Oxford: 1988) 247.

152

Alho

Aristotelian question ‘An natura agat frustra?’ (‘Does nature do anything in vain?’), to which the correct answer was always ‘no’. The same recycling applies to such questions as ‘An anima sit divisibilis?’ (‘Is the soul divisible?’), ‘An detur vacuum?’ (‘Is there a vacuum?’), ‘An quantitas sit divisibilis in infinitum’ (‘Are quantities divisible in infinitum?’) and ‘An ars sit perfectior Natura?’ (‘Is art more perfect than the nature?’). The purpose of the poems was to scrutinise the questions though in a rather humorous vain. As a representative example, I quote the following one: An Sonus sit Luce velocior? Neg. Xantippe tacitas sub pectore concipit iras, Si vir forte redit potus ab urbe domum. Ille videt tetricae nebulosum frontis amictum, Et tempestatis signa futura timet. Fulgur ab ignitis pernix scintillat ocellis, Sero sed certo fulmine lingua tonat.25 Is sound faster than light? Neg. Xanthippe harbours hidden anger in her breast, in case the husband comes home drunk from town. He sees the cloudy vesture of the frowning forehead, and fears the coming signs of the tempest. Swift lightning sparkles from the fiery eyelets, surely tonight her tongue will thunder with lightning. Another example of printed determination questions is a volume entitled ΠΥΘΑΓΟΡΑΣ ΜΕΤΕΜΨΥΧΟΣ sive theses quadragesimales (Oxford, Richard Davis: 1651). According to the title-page, the volume contains six questions maintaining Pythagorean positions to which Charles Potter, a bachelor of Christ Church, had responded as a collector in public schools in 1650. The questions were: ‘An caeli sint fluidi? Aff.’ (‘Are the heavens fluid?’), ‘An terra moveatur? Aff.’ (‘Does the earth move?’), ‘An terra sit universi centrum Neg.’ (‘Is the earth the center of the universe?’), ‘An Luna sit habitabilis? Neg.’ (‘Is the moon habitable?’), ‘An radii luminosi sint corporei? Aff.’ (‘Are rays of light corporeal?’) and ‘An Sol sit flamma? Aff.’ (‘Is the sun a flame?’). The answers to these questions consist of lengthy speeches, which were, it seems, actually composed by Potter’s tutor, Thomas Severne.26 Although the questions as such 25  Carmina 31. 26  Wood Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses, 4 vols. (London: 1813–1820) vol. 3, ed. P. Bliss, 649.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

153

are scholastic in nature, the answers rather draw on the contemporary astronomy lectures at Oxford, reflecting the incorporation of the subject even into undergraduate teaching.27 Moreover, the speeches make little use of dialectics (no premises or fallacies are mentioned), following rather the arrangement of a classical oration. Argumentation is clear and detailed. As such, I take them to represent respondent’s opening speeches (Sanderson’s suppositio above) at the bachelor determinations. After the completion of his determination, every bachelor seeking an MA had to respond or oppose annually pro forma at the so-called Austin disputations (disputationes in Augustinensibus).28 If the bachelor was following the normal course of study, this meant two disputations in total. The disputations took place on Saturdays from 1 to 3 pm in the school of natural philosophy. Two masters appointed by the proctors were to preside over the disputations while two bachelors acted as collectors. It was the collectors’ duty to see that the disputations were not closed ahead of time and to nominate the respondent and the opponent in case no-one had volunteered to dispute pro forma. Again, the respondent had to present his questions to the master of the schools one week in advance and to fix them on the doors of the school three days before the disputation. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any questions or texts surviving from the Austin disputations. This is also the case with the quodlibet disputations in which the Laudian statutes required one response to three questions after the bachelor had completed his determination. The opponent was to be preferably one of the regent masters but any other person who wanted to dispute could also take his place.29 Before the bachelor could proceed to the degree of MA he was further required to give six lectures in the public schools, three of which were to be on natural and three on philosophical topics. It was specifically stipulated that the lectures should be of their own composition, not borrowed from elsewhere or copied from authors.30 Finally, the bachelors had to participate in declamations.31 The Laudian statutes simply prescribed two declamations pro

27  Feingold M., “The Mathematical Sciences and New Philosophies”, in Tyacke (ed.), Seventeenth-Century 359–448 (379). 28  The disputations took their name from the convent of the Augustinian friars in Oxford where the disputations were originally performed. See Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ‘Austin’. 29  Statutes 55–58. 30  Ibidem 58. 31  For declamations in early modern England, see Mack, “Declamation”; for Oxford, Fletcher, “The Faculty of Arts” 193–194.

154

Alho

forma for the bachelors.32 However, the Statuta Aularia from 1636 discuss the declamations in more detail, specifying that both undergraduates and bachelors must attend these rituals in their halls on Saturdays: the former were to write themes (themata) and the latter to give their declamations orally.33 The purpose of including declamations within the degree requirements is perhaps best illustrated in a 1662 addition to the Laudian statutes,34 where it is made clear that those who are to advance to master’s degree should not only excel in philosophical disputations but also show mastery of literae humaniores.35 According to the statutes, first, the proctor was to divide the declaimers, all from different colleges, into groups of three and to give them notice to appear before him at least one month in advance. On that occasion, the bachelors had to present him with three propositions, reasonably defendable on both sides. Out of these, the proctor was to choose the most suitable one on which two of the bachelors then declaimed, the third acting as moderator. As with the disputations, the propositions were to be fixed on the doors of St Mary’s church and the school of natural philosophy on the morning of the declamation day. The bachelors intending to declaim were required to meet every Tuesday at St Mary’s from where the Bedel of Arts escorted them to the school of natural philosophy. There, both declaimers mounted the pulpits and gave their speeches in turn. It was the moderator’s duty to ensure that neither religion, morals, public discipline nor the character of any individual was offended. In such an event, the moderator had to silence the speaker, who was subsequently subject to severe punishments for his offences, including expulsion in serious cases. Having completed his course, the bachelor was formally examined by the regent masters. The examination was to be not only on philosophical but also philological topics, and the masters were to pay special attention to the candidate’s ability to express his thoughts in Latin.36 After the examination, the bachelor could supplicate for the degree of MA, becoming ‘inceptor in Arts’ (inceptor in artibus) obliged to ‘incept’, that is, to attend the degree ceremony within a year. Those seeking degrees in one of the three higher faculties of theology, law, and medicine, or in music, were also to incept in their respective fields on the same occasion. Naturally enough, disputations were also prescribed for the higher degrees. All the masters and bachelors in the faculties were required to attend disputations classified as ‘ordinary’ (disputationes ordinariae). In the 32  Statutes 50. 33  Ibidem 270. 34  Ibidem 303. 35  Cf. Fletcher, “The Faculty of Arts” 193–194; Feingold, “The Humanities” 215. 36  Statutes 88–89.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

155

faculty of theology, these took place ten times a year, and only twice in the faculties of law and medicine. No disputations were required from those seeking a degree in music, somewhat a rarity in any case; instead they were to compose and perform musical pieces. If I have interpreted the statutes correctly, which are somewhat obscure in this regard, the pro forma disputations for the bachelor’s degree took place during the ordinary disputations. In theology and law, the masters had to oppose twice and respond once but the medical students were to oppose and respond only once to each. Furthermore, bachelors were required to give public lectures, theologians also a Latin sermon, before they could proceed to incept. The questions, of which there were two in every subject, and the names of the opponents and the respondent, were to be fixed on the doors of the schools and on the walls of All Souls and Oriel colleges.37 The inception proper, or the ‘Act’, consisted of two parts, the ‘Vesperies’ (in vesperiis) and the ‘Comitia’ (in comitiis). The Comitia was to take place on the second Monday of July and the Vesperies on the preceding Saturday. The ceremonies opened with a solemn procession from St. Mary’s church to the schools, where the inceptors invited the professors currently on the lecturing agenda to attend the Vesperies. The disputations were to take place in the afternoon from 1 to 5 pm. Originally, inceptors in Arts disputed in St Mary’s but in 1669 the disputations were transferred to the newly built Sheldonian Theatre. Inceptors in law, medicine, theology and music disputed in their proper schools. For the Vesperies in Arts, the disputations were to be on three philosophical questions. Due to the high number of masters incepting every year, it had become customary to select only a few of them to respond on behalf of all the inceptors. The senior proctor nominated a respondent, called the junior inceptor in this capacity, who was to respond to all three questions. The senior proctor took the role of opponent, being required to confirm the argument in the first question. Thereafter, the pro-proctor and the so-called terrae filius (see below) were to dispute on the second question. Finally, the junior pro-proctor had to oppose on the third question. All the inceptors were required to attend the disputations under penalty of a fine. When the disputations ended, the senior proctor was to recite some of the questions delivered to him beforehand together with explanatory versicles to each of them. It is my impression, although the statutes are imprecise in this respect, that sometime before the ceremonies all the inceptors were required to propound three

37  Ibidem 59–65, 80–84.

156

Alho

questions from among which the ones to be disputed at the Vesperies and the Act were selected.38 The bachelors in the higher faculties were required to propose three questions as well, accompanied by explanatory verses. On this occasion, however, all the inceptors were to dispute one after another. The questions had to be communicated to the doctors or bachelors of the faculties, who were to act as opponents, in good time before the ceremony. In theological and juridical Vesperies, the Regius professor and one of the law students, respectively, were to act as moderators, whereas in case of medical Vesperies no specific individual is prescribed for this role. The disputations were followed by a dinner offered by the inceptors to the doctors in their respective faculties.39 On Monday morning, all the inceptors assembled in St Mary’s church for solemn prayers after which the disputations for the Act began. On this occasion, all the disputations took place in the same premises, until 1669 in St Mary’s and thereafter in the Sheldonian Theatre. The inceptors in Arts were to dispute first. Once more, there were three questions to which one of the masters was chosen to respond. This time, however, there were five opponents all together: the so-called magister replicans, who had been the respondent last year; the senior proctor, who on this occasion was known as pater comitiorum (‘the father of the Act’); terrae filius; pro-proctor; and, finally, the junior proctor. When the disputations were ended, it was the duty of the father to hand the respondent a book, to put a cap on his head and to give him a kiss.40 The inception in Arts was followed by the musical one, in cases where there was someone to take a degree in music.41 Naturally enough, no disputations were required for this degree; instead the inceptor was to compose and perform a piece of six or eight parts for voices and instruments. It seems to be the case, however, that the inceptors gave short speeches before the performance, although the statutes make no mention of such a requirement.42 The Acts in medicine, law and divinity followed thereafter with a similar procedure for each of them. First, the Regius professor in each faculty gave a short speech after which he created the doctors by delivering a book to each of them, placing a cap on their heads and a ring on their fingers, and by giving 38  Ibidem 68–69, 76–77. 39  Ibidem 69–71. 40  Ibidem 72–73. 41  Music degrees were awarded very infrequently, especially after the Restoration: Gouk P.M., “Music”, in Tyacke (ed.), Seventeenth-Century 621–640 (622–625). 42  See Henderson F., “Music Speeches at Early-Modern Oxford”, in Postlewate L. – Hüsken W. (eds.), Acts and Texts. Performance and Ritual in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Amsterdam – New York: 2007) 337–357.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

157

them a kiss. After the creation, the senior inceptor propounded three questions, taking the role of the opponent on the first one. Next, the rest of the inceptors opposed in order, the second one on the second question and the third on the third question. If there were more than three inceptors, the fourth would oppose again on the first question and so on. When the disputations were over, the vice chancellor closed the Act with a solemn speech.43 Printing the disputation questions beforehand became customary in the seventeenth century.44 The earliest of these seems to be the one appended to John Howson’s 1602 speech mentioned above. The attachment prints twelve sets of Vesperial questions in theology, including Howson, and two in law, while the philosophical questions have been omitted. Further, three theses discussed in comitiis are recorded: Panis et Vinu[m] in Caena Domini non transubstantiantur in Corpus et Sanguinem Christi. Missa papistica nullam habet authoritatem ex Sacra Scriptura. Communio est administranda sub utraque specie omnibus fidelibus. Bread and wine do not transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ at Lord’s Supper. The Popish Mass has no authority from the Sacred Scriptures. Communion is to be administered to the faithful in both kinds. These are followed by in vesperiis and in comitiis questions disputed by the two inceptors in law. Unusually, three exemplary versicles for the questions disputed by the senior inceptor in theology are also recorded.45 The versicles are 43  Statutes 73–75. 44  Printed questions (usually entitled as Quaestiones in sacra theologia discutiendae Oxonii in vesperiis) survive at least from the years 1602, 1605, 1608, 1614, 1618, 1619, 1621, 1624, 1627– 1630, 1632–1635, 1639, 1640, 1651–1654, 1657, 1661, 1663, 1664, 1669, 1671, 1673–1677, 1679, 1681–1683, 1693. Questions are also recorded in the Oxford congregation registers. Those from 1576 to 1622 are printed in Clark (ed.), Register 170–217. 45  The exemplary versicles were rarely printed at Oxford. Apart from the two examples discussed above, I have come across only two other instances. These are Thomas Savile’s De philosophia, panathenaicae duae: in comitiis Oxonii habitae (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1586), which prints two speeches both preceded by three exemplary versicles on philosophical questions; and Theses M[agist]ri Bret respondentis in comitiis (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1597), which includes verses for three theological theses in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic. However, Act (or ‘Commencement’) verses were regularly printed in Cambridge. For these, see Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society Monograph 15 (Cambridge: 2009);

158

Alho

in elegiac couplets, adopting perhaps a somewhat more elevated and serious tone compared to those recorded for the Lenten determinations. Howson’s published speech had to do with his third question in vesperiis, ‘having put aside a wife for adultery is it lawful to take another?’ According to Howson, the first two questions were less controversial, and for this reason he decided to devote all his time to the third one.46 Howson begins by reviewing the main biblical texts, after which he states the question at hand: does the dispensation given to the Jews concerning divorce and remarriage apply only in case of adultery or in other cases as well? After reviewing the opinions of theologians, Howson gives six arguments supporting his view that Christ forbade the divorced husband from remarrying. Finally, he replies to certain objections and concludes his speech by stating that divorce may only be granted on grounds of adultery and that remarrying is not allowed. Though it makes use of some dialectical terminology, the speech draws more on the structure of an oration than on the traditional model of disputation.47 Another example of printed in vesperiis speeches are James Cooke’s three juridical theses published in 1608.48 In his first and third theses, Cooke upholds the lawfulness of the proceedings against Henry Garnet, the Jesuit priest executed in 1606 for his complicity in the Gunpowder Plot, from the point of view of both civil and canon law. In the second, Cooke argues for king’s sovereignty, specifically in matters of religion. As an example, I quote the first of his unusually lengthy theses: Omnis subditus, etiam sacerdos, quoquo modo etia[m] per sacramentalem confessionem, sciens coniurationem co[n]tra Principem obstinate susceptam, et non revelans, poena capitis afficiendus.49 Every subject, even priests, even those bound by the seal of the confessional, who knows of a conspiracy that is resolved upon against the Sovereign, and who does not reveal it, is to suffer capital punishment. Again, the speech makes little use of dialectics, adhering rather to the diction and arrangement of a classical oration, though flavoured somewhat by legalese. Barton W., “Singing the study of sound: Literary engagement with natural philosophy in the act and tripos verses of Oxford and Cambridge”, in this volume. 46  Uxore dimissa, sig. A3r. 47  Here I mainly repeat what Peter Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric 60–61, has written. 48  Cooke James, Iuridica trium quaestionum ad maiestatem pertinentium determinatio (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1608). 49  Cooke, Iuridica, sig. A3r.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

159

I take both Cooke’s and Howson’s speeches to represent a respondent’s opening speech (or suppositiones) in the Vesperial disputations. While the Oxford disputations in general have received relatively little scholarly attention, this is not the case with the so-called terrae filius speeches.50 The terrae filii (‘sons of the earth’) were the two appointed jesters of the philosophical disputations, and it was in part due to their presence that the Act drew large audiences.51 If the original purpose of the terrae filius speeches had been to give a lighter tone to the disputations, by the mid-seventeenth century they had been very much reduced to whimsical attacks against the university establishment.52 A notorious case was the scandal caused by the 1669 terrae filius speech by Henry Gerard, an MA from Wadham College. As a terrae filius Gerard opposed William Watts’s second question in vesperiis, ‘An omnis sensus sit tactus?’ (‘Is all sensation touch?’), to which the correct answer was negative. This is how Gerard began his speech: Let the regent and non regent doctors beware! For, in faith, between the fourth and fifth hours I will be touching them all! Though I am shouting like this, I’m not a Bedell, but a Terrae filius: or if I am a Bedell, it’s only because I chastise people. My question is Philosophical, but when I touch upon the Doctors, like them when they dispute today, I won’t make any distinction. I’ll even touch the Doctors’ wives – for why shouldn’t a Terrae 50  For discussion of the terrae filius speeches, see Wordsworth C., Social Life at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: 1874); Smith B. – Ehninger D., “The Terrafilial Disputations at Oxford”, Quarterly Journal of Speech 36 (1950) 333–339; Holford-Strevens L.A., “Some Seventeenth-Century Terrae filii: Evidence in the Bodleian”, Bodleian Library Record 11 (1984) 260–263; Green V.H.H., “The University and Social Life”, in Sutherland L.S. – Mitchell L.G. (eds.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. V: The Eighteenth Century (Oxford: 1986) 309–358 (350–352); Gibson W.T., “The suppression of Terrae Filius in 1713”, Oxoniensia 54 (1991) 410–413; Feingold, “The Humanities”, in Tyacke N. (ed.), 303–305; Henderson F., “Putting the Dons in their Place: a Restoration Oxford Terrae Filius Speech”, History of Universities 16, 2 (2000) 32–64; Haugen K., “Imagined Universities: Public Insult and the Terrae Filius in Early Modern England”, in Goldgar A. – Frost E.I. (eds.), Institutional Culture in Early Modern Society (Leiden – Boston: 2004) 317–346. 51  Wood reports an audience of above 2000 in 1693, ‘as many as in the great Act 1669’. See Wood Anthony, The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, Antiquary, of Oxford, 1632–1695, Described by Himself, ed. A. Clark, 4 vols. (Oxford: 1891–1895), vol. 3, 427. The 1669 Act, however, was to a certain extent a special occasion as it was the first time the Act took place in the newly erected Sheldonian Theatre. The number of incepting bachelors was also somewhat higher than usual: nine in theology, three in law and five in medicine. See Quaestiones in s. theologia discutiendae Oxonii in vesperiis (Oxford, Lichfield: 1669). 52  Feingold, “The Humanities” 303. For the role played by the terrae filii, see Henderson, “Putting the Dons”; Haugen, “Imagined Universities”.

160

Alho

filius touch the Doctor’s wives, when the Doctors themselves touch their wife’s maids? And I’ll also touch some townsmen – not, however, their wives, for they are oppressed by the disease they call ‘touch me not!’ Gerard spent the next hour making personal attacks on various members of his audience, including the vice-chancellor and the mayor of Oxford. This is what Gerard had to say about a Frenchman teaching at Oxford: I’ve named him the French Ape of Christ Church; and I call him an ape because not long ago he was with some whores, and lost his tail. Behold the homunculus, a Gaul of several categories! He is French inside and out, French right down to his bones and marrow; three or four times this year he went to London, where daily he became more French. It’s rumoured that he recently ate the Paschal lamb with the Jews, and he seems to be a Jew himself – for although he is French he performs countless rites with his prick. But let him depart to his own place – that is, to the Fellinian Theatre.53 No wonder, then, that Gerard was subsequently expelled from the university. The terrae filii, however, were not the only ones to add to the entertaining character of the Oxford Act. In 1657, the respondent in the philosophical disputations in vesperiis, Robert South, gave brief orations on each of the three questions.54 These were: An caelum agat in inferiora? Aff. An plus valeant ad Scientiam acquirendam aures quam oculi? Aff. An vanum sit ex somniis praesagium Aff. Does heaven move in its lower spheres? Are ears more important than eyes for acquiring knowledge? Is a premonition received from dreams deceptive?

53  Trans. in Henderson, “Putting the Dons” 49, 54. 54  Quaestiones in sacra theologia discutiendae Oxonii in vesperiis, undecimo die Julii, An[no] Dom[ini] 1657 (Oxford, A. Lichfield: 1657); South Robert, Opera posthuma Latina (London, Edmund Curll: 1717) 21–46. In South’s Opera, the orations are incorrectly titled as terrae filius speeches delivered at the Comitia. In fact, South’s second question was refuted by Daniel Danvers, the terrae filius of the Vesperial disputations in 1657; see Holford-Strevens, “Some Seventeenth-Century Terrae filii” 261; Haugen, “Imagined Universities” 319 n. 9.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

161

South’s speeches seem to be more in line with the original tone intended for the Act entertainments, holding to the usual academic jesting. For example, in addressing the first question, South makes an observation that: Quod ad Lunam attinet, aliqui censent esse Caseum; et ipse paene credo; nam spatio unius noctis, ex quo Cantabrigienses huc venerunt, observavi eam multum decrescere. O faelices Animas separatas! quas aiunt in Concavo Lunae suaviter sedentes, juxta Elementum Ignis Caseum torrere. Sed revera quamvis Philosophi (ut dictum est) probant in caelis lacteam esse viam, non possunt tamen Caseos inde conficere. Volunt aliqui Oxonium esse Caelum; nec immerito, cum tot Vespertina hic sydera intuear; Si autem Oxonium sit Caelum, quidni dicam Illustrissimum Medicorum Bedelli nasum esse Stellam primae magnitudinis?55 With regard to the moon, some think it to be cheese; and I almost believe it myself, for within a period of one night since the Cantabrigians arrived here, I have observed it to decrease a great deal. Oh blessed souls of the departed, who, they say, pleasantly sit on the moon’s concave, roasting cheese next to the Element of Fire. But in fact, as it is said, although the Philosophers judge there to be a Milky Way in heavens they cannot yet procure cheese from there. Some would have Oxford to be heaven, and not undeservedly, when I look at all the evening stars here. And if Oxford is heaven, why shouldn’t I say that the nose of the most Illustrious Bedel of Physicians is a star of the first magnitude. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, with changing political currents and a new public image of the university, the terrae filius speeches fell into oblivion together with the Act itself.56 Between 1686 and 1692, no Acts were held at all, and after that very infrequently. After the 1693 Act, the next to take place were in 1703, 1713 and, finally, in 1733.57 Since the opening of the Sheldonian Theatre in 1669, the Act had been accompanied on the preceding Friday by an annual commemoration of benefactors and founders, known ever since as the Encaenia. Consisting of elaborate Latin poems and orations,

55  South, Opera 27. 56  Haugen, “Imagined Universities” 337. 57  The Lenten determinations, however, were still being held in the 1770s. See, Napleton John, Considerations on the Public Exercises for the First and Second Degrees in the University of Oxford (1773) v–vi; Hall, Cambridge Act 77.

162

Alho

which were given by undergraduates and bachelors of highest social standing, it came to replace the Act as the main social event of the academic year. Selective Bibliography Primary

Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab ejusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata (Oxford, Sheldonian Theatre: 1723). Cooke James, Iuridica trium quaestionum ad maiestatem pertinentium determinatio (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1608). Howson John, Uxore dimissa propter fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere (Oxford, Joseph Barnes: 1602). Ordo Baccalaureorum determinantium in Acad[emia] OXON[iensi] per Quadrage­ simam. An[no] 1667/8. Oxford University Statutes, vol. 1, trans. G.R.M. Ward (London: 1845). Potter Charles [Severne Thomas], ΠΥΘΑΓΟΡΑΣ ΜΕΤΕΜΨΥΧΟΣ sive theses quadragesi­ males (Oxford, Richard Davis: 1651). Quaestiones in s. theologia discutiendae Oxonii in vesperiis (Oxford, Lichfield: 1669). Register of the University of Oxford, vol. ii, pt. 1, ed. A. Clark (Oxford: 1887). Sanderson Robert, Logicae Artis Compendium, ed. E.J. Ashworth (Bologna: 1985). South Robert, Opera posthuma Latina (London, Edmund Curll: 1717). Statuta antiqua universitatis Oxoniensis, ed. S. Gibson (Oxford: 1931). Statutes of the University of Oxford Codified in the Year 1636 under the Authority of Archbishop Laud, Chancellor of the University, ed. J. Griffiths (Oxford: 1888). Wood Anthony, The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, Antiquary, of Oxford, 1632–1695, Described by Himself, ed. A. Clark, 4 vols. (Oxford: 1891–1895).

Secondary

Costello W.T., The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth-Century Cambridge (Cambridge, MA: 1958). Fletcher J.M., “The Faculty of Arts”, in McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. III: The Collegiate University (Oxford: 1986) 157–199. Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society Monograph 15 (Cambridge: 2009). Haugen K., “Imagined Universities: Public Insult and the Terrae Filius in Early Modern England”, in Goldgar A. – Frost E.I. (eds.), Institutional Culture in Early Modern Society (Leiden – Boston: 2004) 317–346.

Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford

163

Henderson F., “Putting the Dons in their Place: a Restoration Oxford Terrae Filius Speech”, History of Universities 16, 2 (2000) 32–64. Mack P., Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: 2002). Mack P., “Declamation in Renaissance England”, in Calboli Montefusco L. (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric VIII. Declamation (Rome: 2007) 129–155. McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. III: The Collegiate University (Oxford: 1986). Sutherland L.S. and Mitchell L.G. (eds.), The History of the University of Oxford, vol. V: The Eighteenth Century (Oxford: 1986). Tyacke N. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford: vol. IV: Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: 1997).

chapter 6

Singing the Study of Sound: Literary Engagement with Natural Philosophy in the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge William M. Barton Summary In early modern Oxford and Cambridge the practice of disputation was, as in all contemporary university contexts, among the most common methods of educating and evaluating students throughout their careers. Despite their frequency and popularity, however, disputations at Oxbridge rarely came to print as dissertations, in stark contrast to the practice developed in universities elsewhere in Europe. Nonetheless, the topics under dispute among students in early modern Oxford and Cambridge (England’s only universities in the period) did find their way to publication, albeit in a form somewhat different to the continental dissertatio: Short poems known as ‘Act’ or ‘Tripos’ verses (composed mainly in Latin but sometimes in Greek or Hebrew) were produced regularly to commemorate and publicise disputation events from at least the mid-sixteenth century onwards. This contribution offers a study of a group of nine act and tripos verses marking disputation events on the science of sound in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. After an overview of the poetic genre in general and an introduction to contemporary study of sound (selected as one of the most frequently disputed topics in the period for which this poetry survives), this article focuses on the important evidence offered by the poems for their role in receiving and disseminating new ideas in early modern science. As we shall see, the verses’ blend of classical and contemporary literary themes suggests an atmosphere at the disputation events not simply of dry, occasional versification in ancient languages, but rather of lively alertness to popular cultural themes and their active employment to properly entertain an audience. The poems’ clever and often humorous engagement with their disputation themes reflects, moreover, the intense interest in questions of contemporary natural philosophical research in Oxford and Cambridge. The contribution finishes by suggesting that act and tripos verse may even have contributed to a growing curiosity around questions of natural philosophy among educated circles in the period.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_007

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

165

In stark contrast to the custom in numerous other early modern university contexts, England’s Oxford and Cambridge did not witness the widespread publication of their professors’ and students’ disputation proceedings as dissertationes. Whereas in Germany, for example, printed university dissertations numbered easily into their tens of thousands – already by 1764 German physician Carl Johann Heffter had collected over eighteen-thousand dissertation titles on natural philosophical topics alone1 – corresponding texts from England’s contemporary universities are few and far between. Nevertheless, the practice of disputation naturally belonged to the most common academic events at England’s early modern universities and, as elsewhere, consisted principally of a formalised debate in which students and professors attacked or defended a number of stipulated theses. Disputations took place regularly as part of the training of students, on special occasions, or in order to obtain a degree or a position at the university. While for Oxford and Cambridge we largely lack textual relics of these events in the form of dissertationes, there nonetheless remains a sizeable body of another sort of literary evidence for the university disputatio in England: the so-called ‘Act’ or ‘Tripos’ verses. While sporadically acknowledged and (even more rarely) discussed in earlier scholarship on England’s early modern university and literary scenes,2 it would take until 2009 for a dedicated study of this fascinating, if not somewhat curious, corpus of disputation-related literature to appear: J.J. Hall’s pioneering volume provides a wonderful overview and history of particularly Cambridge’s Act and Tripos verses, alongside a comprehensive bibliography of all surviving examples of this poetry from the years between 1564 and 1894.3 A more helpful and practical introduction to the field as a whole would be hard to imagine, yet studies of the ways in which Act and Tripos verses functioned as literary engagements with the concrete issues and questions under discussion at England’s university disputations are still very much lacking.4 1  Heffter Carl Johann, Museum disputatorium physico-medicum tripartitum (Zittau, J.D. Schöps: 1764). 2  We find, for example, mentions of the verses in Wordsworth C., Social Life at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: 1874) 19–21 and a more detailed treatment in Wordsworth C., Scholae Academicae: Some Account of the Studies at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: 1877) 231–244. Bradner L., too, treats Act and Tripos verses in Musae Anglicanae: A History of Anglo-Latin Poetry 1500–1925 (New York: 1940) 206– 207; 227 inter alia. 3  Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society 18 (Cambridge: 2009). 4  Lewis M.A. – Secci D.A. – Hengstermann C. with Lewis J.H. – Williams B., “‘Origenian Platonisme’ in Interregnum Cambridge: Three Academic Texts by George Rust, 1656 and 1658”, History of Universities 30, 1/2 (2017) 43–124 is a recent and notable exception, though

166

Barton

This paper will address precisely this shortage by means of a case study. It treats a group of nine Act or Tripos verses – six from Oxford and three from Cambridge – all composed by 1748 at the latest and dealing with a topic of significant interest for contemporary natural philosophy: air as a medium for the propagation of sound. Having identified this scientific theme as one of the more frequently disputed topics in the period for which the related poetry survives, this study aims to shed light on the various ways in which the authors of these verses treated the theses under dispute at Oxford and Cambridge, and how these themes were related to their respective audiences. More generally, a closer look at these verses’ engagement with the issues discussed at the universities’ disputationes should offer twofold results; an original perspective on the reception of early modern science within the universities’ walls, and a more detailed grasp of the character of Act and Tripos verses as a whole. In order best to approach these diverse issues, this contribution now offers first a brief general introduction to Act and Tripos verses at Oxford and Cambridge – following largely, of course, Hall – intended to allow readers a convenient opportunity to orient themselves broadly within this remarkable literary production. In a second section, the nine poems on the topic of air and the propagation of sound will be dealt with both in the context of the natural philosophical issues they address and in terms of their literary treatment of these topics. A brief concluding section will attempt to draw together the results of this study for the areas of interest outlined in the previous paragraph. 1

Act and Tripos Verses

In the simplest terms, Cambridge and Oxford’s so-called Act or Tripos verses were poems produced and published for a number of academic events where students took part in disputations and ‘incepted’ their degrees (when they graduated). The verses, written predominantly in Latin and Ancient Greek, but these scholars’ research focuses rather on the author, the philosophical context of his works and the translations of these that they offer, than on Act and Tripos verse per se. An excellent earlier study Fara P. – Money D.K., “Isaac Newton and Augustan Anglo-Latin Poetry”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Newton and Newtonianism 35, 3 (2004) 549–571, treats a number of Tripos verses at Cambridge as part of its overview of Newton in Anglo-Latin verse (554–556). For Ireland, Seanóir S.Ó. – Pollard M. provide a detailed overview of the events at Trinity College, Dublin, which saw the production of a similar kind of verse in “‘A Great Deal of Good Verse’: Commencement Entertainments in the 1680s”, Hermathena 130/131 (1981) 7–36. Given the existence of this study, and for the practical questions of space, I will confine myself to the English context here.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

167

also very occasionally in other languages,5 dealt with the topics under dispute at these events. In Cambridge, the poems were generally printed in pairs and circulated on broadsheets until the very end of the nineteenth century, though evidence of manuscript distribution exists for the very beginning of the tradition in the middle of the sixteenth century.6 At Cambridge, there were four days in the year primarily associated with the distribution of this sort of poetry: the first and second ‘Tripos’ days in Lent, and two ‘Commencement’ days around the beginning of July. Commencement saw masters of arts, along with bachelors and doctors in other areas become full holders of their degrees, while Tripos days were dedicated to graduating bachelors of arts. The verses were circulated whilst the student in question ‘kept Act’: seated on a three-legged stool (hence the name ‘Tripos’),7 he read out two theses, which he (as respondens) was then expected to defend against a number of opponents (opponentes) before a figure overseeing the event (the moderator) would give a final determination. The proceedings here, and the roles of the figures involved, are, of course, easily recognisable from the structure of the disputatio elsewhere in Europe at the time.8 The Act or commencement ceremonies in Oxford were similar to those celebrated in Cambridge: they took place over two days in early July and saw the inception of masters of arts, as well as graduates in law, medicine and divinity, where disputations would be held as part of the proceedings.9 Aside from the satirical speeches and poetry performed by the well-known figure of the ‘terrae filius’,10 verses were also produced on the topics of the disputations. These were, however, read out, and not, as in Cambridge, regularly printed or

5  A few verses were also produced in Hebrew but were not printed owing the lack of Hebrew types, Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 20. 6  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1. Out of convenience and following Hall (ibidem 3), I use here the phrase ‘Tripos verse’ to refer to the poetry under discussion from Cambridge, and ‘Act verse’ for that from Oxford. 7  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 4–5. 8  For an overview of the act of disputation on the continent see Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R., “Einleitung”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen: Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 7–25 (8). 9  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 73. For a new and much needed overview of disputation events in Oxford, focused on the seventeenth century, see Alho T., “Disputations at Seventeenth-Century Oxford”, in this volume. 10  For an overview of this genre of oration and an example see Henderson F., “Putting the Dons in Their Place: A Restoration Oxford Terrae Filius Speech”, History of Universities 16, 2 (2001) 32–64.

168

Barton

circulated. Surviving examples are thus few and far between.11 From Oxford’s Lent ceremonies, on the other hand, where verses on the topics under discussion in the disputationes carried out for the graduation of bachelors were also read out as part of the proceedings, there does exist a substantial collection of poems composed by students of Christ Church. A volume of these Carmina quadragesimalia first appeared in 1723.12 It is from the extended, two-volume 1757 edition of this collection that the six Oxford poems considered below are taken.13 In Cambridge, verses were apparently produced at both the commencement and Tripos acts with a degree of consistency from their earliest surviving (and definitely identifiable) example in 1565 until the start of the seventeenth century. Hall was unable to find any surviving examples of these verses between 1612/13 and 1628, and the civil war naturally interrupted the acts – particularly those for commencement – until 1650.14 Indeed, although the public commencements returned in the second half of the seventeenth century, along with their associated verses, their observance was far from regular and the university passed its ‘graces’ allowing the events to be celebrated privately for a significant number of years in the meantime. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the commencements had practically petered out altogether, seemingly due to the students’ unwillingness to foot the substantial bills for the convivia held after the event, traditionally, as elsewhere in Europe’s university systems, the respondents’ responsibility.15 The Lent ceremonies went on, however, apparently unaffected, and the accompanying verses composed between 1700 and 1800 largely survive. Whereas the topics disputed in the events 11  Hall identified and commented upon three surviving examples in Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 74–75. 12  Este Charles (ed.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata (Oxford, W. Jackson: 1723). For the extended publishing history of this collection see Bradner, Musae Anglicanae 282. 13  Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757). For the curious publication of this popular volume with a false Glasgow imprint, indicated here in square brackets, see Gadd I. – Eliot S. – Louis W.R., History of Oxford University Press: Volume I: Beginnings to 1780 (Oxford: 2013) 394. 14  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 15–17; 22. 15  Ibidem 26–27. For an example of the financial strain experienced by some students in paying for their disputation events in Germany see Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deutungsangebote”, in Gindhart – Marti – Seidel (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen 27–68 (30–32).

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

169

documented in this poetry had until now widely, but by no means exclusively, dealt with theological, or politico-religious themes – fitting the issues and interests of their age16 – the start of the eighteenth century saw the introduction of scientific (or natural philosophical) subjects with increasing frequency.17 However, by the start of the second half of the eighteenth century, the Tripos day event had changed considerably: though verses on relevant questions were still handed out, the disputations had been replaced by declamations made by more senior students. Over the course of the next fifty years, even these declamations were lost and the traditional verses were printed with simply a list of graduating students. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, they had faded away altogether, partly, it seems, on account of decreasing interest and talent among students in Latin poetry, and partly on account of the university’s response to their now frequently ribald and licentious content.18 The picture for Act verse production at Oxford – in light of the lack of a corresponding ‘Hall’ for this literature – is a good deal hazier, though an image can be pieced together, at least for comparison with the Tripos verses at Cambridge. As we have seen, the Act ceremony, corresponding to the commencements at Cambridge, did include poetry alongside its disputations, but these were not printed for distribution at the event. The disputations’ quaestiones were, however, published in lists divided into the different faculties for which they were employed – theology, law, medicine and philosophy – with the dates of the respective occasions. Though printed in significant numbers, few examples have come down to us.19 In the same way as the Cambridge commencement events, Oxford’s Act ceremonies were disrupted during the civil war, became less frequent throughout the second half of the seventeenth century and were last held in 1733.20 The Lent exercises, on the other hand, as in Cambridge, went on with a far greater degree of consistency from the sixteenth to later eighteenth centuries.21 The popular eighteenth-century volume of the carmina quadra­ gesimalia recited at these Lent ceremonies, as we have seen, preserves examples only from one college on specifically natural philosophical topics. It is to 16  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 17–18; 24–25. 17  Ibidem 38. The fact that the verses analysed in what follows of this contribution should come from precisely this period is no accident. 18  Hall on the period 1750 to 1802: Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 44–53. And for the nineteenth century, see ibidem 54–72. 19   Gadd – Eliot – Louis, History of Oxford University Press 296–297. 20  Tyacke N. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford. Volume IV. Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: 1997) 597–598; Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 73–74. 21  McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford. Volume III. The Collegiate University (Oxford: 1986), 181–184; Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 77.

170

Barton

this field and to our sample of the poems composed particularly for disputations on the propagation of sound that we will now turn our attention. 2

Act and Tripos Verse on the Propagation of Sound

The nine poems treated in the following case study were all certainly composed before 1748 and, in all likelihood, after 1660. The terminus ante quem can simply be limited to that of the year of publication of the Carmina quadragesimalia’s second volume, since the individual poems in the Oxford collection are neither dated, nor is their authorship indicated.22 The Tripos verses are, on the other hand, all helpfully dated following the increasingly standardised practice after 1650 of printing the details of the event, including the date, for which the pieces were written.23 The earliest of these four poems under consideration here from Cambridge was composed in 1721 while the latest was in 1740. As is the case for Oxford’s Act verses, the names of the poems’ authors were not printed on the broadsheets preserving the Tripos verses. For our earliest example, which was reprinted in the Musae anglicanae of 1741,24 Hall is able to offer an indication of its authorship, but the later two remain anonymous. The provisional, and cautious, date after which these pieces were composed is based simply on the convenient date of publication of Robert Boyle’s New experiments physico-mechanicall, touching the air (1660),25 a work recognised among historians of science today as an important contribution to the study of the properties of air, and thus the propagation of sound, from the English 22  While the authors of some poems (and thus sometimes their dates) are occasionally indicated in manuscript notes in surviving copies of the volumes, I have not been able to identify the authors of the six Act verses under discussion here. For the indication of authorship see Money D.K., The English Horace: Anthony Alsop and the Tradition of British Latin Verse (Oxford – New York: 1998) 361–362. 23  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 9. 24  The poem appears in Bourne Vincent (ed.), Musae Anglicanae, sive poemata quaedam melioris notae seu hactenus inedita, seu sparsim edita in duo volumina congesta, 5th ed. (London: Tonson and Watts, 1741) vol. 2, 208–210. For a condensed history of this anthology’s publication see Bradner, Musae Anglicanae 364. Our poem had also appeared in the same editor’s Bourne Vincent (ed.), Carmina comitialia Cantabrigensia (London, J. Redmayne: 1721). On Bourne’s engagement with Latin poetry as an author, but also as an editor see Storey M., “The Latin Poetry of Vincent Bourne”, in Binns J.W. (ed.), The Latin Poetry of English Poets (London: 1974) 121–149. Hall’s notes on the authorship of our Tripos verse appear in his catalogue of surviving poems in Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 205. 25  Boyle Robert, New experiments physico-mechanicall, touching the spring of the air and its effects (made, for the most part, in a new pneumatical engine) (Oxford, H. Hall: 1660).

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

171

context.26 We will return to the study of acoustics in early modern England below after turning quickly here to the formal characteristics of our poems first. The six Lenten Act poems from Oxford are short compositions of eight to fourteen lines in elegiac couplets. A glance at the rest of the Carmina quadra­ gesimalia shows this to be standard for this type of verse. They are accompanied by a title in the form of a question with a one-word indication of the position taken by the respondens during the Act. As becomes obvious already from the volume’s contents pages, these questions for disputation were frequently repeated, at least in Christ Church. The first poem in the collection on our theme, for example, is entitled An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, ‘Is air the vehicle of sound? Affirmed’, and the titles of the other five pieces considered here vary only in word order. To provide for comparison a negative example, our first piece is followed by a poem An natura aliquid agat frustra? Negatur, ‘Does nature do anything in vain? Denied’. All of the three pieces from Cambridge are composed in dactylic hexameter and they are, fittingly for the metrical choice, considerably longer than the Oxford examples:27 the longest, that from 1721, consists of seventy-seven lines, while the shortest from 1735 comes in at fifty. The titles of the Tripos verses are also somewhat different, but they also represent the propositions defended by the bachelors keeping act. Some are in the form of straightforward statements – Sonus propagatur per aerem, ‘Sound is propagated by means of the air’ (1721) – while others offer more concrete background for their theses – Recte statuit Newtonus de propagatione soni, ‘Newton is right about the propagation of sound’ (1740) – to take two examples from the group of natural philosophical poems treated here. Aristotle had already described the movement of sound through the air in his De Anima,28 but it wasn’t until the seventeenth century that a renewed and intensified interest brought considerable advances to understanding in the field.29 Galileo was able to identify the relationship between the frequency and 26  West J.B., “Robert Boyle’s Landmark Book of 1660 with the First Experiments on Rarified Air”, Journal of Applied Physiology 98, 1 (2005) 31–39. For an overview of ideas about sound in particularly the English context, and against the background of work on human hearing, in this period see Gouk P.M., “Some English Theories of Hearing in the Seventeenth Century: Before and after Descartes”, in Burnett C. – Fend M. – Gouk P.M. (eds.), The Second Sense: Studies in Hearing and Musical Judgement from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century (London: 1991) 95–113. 27  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 32, notes that by the end of the seventeenth century, over ninety percent of Tripos verses were now composed in hexameter. 28  Aristotle, De anima 420b. 29  For the birth of the field of acoustics in the early seventeenth century see Mancosu P., “Acoustics and Optics”, in Daston L. – Park K. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science (Cambridge: 2006) 596–632 (604–11). In a lighter but still

172

Barton

pitch of sound in his Discorsi of 1638,30 while Gassendi and Mersenne made early attempts to calculate the speed of sound in 1635 and 1636 respectively.31 In England, Francis Bacon had set out a number of experiments and ideas for research related expressly to the study of sound – ‘one of the subtillest pieces of nature’ – in his programmatic but unfinished natural history, the Sylva sylvarum in 1626.32 Alongside numerous assertions of the by now widely accepted idea that sound is propaged through the air,33 Bacon also addresses a number of related topics that would be of interest to thinkers, and to our poets here, in the coming century: he speculates on the relevance of the density of the air and of other mediums, including water and solids, to the propagation of sound,34 as well as on the effects of humidity.35 And he also considers the influence of a medium’s temperature for the transmission of sound in a number of scenarios.36 In the wake of Bacon’s proposed experimental approach, members of the Royal Society in the decades that followed would bring solid results to the study of sound.37 Central among these efforts in the English context were Robert Boyle’s experiments with varying air pressure using the air pump he designed with Robert Hooke. Improving on similar experiments useful overview Windelspecht M. locates the beginnings of the study of sound around the same time in Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the 19th Century (Westport, CT: 2003) 214. 30  For an excellent overview of Galileo’s research on sound see Baskevitch F., “L’élaboration de la notion de vibration sonore: Galilée dans les Discorsi”, Revue d’histoire des sciences 60, 2 (2007) 387–418. 31  For these two French contributions to the field see Lenihan J.M.A., “Mersenne and Gassendi – An Early Chapter in the History of Sound”, Acustica 2 (1951) 96–99. A useful list of some historical calculations of the speed of sound can be found in Finn B.S., “Laplace and the Speed of Sound”, Isis 55, 1 (1964) 7–19 (8). 32  In what follows I have used the posthumously published edition of 1670: Bacon Francis, Sylva Sylvarum, or A Natural History in Ten Centuries (London, J.R. for W. Lee: 1670). This quote can be found at Century II, experiment 114 (32). 33  E.g. II.125 (35); III.217 (52). 34  On the density of air see, for example, II.143 (38): ‘Sounds are better heard, and further off in an evening, or in the night, than at the noon or in the day. The cause is, for that in the day, when the air is more thin (no doubt) the sound pierceth better; but when the air is more thick (as in the night) the sound spendeth and spredeth abroad less; and so it is a degree of enclosure’. On water and solids see, inter alia, III.217 (p. 52). 35  I II.218 (p. 52). 36  Cf. II.160 (p. 40), and interestingly, albeit not entirely accurate III.231 (p. 54): ‘In frosty weather music within doors soundeth better; which may be, by reason not of the disposition of the air, but of the wood or string of the instrument, which is made more crisp, and to more porous and hollow’. 37  On this research until 1680 see Gouk P.M., “Acoustics in the Early Royal Society 1660– 1680”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 36, 2 (1982) 155–175.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

173

performed by Otto von Guericke and Athanasius Kircher, by 1660 Boyle and Hooke were able to provide evidence of the reduction in the propagation of sound as air pressure decreased,38 ‘which seems to prove, that whether or not the air be the only, it is at least the principal medium of sounds’.39 Critically, too, Boyle and Hooke’s work provided a good deal of support for the wave theory of sound propagation, which was already widespread, but which still faced opposition from the ‘special particle’ theory.40 This model, defended into the later-seventeenth century by Athanasius Kircher, for example, had held that a specific sort of particle produced by the individual source of a sound travelled through space to a listener’s ear.41 On the back of Boyle’s work, Isaac Newton dealt with the propagation of sound in his Principia mathematica. In the first edition of 1687 he calculated its speed at 968 feet/second.42 By the time of the work’s later editions, however, he had improved his theoretical result to 979 feet/second,43 only now too slow by fifteen percent. Newton’s calculations still fell somewhat short of the latest contemporary experimental results obtained by William Derham in 1709, however, which came in at 1142 feet/second – remarkably close to today’s figure of 1125 feet/second. Newton acknowledged this problem and his particulate concept of matter allowed him to see that the pressure, temperature and humidity of the air would influence his result.44 The gap between Newton’s theoretical calculation and experimental results would not be resolved until Pierre Simon, marquis de Laplace understood that a sound wave’s compression and rarefaction of air particles caused a change in local temperature that allowed the sound to travel faster.45 The nine poems that accompanied disputations taking place at Oxford and Cambridge on these natural philosophical topics can usefully be grouped according to the specific themes their authors chose to highlight in their verses, as well as according to the stories, characters or topics they selected to poetically illustrate their composition’s thrust. The six Act verses from Oxford offer 38  Boyle, New experiments physico-mechanicall, experiment §27. 39  Ibidem 110. 40  Also called the ‘quality’ theory in Mancosu, “Acoustics and Optics” 605–606. 41  Kircher Athanasius, Musurgia universalis, sive ars magna consoni et dissoni in X libros digesta. 2 vols. (Rome, Corbelletti: 1650). He discusses the propagation of sound at vol. 1, 18–19 and in the corollary to this section vol. 1, 21. 42  Newton Isaac, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (London, J. Streater: 1687) 370–371. 43  Newton Isaac, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica 3rd ed. (London, W. and J. Innys: 1721) 373–374. 44  Ibidem 373. 45  For Newton’s dilemma and Laplace’s solution see Finn, “Laplace and the Speed of Sound” passim and in particular 9–10.

174

Barton

a convenient introduction to the scientific themes our authors were interested in, as well as to the general literary devices employed in these verses, since – owing most likely to their shorter length and in typical lyrical style – they tend to treat one idea with one conceit. The longer Tripos verses from Cambridge offered their authors sufficient space to blend and move between ideas and literary themes. We will come to these more involved Cantabrigian pieces, then, after meeting many of our key topics in the more compact Oxonian verse. The first of our Act verses in the collection, I.22,46 introduces one theme of acoustic research that appears to have particularly interested authors and audiences at the Lenten disputations in both Oxford and Cambridge: it deals with the effect of colder air temperatures on the propagation of sound and refers to contemporary experiences with bitter winter weather in poetic treatment of the phenomenon. The piece opens with a phrase sketching these harsh weather conditions: Aspera plus solito cum saevit bruma […] ‘When harsh winter rages more than usual […]’, before introducing a figure Dierus who bemoans the climate and begs forgiveness from the kind reader si nil / portet ab externis charta hodierna plagis, ‘if today’s paper doesn’t bring anything from foreign shores’. Dierus explains that boats are stuck in frozen seas (lines 4 and 5) but that there is the hope that once spring returns and Zephyrus blows again, Britones, multum vobisque mihique / […] advehet aura novi, ‘Britons, the winds of news will bring […] much both for you and for me’. As the invented name Die-rus, ‘Day-ly’ suggests – and the phrase charta hodierna seems to confirm – the poem refers to England’s first daily newspaper The Daily Courant, established in 1702, and the problems it would have had receiving news from abroad in the winter.47 The fact that the paper was dedicated exclusively to international news means that this lack would have been all the more urgent.48 Moreover, the extreme weather conditions that England and large parts of the rest of Europe experienced in the so-called ‘Great Frost’ of 1708/9 certainly caused numerous problems – and not only for The Daily Courant. In a detailed report on the Frost, its extent 46  Given the lack of authorship information and their very similar titles, I will simply use the volume and page number of the poems in the expanded 1757 edition of the Carmina quadragesimalia as a shorthand identifier for the individual poems under consideration in what follows. They are: I.26, I.40, I.47, II.22, II.39 and II.91. For the full details of each, please refer to the bibliography’s first section below. 47  This explanation of the poem’s theme must remain provisional since, unlike a number of other poems published in the Carmina quadragesimalia, it is not accompanied by a clarificatory footnote. For the position of The Daily Courant as the first of England’s daily paper see Williams K., Read All About It!: A History of the British Newspaper (London: 2009) xi. 48  For the newspaper’s dedication to news from abroad, particularly the Netherlands and France, see Williams, Read All About It! 54.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

175

in Europe and the damage it caused written by William Derham for the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions,49 he emphasises the extraordinary bitterness of the season and quotes at length from a German dissertatio dedicated to the same phenomenon, which also underlines the insolitus prorsus frigor;50 the same issue emphasised in our poem’s first line. What the cold and the lack of news heard from abroad has to do with contemporary natural philosophical interest in acoustics is perhaps best explained by turning our attention to another of the verses from Oxford, I.47. This piece also opens with an image of wintry conditions at sea: Puppis Hyberboreas inter stat fixa pruinas, ‘a ship sits motionless among Hyperborean frosts’. But the reader is transported in line two directly to ‘Nova Zembla’, where, Aere concreto, sonus est compressus; amicum Navita compellat, vox utriusque silet. Diffugiente gelu, sonus est resolutus; amico Nauta tacente tacet, vox utriusque strepit. (2–4) While the air is frozen, sound is compressed; a sailor Shouts to his friend, but the voices of both are silent. When the ice melts, sound is released; now even when both The sailor and his friend are quiet, both of their voices are shouting. We have seen – in the English context – that research from Bacon up to Newton was very interested in the relationship of air temperature to sound propagation. Indeed modern understanding of the way sound travels underlines temperature as the major variable affecting the speed of sound in air, increasing at about 1.1 feet/second for every half a degree centigrade.51 But a note on this poem directs us to Sir Richard Steele’s and Joseph Addison’s magazine The Tatler, where issue 254, on 23rd November 1710, purports to offer readers ‘an extract of Sir John [Mandeville’s] journal, in which that learned and worthy knight gives an account of the freezing and thawing of several short speeches

49  Derham William, “The History of the Great Frost in the Last Winter 1703 and 1708/9”, Philosophical Transactions 26, 324 (1708) 453–478. 50  Wolff Christian (Pr.) – Remus Georg (Resp.), Consideratio physico-mathematica hyemis proxime praeterlapsae (Halle an der Saale, C.A. Zeitler: 1709). Derham cites the dissertation given to him by John Woodward in “The History of the Great Frost” 458. 51  Everest F.A. – Pohlmann K., Master Handbook of Acoustics (New York, NY – Chicago, IL: 2009) 6.

176

Barton

which he made in the territories of Nova Zembla’.52 In this – invented and falsely attributed53 – extract a group of sailors find themselves in the freezing north. After housing themselves in wooden cabins on land to pass the winter, they begin to notice a strange effect: We soon observed, that in talking to one another we lost several of our words, and could not hear one another at above two yards distance […] After much perplexity, I found that our words froze in the air before they could reach the ears of the person to whom they were spoken. When the wind changed, however, and warmer weather came in, the group first began to hear softer sounds, which had ‘melted’ and were now released back into the air: These were soon followed by syllables and short words, and at length by entire sentences, that melted sooner or later, as they were more or less congealed; so that we now heard every thing that had been spoken during the whole three weeks that we had been silent. As a good deal of cursing – and the names of ‘several beauties in Wapping’ – are eventually heard, the comical nature of this story is finally confirmed.54 Another of our Oxford Lenten verses apparently attempts humour, though perhaps this was more fitted to eighteenth century tastes than it is to today’s. Poem I.40 opens with a conjux asperrima ‘a most embittered wife’ whose continuous quarrelling leaves her husband, the indignans sartor ‘resentful tailor’, at the end of his tether; et pax nulla domi est, otia nulla foris ‘There’s no peace at home, and no quiet out of doors’ (line 2). The cruel husband then ties up his wife and plunges her three or four times into a nearby lake. The poor lady desperately struggles in the water (lines 3–6) before the tailor tells her,

52  Addison J. – Steele R., The Tatler 254 (23rd November 1710). 53  As far as I have found, the surviving tales of the fourteenth century Jean de Mandeville do not contain a record of a journey to Nova Zembla, probably intended to refer to the artic archipelago Novaya Zemlya off the west coast of today’s northern Russia. The Tatler article already hints at the satirical nature of the account in its Horatian epigraph ‘Splendide mendax’ and the ironic tone of its opening paragraphs. 54  Steele and Addison perhaps found inspiration for their fiction in Plutarch’s Ethica I.5.7 (Steph. Quis suos 79a), where he relates the similar story that Antiphanes told.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

177

[…] satis est, conjux, absiste moveri; Quas prius aura tulit, comprimet unda minas (Lines 7–8) […] Enough, wife, stop moving; Your threats, which the air once carried, the water now suppresses. Here we hear an engagement with the theme of both the effect of humidity on the propagation of sound, as well as with the idea that – for the human ear – air ‘is at least the principal medium of sounds’.55 Whether the tailor, or indeed the author of this unpleasant little poem, would have been happy had they understood that the wife’s shouting would actually have been travelling faster through the water’s more densely arranged particles, we will never know. Another two of the Act verses in our group introduce a further theme, which in terms of its very regular occurrence perhaps belongs among the most important for Tripos and Act verse overall. Poems II.22 and II.39 both treat the theme of sound in the context of ancient myth; more precisely, they draw on contemporary literary engagements with mythical moments in the classical tradition. II.22 situates the reader immediately in the world of classical myth with the opening line Blanda Echo, nemorum cultrix, gratissima Nympha, ‘Alluring Echo, native of the woods, a Nymph most fair’. A typical countryside scene is next painted in lines 2–4, qua violis pictas valles et florea rura/ Maenander tacitis mordet amoenus aquis, ‘where vales decorated with violets and flowery fields/ lovely Menander wears down with his quiet stream’. But a note has already directed us to Milton’s masque, the Comus (1634),56 where we find at lines 230–3: Sweet Echo, sweetest Nymph that liv’st unseen Within thy airy shell By slow Meander’s margent green, And in the violet imbroider’d vale […] II.22 is thus revealed to be a reasonably close imitation of the Lady’s first song in Comus (lines 230–43) in which the abandoned character calls on Echo to help her locate her brothers in the forest, where she will eventually encounter the debauched Comus who tests her temperance and chastity. Aside from the obvious general relevance of the phenomenon of echo for the theme of 55  Boyle, New experiments physico-mechanicall 110. 56  [Milton John], A Mask presented at Ludlow Castle, 1634 (London, H. Robinson: 1637).

178

Barton

acoustics, the author of this poem perhaps intended to bring to the reader’s mind Newton’s famous experiment for the speed of sound by timing the echo in the 207-feet long cloister of Nevile Court, at his home in Trinity College, Cambridge.57 The second of these Act verses that calls on classical myth (probably) by way of contemporary literature is II.39. Here Ovid’s story of Cephalus and Procris is treated,58 in which the suspicious Procris is betrayed by the sound of her rustling into a hiding place to spy on her husband Cephalus, who is out hunting. He, mistaking the sound for an animal, kills Procris with the same unerring spear he had previously received as gift from her. The story was taken up in English literature prominently in Cephalus and Procris; Narcissus, a 1595 poem by Thomas Edwards.59 As for its relationship to the study of acoustics in early modern England, Act verse II.39 perhaps simply aims to underline the importance of the field; for Procris one sound became a question of life or death. The last of our Act verses, II.90, is the most straightforward in that it deals very directly with the theme proposed in its title. The author paints a very quiet and placid countryside scene in the opening verses: Sternitur unda silens late; sola aequore toto Lenia prolabens murmura prora ciet. (3–4) Silent water spreads out far and wide; a single prow On the water’s entire surface slips forward with a gentle whisper. Only at the very middle of the poem (line 7) are the first louder sounds heard; campanae pulsae, ‘ringing bells’. These are followed by birdsong, the lowing of cattle and the tinkling (tintinnabula, line 9) of a ram’s bell. The nice counterpoise between the two halves of the poem is now resolved in its final couplet, where the poet, for – remarkably – the first time in our Act verses on sound, addresses its core theme directly: Hos fractos longe sonitus, haec murmura caeca Aura vehit; cesset flatus, et illa silent. (11–12) 57  For this experiment see Newton, Principia mathematica (1687) 371. 58  Ovid, Ars amatoria III.685–746; Metamorphoses VII.490–VIII.5. 59  Edwards Thomas, Cephalus and Procris; Narcissus. Aurora musae amica (London, J. Wolfe: 1595).

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

179

These sounds produced far off, this confused noise The air carries them; should its breath cease, also they fall silent. Turning now to the Cambridge Tripos verses, we will see that alongside the use of mythology, references to both classical and popular vernacular culture, and humorous scenes that we have commented upon in Oxford’s Act verse so far, this more direct approach to the theme under disputation is more widespread. The blend of these various poetic approaches to the theme of sound’s propagation through the air is conveniently demonstrated in the 1735 Tripos verse entitled Aer est vehiculum sonorum.60 The hexameter poem starts with a programmatic call to the ancient god Apollo in the form of a question (lines 1–5). There then follows a poetic description of the propagation of sound and human hearing (lines 6–16): […] hinc penetratque aures, omnesque pererrat Aeris unda aditus et crebra volumina miscet, nec mora, continuo resonant cava tympana pulsu. (10–12) Here the wave of air enters all ears and makes its way through them And having arrived, it stirs up rapid whirlings, And without delay these make the tympanic cavities resound with a continuous pulse. This passage leads to a section of sixteen lines on the harmony of the spheres, the idea that sees in the proportions of the movements of the planets, sun and moon a harmonious ‘musical’ arrangement. The concept was first formulated by Pythagoras but also witnessed a rich reception in the Renaissance and Early Modern period, where it was related to the study of sound – as it was among the ancients – in the parallel field of musical theory within acoustics. The final, and longest, portion of the poem (lines 33–50) takes us back to the Arctic Ocean and Nova Zembla: Illic, ut perhibent, voces tardantur euntes / constrictae cursu in medio (lines 42–3), ‘There, as some think, voices are slowed down while travelling, frozen in the midst of their course’. We thus meet together here a number of the themes we found individually in Oxford’s Act verse: 60  Cambridge University Archives (CUA) class mark MS.UA.Exam.L.4(16). Along with the information of the copies of the Cambridge poems referred to in what, I include the verse’s number in Hall’s catalogue, as well as the page number there for ease of reference: 1735.2 [A], 215.

180

Barton

references to classical literature and mythology, a more technical account of sound’s propagation, an allusion to contemporary English literary culture, and the suggestion that the author was thinking of specific themes inside acoustic research, here the harmony of spheres. In another approach, the earliest of our three Cambridge verses entitled Sonus propagatur per aerem (1721),61 also refers to the Nova Zembla story. This theme dominates, in fact, the first three quarters of the poem and it does not, thus, reach the quasi-didactic tone of our previous example. There is no attempt at an account of sound’s propagation in any formal sense, for example, as occurs in lines 6–16 of the later 1735 poem we have just read. The author does, however, innovate in his recounting of the Nova Zembla episode by mixing in a rough parallel for the cold air’s obstruction of sound from classical myth in lines eighteen to twenty-one: Here the jealous Juno, loquax nimis, ‘far too talkative’ (line 19), fills the air with her voice so that even her husband, tonantem, ‘the thunderer’ (line 20) himself cannot be heard. Moreover, later on in the piece (lines 49–55), after describing the ‘melting’ of the previously frozen voices and noises in the artic scene (33–48), the author introduces a new topic related to the various sounds of different languages: Namque leves verborum animae, quas Gallica fudit Lingua, fugam properant […] […] At contra, Hispano quicunque caducus ab ore exibat sonitus, tardo ferit organa pulsu (50–1; 53–4) For the light breezes of words, which the French Tongue pours out, make a hurried escape […] […] On the contrary, whatever sound, ready to drop, issuing from a Spanish mouth, strikes one’s ears with a slow thump. The poem’s last section returns to a scene similar to the one we found in Act verse II.90. Indeed, if that landscape could be described as pastoral, this scene becomes it literally, since with the mention of the names Phyllis and Lycoris (lines 68 and 69) we hear a strong echo of Virgil’s Eclogue I.5 in line seventy: Formosam doctae resonant Amaryllida sylvae, ‘The learned woods echo the 61  This is the piece reprinted in Bourne’s Musae Anglicanae 208–10. Hall: 1721.2 [B], 205.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

181

beautiful Amaryllis’. In this longer instance of Cambridge Tripos verse, the topic of the day’s disputatio per se, then, inspires only the sort of loose literary engagements with the theme of acoustics that we have already met elsewhere in this overview, even if they are put together here in often pleasing and novel ways. With the last of our examples, however, we encounter an altogether more imaginative treatment of the subject. The Tripos verse entitled Recte statuit Newtonus de propagatione soni was composed for the second commencement day of 1740.62 The overarching poetic framework of the fifty-three-line hexameter piece has the narrator falling asleep after reading Newton’s nobile opus, ‘famous work’ (line 2): Cum subito, mirum! sed quid non somnia fingunt? Ipse repentinis tranare levem aethera pennis Visus eram, trepidansque diu, atque incertus eundi, Huc illuc volitare novae sub imagine formae. (Lines 5–8) When suddenly, amazing! What can’t dreams invent? I saw myself cross the light air on swift Wings, fearful for a while and uncertain in my way, I was flying here and there under the appearance of a new form. In this state the author experiences various scenes, including the noisy and windy Sicilian kingdom of the ancient God Vulcan and his helpers Brontes, Steropes and Pyracmon (lines 12–18), as well as the sounds of civiles lites et tristia jurgia regum, ‘civil disputes and the sad quarrels of kings’ (line 25), where we meet again the Hispanus […] arduus ‘the difficult Spaniard’, the Gallus, ‘the Gaul’, along with the Persa minax, ‘the threatening Persian’ (lines 28–30). He also sees, in a more straightforward treatment of his subject, Newton’s account poetically bringing order to the air’s particles for the propagation of sound: […] ipse atria circum Ludere particulas vidi, informesque cavernis Haerere ambiguis, mox latius ire per auras, Concordesque statim formare et reddere voces. (Lines 23–26) 62  Trinity College Cambridge, X.12.48(h). Hall: 1740.2 [A], 218.

182

Barton

[…] I myself saw particles Playing around the halls, and gathering without shape In doubtful hollows, then soon I saw them move more widely through the air At once forming together harmoniously and rendering voices. In the second half of the poem, the author returns, as we would now expect, to themes from classical myth, as well as more recent cultural motifs.63 He also refers to the clangores, strepitus, aut faemineos ululatus, ‘clamor, racket, or feminine shrieking’ (line 40) we met in Oxford’s I.40. The poem’s final paragraph (lines 46–53), however, sets the dreaming author before an even wider range of sounds: the earth rumbles, the ocean groans and he hears the Anglicanum vastum leonem, ‘the huge English lion’ roar (46–50). To these powerful noises he awakes – stupeo inter somnia, pallor / occupat; exilii, ‘I am shocked in my dreams, paleness takes over; I started up’ (50–1) – only to discover it was all in his imagination and that he has, in fact, awoken to the bells calling him to church (51–3). While the insertion of this author’s engagements with the theme of sound within a dream is unique among the pieces considered here, dreams were – and still are – of course, a relatively common literary framework, which allowed imaginative treatment of a given topic. Perhaps the best-known example from Neo-Latin literature would be Justus Lipsius’ satirical Somnium (1581),64 though I do not detect the Fleming’s sardonic tone in our Tripos verse here. Rather we have a creative arrangement of the common Tripos and Act verse features already observed in the poems above; classical and contemporary cultural references, humour, and a loose poetic description of the science of sound. Two truly novel features of this final piece would be the eulogistic tenor of the opening lines (nobile opus, Newtone, tuum) and the appearance of a national symbol, the roaring lion in the final passage. 3

Conclusions

Oxford and Cambridge’s Act and Tripos verses offer fascinating perspectives on the universities’ disputation proceedings in the early modern period. As 63  From ancient myth the Nymphs emerge (line 39), along with Longus’ Chloe (42–45). The significance of Latomus for the poem, hailed in line 32–3 with O venerabile nomen / Angligenis, ‘O venerable name for the English’, has unfortunately escaped me. 64  Lipsius Justus, Satyra Mennipaea. Somnium. Lusus in nostri aevi criticos (Antwerp, C. Plantinus: 1581). A modern edition can be found in Lipsius Justus, Two Neo-Latin Menippean Satires, ed. C. Matheeussen – C.L. Heesakkers (Leiden: 1980).

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

183

Hall has already pointed out, the disputation events where these verses were handed out (in Cambridge) or read out (in Oxford) were public occasions,65 and the publication of the verses in more widely circulated volumes, as we have seen, testifies to their popularity among wider audiences. The disputations themselves would no doubt have offered a very learned impression of the universities’ scholars and students, but the verses could add something else: they put the students’ literary skills on display and could showcase their skills in classical language and poetic composition. Further still, as we learn from the modest group of nine poems considered here, they offered a humorous touch and participated in contemporary natural philosophical discussion – albeit broadly. The verses’ blending of classical and contemporary literary themes, which we have observed in almost all of the examples treated above, suggests an atmosphere at the disputation events not simply of dry academic versification in ancient languages but rather of lively alertness to popular themes and the active employment of these ideas to properly entertain an audience. Humour, naturally, formed an important part of these efforts but its character differs considerably in our nine poems from that of the famous terrae filius speeches, which openly satirised and mocked the universities and their ideas.66 Rather, the entertainment was to be found in literary games, inventive and bizarre takes on a disputation’s serious subject and occasionally more abrasive scenes (a thought must go here to the poor tailor’s wife). This focus on entertainment did not mean, however, that Act and Tripos verses ignored their disputations’ topics, even though from outside of the event’s context, as we have seen, one often has to work quite hard to find the connection between the disputation’s questions and the themes of their poems. In fact, the specific issues selected for poetic thematization in our verses on sound were often central themes for acoustic study at the time. Consider the frequent references to the effect of cooler air temperatures for the transmission of sound often illustrated by allusion to The Tatler’s Nova Zembla story, to take the most frequently mentioned example: while Bacon and Newton had both speculated on this matter in England, it would take nearly another century of work for Laplace to understand the crucial significance of air temperature and pressure for sound propagation. Perhaps the literary and more popular interest in this issue, which we have found emphasised in our Act and Tripos verses, reflects the intense interest in this topic in contemporary natural philosophical research. It could

65  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 20–21. 66  See Henderson, “Putting the Dons in Their Place” 32–64.

184

Barton

potentially have even contributed to a general growing curiosity in the question among educated circles. It is clear that much work remains to be done on Act and Tripos verse, both on a general level and in the details, in order to arrive at a fuller and more nuanced understanding of their context, character and aims. But in responding to Hall’s expression of hope that his study should open a door for students of Neo-Latin and Neo-Ancient Greek literature onto this practically untouched field,67 this contribution at least hopes to have shown that its pastures are very green. Selective Bibliography Sources Act Verse

I.26 = An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 1, 26–27. I.40 = An aer soni sit vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 1, 40. I.47 = An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 1, 47. II.22 = An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 2, 22. II.39 = An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 2, 39–40. II.91 = An aer sit soni vehiculum? Affirmatur, in Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem

67  Hall, Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

185

aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757) vol. 2, 91.



Tripos Verse

Sonus propagatur per aerem. In comitiis posterioribus, Mar. 23 1720/21. Gough Cambridge 95 (107). Repr. in Bourne Vincent (ed.) Musae Anglicanae, sive poemata quaedam melioris notae seu hactenus inedita, seu sparsim edita in duo volumina congesta, 5th ed. (London, Tonson and Watts: 1741) 208–10 = Hall: 1721.2) [B], 205. Aer est vehiculum sonorum. In comitiis posterioribus Mar. 20 1734/35. Cambridge University Archives MS.UA.Exam.L.4 (16) = Hall: 1735.2) [A], 215. Recte statuit Newtonus de propagatione soni. In comitiis posterioribus Mar. 20 1739/40. Gough Cambridge 95(132); Trinity College, Cambridge X.12.48(h) = Hall: 1740.2) [A], 218.



Primary Literatur (before 1800)

Addison Joseph – Steele Richard, The Tatler, 254 (23rd November 1710). Bacon Francis, Sylva Sylvarum, or A Natural History in Ten Centuries (London, J. R. for W. Lee: 1670). Bourne Vincent (ed.), Carmina comitialia Cantabrigensia (London, J. Redmayne: 1721). Bourne Vincent (ed.), Musae Anglicanae, sive poemata quaedam melioris notae seu hactenus inedita, seu sparsim edita in duo volumina congesta, 5th ed. (London, J. & R. Tonson and J. Watts: 1741). Boyle Robert, New experiments physico-mechanicall, touching the spring of the air and its effects (made, for the most part, in a new pneumatical engine) (Oxford, H. Hall: 1660). Derham William, “I. The History of the Great Frost in the Last Winter 1703 and 1708/9”, Philosophical Transactions 26 (1708) 453–478. Edwards Thomas, Cephalus and Procris; Narcissus. Aurora musae amica (London, J. Wolfe: 1595). Este Charles (ed.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata (Oxford, W. Jackson: 1723). Este Charles – Parsons Anthony (eds.), Carmina quadragesimalia ab aedis Christi Oxon. alumnis composita et ab eiusdem aedis baccalaureis determinantibus in schola naturalis philosophiae publice recitata. Vol. I et II ([Glasgow, A. and J. Henderson] Oxford, W. Jackson: 1757). Heffter Carl Johann, Museum disputatorium physico-medicum tripartitum (Zittau, J.D. Schöps: 1764). Kircher Athanasius, Musurgia universalis, sive ars magna consoni et dissoni in X libros digesta, 2 vols. (Rome, F. Corbelletti: 1650).

186

Barton

Lipsius Justus, Satyra Menippaea. Somnium. Lusus in nostri aevi criticos (Antwerp, C. Plantinus: 1581). [Milton John], A Mask presented at Ludlow Castle, 1634 (London, H. Robinson: 1637). Newton Isaac, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (London, J. Streater: 1687). Newton Isaac, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, 3rd ed. (London, W. and J. Innys: 1721). Wolff Christian (Pr.) – Remus Georg (Resp.), Consideratio physico-mathematica hyemis proxime praeterlapsae (Halle an der Saale, C.A. Zeitler: 1709).



Secondary Literature

Baskevitch F., “L’élaboration de la notion de vibration sonore: Galilée dans les Discorsi”, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 60, 2 (2007) 387–418. Bradner L., Musae Anglicanae: A History of Anglo-Latin Poetry 1500–1925 (New York, NY: 1940). Everest F.A. – Pohlmann K., Master Handbook of Acoustics (New York, NY – Chicago, IL: 2009). Fara P. – Money D.K., “Isaac Newton and Augustan Anglo-Latin Poetry”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Newton and Newtonianism 35 (2004) 549–571. Finn B.S., “Laplace and the Speed of Sound”, Isis 55 (1964) 7–19. Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deutungsangebote”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen: Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 27–68. Gadd I. – Eliot S. – Louis W.R., History of Oxford University Press: Volume I: Beginnings to 1780 (Oxford: 2013). Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R., “Einleitung”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen: Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 7–25. Gouk P.M., “Acoustics in the Early Royal Society 1660–1680”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 36 (1982) 155–175. Gouk P.M., “Some English Theories of Hearing in the Seventeenth Century: Before and after Descartes”, in Burnett C. – Fend M. – Gouk P. (eds.), The Second Sense: Studies in Hearing and Muscial Judgement from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century (London: 1991) 95–113. Hall J.J., Cambridge Act and Tripos Verses 1565–1894, Cambridge Bibliographical Society 18 (Cambridge: 2009). Henderson F., “Putting the Dons in Their Place: A Restoration Oxford Terrae Filius Speech”, History of Universities 16 (2001) 32–64.

the Act and Tripos Verses of Oxford and Cambridge

187

Lenihan J.M.A., “Mersenne and Gassendi – An Early Chapter in the History of Sound”, Acustica 2 (1951), 96–99. Lewis M.A. – Secci D.A. – Hengstermann C., “‘Origenian Platonisme’ in Interregnum Cambridge: Three Academic Texts by George Rust, 1656 and 1658”, History of Universities 30 (2017) 43–124. Lipsius Justus, Two Neo-Latin Menippean Satires, ed. C. Matheeussen – C.L. Heesakkers (Leiden: 1980). Mancosu P., “Acoustics and Optics”, in Daston L. – Park K. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science (Cambridge: 2006) 596–632. McConica J. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford. Volume III. The Collegiate University (Oxford, NY: 1986). Money D.K., The English Horace: Anthony Alsop and the Tradition of British Latin Verse (Oxford – New York, NY: 1998). Seanóir S.Ó. – Pollard M., “‘A Great Deal of Good Verse’: Commencement Entertainments in the 1680s”, Hermathena 130/131 (1981) 7–36. Storey M., “The Latin Poetry of Vincent Bourne”, in Binns J.W. (ed.), The Latin Poetry of English Poets (London: 1974) 121–149. Tyacke N. (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford. Volume IV. Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: 1997). West J.B., “Robert Boyle’s Landmark Book of 1660 with the First Experiments on Rarified Air”, Journal of Applied Physiology 98, 1 (2005) 31–39. Williams K., Read All About It!: A History of the British Newspaper (London: 2009). Windelspecht M., Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the 19th Century (Westport, CT: 2003). Wordsworth C., Social Life at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: 1874). Wordsworth C., Scholae Academicae: Some Account of the Studies at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: 1877).

part 2 France

∵

chapter 7

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France Laurence Brockliss Summary As in all regions of Europe, public disputations in Ancien Regime France were a central part of French academic life. The printed sets of theses that many students distributed beforehand give a good idea of the main thrust of the subsequent debate, and enough examples still exist, especially in medicine, to allow historians to chart the changing content of the higher-education curriculum across the Bourbon centuries. This essay begins by introducing the surviving sources in French libraries and archives and discusses why fewer theses can be found than might be expected. It proceeds to examine the different formats in which the theses were printed, explores the use of dedications, and argues that few were embellished with even simple illustrations because of cost. It ends by emphasising the conservative and predictable nature of most disputations, but shows that the soutenance could on occasion be used to float novel and sometimes unorthodox ideas, especially when professors wanted to give a personal hobby horse a public airing.

In early-modern France there were never less than sixteen universities and a further hundred or more municipal colleges and episcopal seminaries providing courses in some or all of the four university disciplines of philosophy, theology, law and medicine.1 Every year, several thousand students showed off the fruits of their learning by demonstrating their knowledge and debating prowess in a public soutenance presided over by a professor or faculty doctor. In the colleges and seminaries, the soutenance was part of the festivities that marked the end of the school year. In the universities the public thesis was a central 1  For an introduction to the map of French Higher Education, see Brockliss L.W.B., French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. A Cultural History (Oxford: 1987), ch. 1, and Chartier R. – Compère M.M. – Julia D., L’éducation en France du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: 1976), esp. chs. v and ix. There were twenty-four universities by 1789. One French university, Orléans, taught only law, while the colleges and seminaries only philosophy and theology.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_008

192

Brockliss

part of the examination process which revealed a student’s fitness to ascend to the degree of bachelor, licentiate or doctor.2 Oral disputes and formal debates led by graduands had been a defining feature of the European university from the foundation of the institution at the turn of the thirteenth century. Before the sixteenth-century, however, they had been usually in-house affairs involving only the student’s peers and professors and seldom graced by outsiders. In France, as elsewhere, the invention of printing made it possible for the format of the soutenance to be radically altered, albeit not immediately. Students, it can be presumed, must have always spoken from written notes or read out a prepared statement. From about 1600 in France it became more and more common for students to have the heads of their argument printed in multiple copies and distributed beforehand. At the same time, in a development that was not unrelated, the soutenance began to be opened to family and friends and other interested outsiders, even though many attending must have had difficulty in keeping up since the language of the abstract and the debate was Latin. The event as a result became a public event, where the ambitious were as keen to make a mark with a possible patron in the audience as secure the approval of their teachers. In Paris, where the university in 1789 contained at least 2,000 students following courses in philosophy, theology, law and medicine, and a public soutenance was almost a daily event, debates could attract large audiences of the great and good.3 Where the soutenant was socially prominent, the occasion would be covered in the official government gazette, the Mercure de France.4 But turning an academic exercise into a pièce de théâtre where even women might be present carried inevitable dangers in a confessional and absolutist society. To ensure that only religiously and politically safe ideas were positively promoted, students had to have their theses vetted by the university and college authorities before they were printed.

2  The regulations governing graduation differed slightly from university to university. In most cases an aspirant for one of the three degrees had to attend lectures for a specific number of years, then satisfy the faculty of his competence in a number of oral examinations, one of which was a public soutenance. Some faculties, though, were much more demanding. At Paris, licensiands in theology had to sustain four public theses. See Brockliss, French Higher Education 71–82. 3  On the student body at Paris, see Brockliss L.W.B., “Patterns of Attendance at the University of Paris, 1400–1800”, The Historical Journal 21, 3 (1978) 503–544. 4  The Mercure, set up in 1672, was France’s court magazine and before the mid-eighteenth century the country’s only newspaper.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

1

193

Sources

Although several hundred thousand public theses were sustained in France across the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, few printed abstracts have survived. Theses in law are very thin on the ground. Theses in philosophy and theology are more numerous but there are only two significant collections, both in the Bibliothèque Nationale: the Département d’Estampes contains copies of about a hundred theses sustained at the University of Paris and the Fonds Joly de Fleury a similar number from Angers.5 Otherwise philosophy and theology theses are chiefly to be found by chance, hidden in the papers of a prominent individual, catalogued under the president’s name among a library’s printed volumes, or appended as a frontispiece or end-paper to a student’s manuscript transcription of a course.6 Medical theses alone can be found in abundance. There are good collections for the faculties of Angers, Caen, Montpellier and even Reims which was notorious as a degree factory rather than a place of serious study.7 But the Paris faculty is particularly well served. The present library of the faculty of medicine in the capital possesses a collection of over 11,000 printed theses sustained between 1610 and 1778, plus a further 200 in manuscript from the late sixteenth century.8 5  Bibliothèque Nationale [hereafter BN] Département d’ Estampes [hereafter Estampes] AA6, vols. 1–2 (philosophy and theology 1660–1740); BN MSS Joly de Fleury 335 and 338 (theology, 1750–1789). MSS Joly de Fleury 194 and 1708 contain a further twenty Paris theology theses. There is also a small collection of philosophy theses from Caen in Archives départementales [hereafter AD] Calvados D1084 and D1113 and Bibliothèque Municipale [hereafter BM] Caen, collection ‘Brochures normandes’. 6  E.g. BM Vire MS A35, Marinus Amiel, logic and ethics course, Caen 1720. The MS is a transcription of a course by a professor called Aubert. The volume contains two printed theses both sustained in 1729, the first in logic by J.B. Delaunay du Vicquet, the second in ethics by Nicolas-Pierre Laudier; both were under the presidency of the professor Pierre de la Rue. Amiel presumably attended the two soutenances. There are many student transcriptions in French libraries because students had to prove they had attended the course before they could graduate. Few, though, contain copies of theses. 7  A D Maine et Loire 4D: Angers, collection 1765–1792 (c. 150 theses); AD Calvados 1D 985–996: Caen, chiefly eighteenth century (several hundred); BM Montpellier Département des imprimés [hereafter Imp.] 275005 (in 4o); 295005 (in 8o): eighteenth-century bachelors’ theses (1,531 in total); BM Reims Imp. CRII MM 725 (1–6): 1761–1792 (several hundred). Reims’ poor reputation stemmed from the fact that foreign students who did not want to practise medicine in France could graduate from the faculty without ever studying there. All they had to do was submit to a cursory oral examination. 8  Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de Médecine de Paris, now Bibliothèque interuniversi­taire de Santé [hereafter BIUMP], Theses medicae Parisienses 9 vols. in fol. (1539–1724): 1,600 theses to 1716 (1,393 printed); BIUMP Theses medicae Parisienses 16 vols. in 40 (1599–1778)

194

Brockliss

It is not difficult to understand why there are so few printed abstracts extant. In the first place, it was not necessarily compulsory to furnish the audience with a published hand-out beforehand. The medical faculty at Montpellier, where sixty students a year sustained a bachelor’s thesis towards the end of the Ancien Regime, only made it obligatory from 1773.9 Producing fifty to a hundred printed abstracts was good jobbing work for local printers but it was expensive for the candidate. Poorer students or those with limited ambitions and no family or friends in the town must have been tempted to forgo the outlay, especially if the soutenance was in a college or seminary and did not lead to a degree. In the second place, the printed abstracts for the most part would have had a short life. While the surviving theses are extremely useful to historians interested in charting the changing character of orthodoxy in different disciplines across the period, they held little appeal for contemporaries after the soute­nance had closed. For the most part their content was derivative, predictable and lacking in originality. They were essentially juvenile ephemera that meant little even to the soutenant or his family and were quickly destroyed or put to other use. The law thesis that Descartes sustained at Poitiers in 1616 was found only in 1981 when it was discovered serving as the backing to a seventeenth-century engraving hanging in a museum restaurant.10 In consequence, eighteenth century French antiquarians, usually so keen to construct a documentary history of their local ecclesiastical and civic institutions,11 seldom evinced any interest in hunting out the theses that might have survived and forming them into collections. This was only ever done by nineteenth- and twentieth-century librarians and archivists, by which time it was largely too late. The sole exception was the handful of French medical antiquarians who for the first time were beginning to write the history of their Alma Mater. The Paris collection was chiefly put together by the bibliophile and Paris faculty dean Hyacinthe-Théodore Baron (1707–1787), who also assembled an important portfolio of engraved portraits of famous medical practitioners.12 Its   (9,970 printed). Copies of a further 1,000 Paris theses are to be found at Montpellier: see Le Grand N., La collection des thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine depuis 1539 et son catalogue inédit jusqu’en 1793 (Paris: 1913). 9  Berlan H., Faire sa médecine au XVIIe siècle. Recrutement et devenir professionnel des étu­ diants montpelliérains (1707–1789) (Montpellier: 2013) 261. 10  https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2002/entries/descartes-works/history .html (last accessed 4 Dec 2019). 11  Esp. the Benedictines of St Maur. 12  Le Grand, La collection des thèses 26–27. The collection was begun by Baron’s father, similarly a doctor of the Paris faculty.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

195

Reims equivalent was formed a little later by one of the Reims faculty professors Louis-Jérôme Raussin (1721–1798).13 Nor was the French interest extraordinary in the broader European context. Throughout Europe, medical professors collected examples of past and current theses, sometimes from all over the continent. Shortly before his death the illustrious Swiss physiologist Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777), erstwhile professor at Göttingen, possessed a staggering 13,000, half the titles in his large library.14 Sometimes, too, the collectors placed their collections in the public domain. The Tübingen professor Georg Friedrich Sigwart (1711–1795) had visited Paris in middle age in 1750. He became an ardent collector of contemporary Paris medical theses which he published as a book in 1759.15 The enthusiasm of the eighteenth-century medical bibliophile was fired by the relative heterogeneity of medical science compared with other university disciplines. Theoretical medicine was of limited danger to church and state provided professors steered clear of deep metaphysical questions.16 There was much more room for disagreement and speculation even within the same faculty, and this was reflected in the theses. Not only was medical orthodoxy in constant flux from the mid-seventeenth century but across the period there were many areas of dispute, in therapeutics above all, that sharply divided opinion irrespective of philosophical allegiance. Medical professors, moreover, unlike their colleagues in other faculties, were frequently at the cutting edge of their discipline and were happy to introduce their pupils to their research. The theses therefore provided a record of the science’s development and the relative strengths of particular positions both in the past and present.17 And because medical dissertations had always attracted an interest

13  Guelliot O., “Les thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine de Reims”, Travaux de l’Académie de Reims 81 (1870) 198–263, at 199. 14   Braun-Bucher B., “Hallers Bibliothek und Nachlass”, in Steinke H. – Boschung U. – Pross W. (eds.), Albrecht von Haller. Leben – Werk – Epoche (Göttingen: 2008) 515. 15  Sigwart G.F. (ed.), Quaestiones medicae Parisinae (Tübingen, Johann Georg Cotta: 1759). 16  They were not allowed to advocate medical materialism, for instance, which was made fashionable in the mid-eighteenth century by the philosophe, La Mettrie. See Wellman K., La Mettrie. Medicine, Philosophy, and Enlightenment (Durham, N.C. – London: 1992). La Mettrie studied at Paris and graduated from Reims. 17  Most of the interesting developments in metaphysics and natural philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries occurred outside Europe’s universities. Medical research, however, was always primarily located within medical faculties, in part because the most important and populous had good facilities: see Porter R.S., “The Scientific Revolution and Universities”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: 1996) 531–562; Brockliss L.W.B., “Medical Education and Centres of Excellence in Eighteenth-Century Europe: Towards an Identification”, in Grell O.P. – Cunningham A. – Arrizabalaga J. (eds.), Centres of Medical Excellence? Medical Travel and Education in Europe, 1500–1789 (Farnham: 2010) 17–46.

196

Brockliss

that theses from other disciplines did not, they were reasonably easy to track down and assemble.18 2

Structure

In early-modern Europe the science of philosophy was considered propaedeutic to the other three and was studied first. This distinction was reflected in the subject matter of the soutenance. Philosophy students would debate a series of propositions that covered all four parts of the course: logic, ethics, physics and metaphysics. The title that appeared at the head of their printed abstract was either ‘Conclusiones ex universa philosophia’ or ‘theses’ or ‘conclusiones philosophicae’. Although theses specifically on mathematics, traditionally considered a sub-science of physics, seem to have been relatively common because the subject was taught in isolation, few printed abstracts survive devoted to a single philosophical science.19 Students of the so-called three ‘higher’ sciences in contrast would usually debate a particular question that might deal with any part of the subject or a specific area laid down in the statutes. On the surface the soutenance in their case was precisely focused. Medical students for instance might be expected to discuss a problem relating to physiology at one soutenance, then a question concerning pathology or therapeutics at the next.20 In most cases, however, even a single question became a peg on which to hang a wide-ranging discussion of the science, so the distinction between a soutenance in philosophy and one in the higher sciences was not as great as it might seem.21 Nor was there a great difference in the way the arguments were set out in the printed abstracts. 18  It is possible that the Paris faculty had begun to keep copies of both printed and manuscript abstracts from about 1550. Baron’s collection included a number of manuscript abstracts from the second half of the sixteenth century. It is difficult to see how he would have discovered them otherwise. 19  For an example, see BN Imp. R38610, Theses physicae (Paris, Butard: 1760). Paris Collège de Mazarin, 26 July 1760; president J.-L. Roussel. Mazarin was one of ten colleges attached to the University of Paris giving courses in philosophy. For mathematics teaching in France, see esp. Dainville F. de, « L’Enseignement des mathématiques dans les collèges jésuites de France du seizième au dix-huitième siècle », Revue de l’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 7 (1954) 6–21 and 109–123. 20  As at Reims from 1662: see Guelliot, “Thèses de Reims” 203. 21  There are examples of dissertations with a general title being discussed at the Caen faculty of medicine. On 7 April 1751, for instance, the licensiand Jacques Postel sustained a dissertation entitled ‘Theses ex physiologia selectae’: Bibliothèque de l’ Arsenal (Paris), MS 824, fol. 241.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

197

In the seventeenth century it was common for a printed thesis to be a single folio broadsheet where the argument to be sustained was divided into paragraphs and sometimes arranged in columns. From the beginning, however, the abstracts were also published in quarto and octavo, and these became the normal formats after 1720 except for theses in theology. The change reflected the expansion of the text over time. In the first half of the seventeenth century, the argument seldom extended beyond 750 words and was easily set out on a folio sheet. Indeed, many student theses, especially in law, consisted of little more than a series of single sentence statements. It was usually only the theses published by candidates for professorships which extended to many pages, such as the twenty-seven the Scot George Sharpius (c. 1581–1637) expended in summarising the quaestiones he intended to debate for a medical chair at Montpellier in 1617.22 By the eighteenth-century, on the other hand, some student theses were equivalent in length to the modern scholarly article, and quarto or octavo was the only viable option without printing the argument in such small type it could hardly be read. Few theses in philosophy and medicine were under eight pages in length and many were twice or four times as long. Candidates in the eighteenth century felt the need to set out their stall in detail. This had as much to do with the audience as the growing complexity of the subject matter of the physical and medical sciences. Besides wanting to display their erudition to potential patrons, students would have been well aware that knowledge was changing fast and that most of the older generation sitting before them would have been reared on a different set of principles and even form of argumentation. In 1762, one Jean-Jacques Elie from Bayeux sustained a set of philosophy theses at the Caen Collège des Arts under his professor Christophe Gabled, which was principally devoted to Newtonianism, a form of physics that had only recently begun to be taught in French colleges instead of Cartesianism. As he intended to explain the new physics mathematically, a large section of his printed abstract of fifteen pages dealt with calculus, a form of higher mathematics which his elders would never have learnt in their youth.23 At either its head or foot, and sometimes both, each printed abstract displayed the names of the candidate, president and other examiners (if present),24 22  B N Imp. T31265. He got the chair. Many professors in France were simply appointed but the medical chairs at Montpellier were always awarded on the strength of a concours. 23  A D Calvados D1084, no. 13. Gabled or Gadbled (1734–1782) was a sophisticated mathematician. He taught Laplace. For the sophistication of mathematics teaching in French colleges after 1750, see Brockliss, Higher Education 384–391. 24  In a philosophy acte, the president was normally a professor and was the sole judge of the candidate’s performance. In the higher faculties, the president might be a professor or somebody with a doctorate in the discipline resident in the town and attached to the

198

Brockliss

and the title of the position or positions that would be the focus of the debate. The candidate’s name was followed by his diocese of origin, and, if in orders, his ecclesiastical status. The paratext also provided information about the place, date and time of the séance.25 A philosophical soutenance normally lasted three to four hours and was nearly always held in the afternoon. Some public debates in the higher faculties, however, could go on all day. On Monday 22 November 1779 Jean-Baptiste Ouvray, a priest from Amiens, sustained his Major Ordinary, one of the four public debates required of a Paris theology licensiand, on the question: Quae est sicut lilium inter spinas? [Song of Songs 2.1]. The soutenance in the Augustinian convent in the capital lasted from 8 in the morning until 6 in the evening, the usual hour that all university disputations came to an end.26 Each printed set of theses also bore a dedication. This was normally to God or in the case of Paris medical theses to ‘Deo maximo uni et trino, Virginisque Deiparae et Sancto Lucae orthodoxorum medicorum patrono’.27 Only a minority of candidates dedicated their thesis to a living person as well, either from gratitude for help received or in the hope of future support. And the number dwindled in the eighteenth century. Most of the students who did so invoked local dignitaries, relatives or their professors. A typical case was Jean Le Prestre, a pupil in the Caen Collège du Bois, whose philosophy theses in 1670 honoured the lieutenant-civil of nearby St Lô, Luc du Chemin, baron de La Mesnildurand.28 The few who aimed higher and had the temerity to dedicate their theses to the king, as had Jean-Baptiste Colbert de Seignelay (1651–1690)

faculty called an agrégé. He was normally assisted by a panel of examiners drawn from the other professors and agrégés. 25  E.g. Bibliothèque Mazarine (Paris) Imp. 10371. Theses philosophicae propugnabuntur a JULIO-ADRIANO DE NOAILLES, clerico Parisino, insignis et metropolitanae eccle­ siae Parisiensis canonico, die mercurii 27. Julii anni domini 1707, a tertia ad vespera. PRO LAUREA ARTIUM. Arbiter erit JOANNES-GABRIEL PETIT DE MONTEMPUYS, sacrae theologiae baccalaureus, socius Sorbonnicus [Fellow of the Collège de la Sorbonne] et philosophiae professor. IN SORBONAE-PLESSAEO (Paris, Jacques Quillau: 1707). Sorbonne-Plessis was another teaching college attached to the University of Paris. MA examinations were organised by the University’s faculty of arts but usually held in the college where the graduand had studied. De Noailles was a scion of a leading aristocratic family. 26  B N Estampes AA6, vol. 2, no. 41 (in-fol). 27  Used for the first time in a Faculty thesis in 1594: Le Grand, La collection des thèses 30–31. One variation used at Caen by the medical student André Le Bidois in 1655 was to God, the motherland and friends: Bibliothèque Mazarine (Paris), MS 3608, fol. 1. 28  B N Imp. 19651: theses 20 July 1670, catalogued under the president and professor, Pierre Cally.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

199

two years before, came exclusively from families close to the royal court.29 Very few who offered their theses to the living, moreover, accompanied the dedication with a fulsome tribute. This was another reason why the chance find of Descartes’s law thesis proved an interesting discovery. The meat of the thesis consists of forty statements concerning the conditions needed for a will to be valid and differentiates between the law of nations and the civil law. But much the larger part of the text is given up to an encomium of the dedicatee, Descartes’s maternal uncle René Brochard, a judge in the présidial (or court of second instance) of Poitou. Written in a flowery Latin not usually associated with Descartes, the philosopher who would later claim to trust in the words of no one assured his uncle of his highest esteem. From Brochard, he declared, ‘the very pure well-springs of virtue and learning flow’. In the future he would cease his personal search for knowledge and only ‘value and pursue what is yours’.30 Few theses, furthermore, even those published in-folio, were embellished with an engraved illustration, especially one specifically created for the occasion. Adding a picture to a printed set of theses would have greatly inflated the cost. If theses contained any design at all, it was usually a simple image at the head of the thesis that the printer would use many times: a college coat of arms, a geometric pattern, a spray of acanthus leaves or a bowl of flowers with an obvious religious resonance such as roses or stars of Bethlehem.31 Even the more complex designs were not normally bespoke. The bachelor’s theses presented for debate by the Reims medical student Valentine-Marie Laignier, in June 1774, was headed by an engraving of the sun shining on Aesculapius seated in the centre. On one side was his library and laboratory; on the other the natural world and the drugs it supplied. The printer, Jeunehomme of Reims, provided exactly the same image for two other sets of medical theses sustained in 1787 and 1788.32 Indeed, as the original design, the work of one I. Robert, was dated 1760, Jeunehomme presumably used the engraving 29  Bibliothèque de l’Université de Paris Imp. UP U117 in 4o, ‘Positiones mathematicae de mundi systemate’ [at the Jesuits’ Paris Collège de Clermont, later Louis-le-Grand; this was not attached to the University of Paris]. Seignelay was Colbert’s eldest son. For an overview, see Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Louis XIV en thèses, Collection “Histoire” – Série “Aulica. L’Univers de la cour” (Rennes: 2017). 30  For a facsimile of the original, Latin transcription and English translation, see https:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/originalaw.html (accessed 5 Dec. 2019). 31  E.g. BN Imp R8887 & 8922, two philosophy theses in-4o sustained at the University of Paris in 1741 and 1749 under the professor Dominique Rivard and printed by N. Lottin. Both are headed by the same small engraving of a shrub (laurel?) encased in a baroque geometrical design mimicking wrought-iron work. 32  B M Reims Imp CRII MM725, vol. II, no. 17, Laignier (1774); ibidem, vol. V, nos. 36 and 60 (both sustained by Pierre-Antoine Petit).

200

Brockliss

on many occasions.33 Much larger and apparently personalised engravings do exist but they too may have had multiple outings. The philosophy theses presented by two students at the Jesuits’ Paris college in 1708, René Le Sauvage and Michel Granger de Laborde, bore a finely drawn engraving of a bishop before the high altar blessing a young boy on his knees, which took up half the folio sheet. As the theses were dedicated to the Archbishop of Besançon, there could be no doubting the mercenary message behind this simple statement of devotion to Mother Church.34 But as the image bore no date, just the name of the engraver, there is no reason for thinking it was not used by other students seeking ecclesiastical patronage. What is clear is that nearly all the engravings were emblematic and required decoding. Theses bearing actual portraits, like the two of Louis XV’s queen described in the chapter in this volume by Véronique Meyer, were extremely rare. Deliberately currying favour with the great and good by parading their image on a broadsheet would not have been considered good taste and in the case of a theology soutenance might well have been thought blasphemous.35 3

Authorship

The printed (or manuscript) abstracts were supposed to be the work of the candidate. Plagiarism, however, was not an obstacle to their acceptance. Students even in the most prestigious higher faculties sometimes offered a question for debate that had been chewed over several times before, and it was not unknown for past texts to be copied word for word. A set of theses sustained in one faculty might be presented several years later in another.36 Theses might even be resurrected from the dustbin of history. One Paris medical student in 1773, Claude-François Duchanoy, submitted a text on the question ‘An actio sine spiritu?’ which had previously graced a soutenance in the faculty in 1659. It was as if there had been no developments in the science since the age of

33  Unknown. Presumably not the painter Hugh Robert, known for his depiction of classical ruins. 34  B N Estampes AA6, vol. II, no. 9, ‘Conclusiones ex universa philosophia’ (28 July 1708). 35  It might have been possible where the dedicatee was royal and considered quasi-divine. 36  Comments in Guelliot, “Thèses de Reims” 224–226. For an example, see the medical theses sustained at Reims in 1764 by Jean-Charles-Victor Labrousse: ‘An quinque medicinae partes medico necessariae?’ The same question and text was sustained in the faculty in 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1777, 1780, 1781 & 1784. See BM Reims Imp CRII MM 725, vols. 1–2, no. 40 bis; vols. 3–4, nos. 6, 13, 21, 39, 56 and 103; vols. 5–6, nos. 4 and 35.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

201

Galen.37 Law students in particular, to save themselves the bother of composition, would often buy a copy of their theses abstract from a local legal luminary, sometimes with hilarious consequences. The abbé Besnard, who studied theology at Angers in the 1770s, recalled in his memoirs the soutenance of one of his lawyer friends, Blain de la Renoudiaire. The latter had purchased not only his theses abstract but the verbatim argument he should present during the debate which Besnard helped him to learn by rote. Unfortunately this contained numerous legal abbreviations, one of which he forgot to expand in the séance. The audience roared with laughter, though thankfully there were few there. Nevertheless La Renoudiaire successfully sailed through the debate, if not with colours flying at least still afloat.38 Students in law were a notoriously lazy and disruptive bunch. They cut lectures, rioted in the street and showed scant respect to their professors. It was commonplace towards the end of the seventeenth century for Paris students in class to pelt the professor with snowballs and peas.39 But this had a lot to do with the perceived pointlessness of their studies in the areas of France governed by droit coutumière. A law degree which was required before anyone could practise as a barrister was built around the study of Roman and canon law. Outside the Midi, court procedure and judgements were based entirely on royal ordonnances, local customary law, and the custom of Paris when the local law offered an incomplete guide. Roman law in particular was of only an academic interest.40 The students of the other sciences in contrast were usually less disillusioned with their course and showed greater commitment and knowledge when it came to debating in public. Most students were not plagiarists or cheats. On the other hand, many would have received a helping hand from their professor or the president of the soutenance in writing their 37  B IUMP, Theses medicae Parisienses in-4o, vol. XVI, no. 11. In Duchanoy’s defence, he presumably used the text as a starting point to discuss Haller’s controversial theory of irritability which argued that certain organs could still be stimulated after death. For arguments for and against Haller’s position, see Steinke H., Irritating Experiments. Haller’s Concept and the European Controversy on Irritability and Sensibility, 1750–90 (Amsterdam: 2005). 38  Besnard F.-Y., Souvenirs d’un Nonagénaire, reprint edition (Marseille: 1979) 122–124 and 202. Complaints were legion in the eighteenth century about the practice of selling law theses: e.g. Larevellière-Lépeaux L.M. de, Mémoires, 3 vols. (Paris: 1895) vol. 1, 20 (University of Angers); Brissot de Warville J.-P., Mémoires, 2 vols. (Paris: 1911) vol. 1, 322 (University of Reims). 39  B N MS Fr. 21735, fol. 100–103. General comments in Brockliss, Higher Education 63–65. 40  Courses in French law were introduced from 1679 but this was only ever a small part of the course: see Curzon A. de, L’Enseignement du droit français dans les universités de France au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris: 1920).

202

Brockliss

abstract, especially when they were being used as a stalking horse to promote a novel or controversial position that might not offend orthodoxy but would have the whiff of novelty. On occasion, candidates could become surrogates in a battle between two faculty professors or resident doctors. From a number of dissertations sustained in the medical faculty at Caen at the turn of the eighteenth century, it is evident that the students were fundamentally divided in their view of the nature of conception. One group remained loyal to the traditional Hippocratic belief that the foetus resulted from the mixture of the male and female sperm in the womb, if they admitted ignorance to how the matter was quickened. A second group of novatores in contrast promoted a gendered account of conception which appears not to have been espoused anywhere else in France. Miniature versions of all animals that would ever exist, it was claimed, were floating around in the air in the form of invisible seeds. These would be ingested by the males of species, then passed to the female in coitus who would inflate them in one of her eggs ready for birth.41 Since all proponents of panspermism, as the doctrine has been dubbed, sustained their theses under one professor, Jean-François Le Court, it seems reasonable to assume that they drew up their dissertation under his close guidance. Indeed, Le Court and his professorial opponents made no secret of their differences of opinion over embryology and attacked each other in print.42 A number of theses however were definitely written without any professorial encouragement or assistance. Deliberately challenging religious and political orthodoxy was not the route to a successful career and in the first part of the seventeenth century especially could have serious consequences. Nonetheless, in both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a handful of students can 41  See esp. Henri-Pierre de Forges. ‘An homo a verme ?’ (Positive, 1705); François Le Maistre, ‘An homo a vermibus’ (Negative, 1711). See AD Calvados 1D 987, nos. 3–5. The new doctrine first reared its head at Caen in 1693 but the sceptics had the better of the argument and it is no longer referred to after 1720: see Gidon F., “Le tome 1 des thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine de Caen 1659–1740”, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de médecine 26 (1932) 29–33. The doctrine was an idiosyncratic version of the male variant of preformationism which was at that moment being championed by some members of the Paris faculty: see Brockliss L.W.B., “The Embryological Revolution in the France of Louis XIV: the Dominance of Ideology”, in Dunstan G.R. (ed.), The Human Embryo. Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions (Exeter: 1990) 158–186. The fullest account of embryological theory in the period is Roger J., Les Sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: 1963). 42  A D Calvados 1D 99, [Le Court], Responsio ad libellum famosum, qui inscribitur Curtius Angotio suo, qua vermium systema refellitur (s.l., 1712). Angot’s original pamphlet cannot be found. Little is known about either Le Court or his antagonist Pierre [Curtius] Angot beyond the fact they were professors at Caen.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

203

be found who either from conviction or devilment threw caution to the wind. The most famous was the Paris theologian, the abbé Jean-Martin de Prades (c. 1720–1782), who presented a set of theses in 1751 which led to his expulsion from the faculty’s benches and a royal warrant for his arrest.43 Although the theses were initially accepted by the appointed president, the professor Luke-Joseph Hooke (1714–1791), they quickly came under attack for subverting the faith. De Prades was accused of a number of significant errors. On the role of revelation, he was said to suggest that some people could reach a complete understanding of God and his relations with mankind on their own. On the Old Testament, he was found to have denied the orthodox position that the Mosaic revelation included a promise of salvation, and insisted that the Chinese chronologies threw doubt on the age of the world as calculated from Genesis. Most heinous of all, in discussing the New Testament, he was judged to have argued that were it not for their prefigurement in the prophecies, Christ’s miracles had no greater status than those of Aesculapius. Whatever De Prades’s intentions, and he maintained his elliptical Latin had been misunderstood, he was understandably given short shrift. The status of miracles in particular was a sore point given the recent appearance of Hume’s Essay (1748). Moreover, De Prades was close to the Encyclopédistes and it was even rumoured that Diderot, who himself had studied theology in the Paris faculty, had written the dissertation.44 There were students as well in the faculties of medicine who had no desire to raise religious and political hackles but were keen that their theses would make them stand out from the crowd. Rather than select a commonplace question and present a well-rehearsed argument, they set out on their own and produced an original piece of work that they hoped might be their calling-card to gain an entrée into the Republic of Letters. One such was the Montpellier student, Pierre-Joseph Amoreux (1741–1824), who soon after graduating abandoned medicine in favour of cultivating a reputation as a permanent contributor to the prize-essay competitions set by France’s academies.45 Amoreux was the son of a prominent naturalist in the Midi and had ambitions to follow in his father’s footsteps. When in 1762 his turn came to present a set of theses to gain the baccalaureate, he chose a topic which would advertise to the full his 43  For a copy, see BN Imp. D 9347. 44  The fullest account is Spink J.S., “Un abbe philosophe: l’affaire de J.M. de Prades”, Dix-Huitième Siècle 3 (1971) 145–180. De Prades fled to Prussia and sought protection from Frederick the Great. For the broader context, see Burson J.D., The Rise and Fall of Theological Enlightenment: Jean-Martin de Prades and Ideological Polarisation in Eighteenth-Century France (Notre Dame, Ind.: 2010). Hooke, Irish by background, was ejected from his chair. 45  Caradonna J.L., The Enlightenment in Practice. Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual Culture in France, 1670–1794 (Ithaca: 2012).

204

Brockliss

enthusiasm for natural history: De noxa animalium tentamen in corpus huma­ num. This was no run of the mill in-quarto dissertation. It was fifty-eight pages long and based on personal research. If it was derivative, it was only because, as he explained in his autobiography, it was based on secondary research: the text was drawn from the books he had read in his father’s and others’ libraries.46 Amoreux’s father colluded in his son’s wish to make a splash. The dissertation was not published as was usual by the faculty’s official printer but was sent off to Avignon where it was entrusted to the printer-bookseller, Joseph-Simon Tournel, who supplied the young student of medicine with 500 copies, an exceptionally large number.47 The theses were not just for local perusal. From the length of the run, it is clear that Amoreux fils intended to send a copy of his theses to significant European naturalists. How many he duly honoured in this way is unknown but Linnaeus certainly received one as a gift.48 And unusually for a Montpellier bachelor’s dissertation, examples can be found all over Europe.49 4

Decline of Disputation Culture

The practice of the public soutenance came to an abrupt end during the French Revolution when in September 1793 the Convention abolished all the colleges and universities overnight. To what extent it was restored in all its splendour when France’s system of higher education was restructured under Napoleon remains moot. There had been growing criticism of the ritual in the final decades of the Ancien Regime on the grounds that most theses showed little evidence of independent thinking while their defence was a hollow exercise in rhetoric and logic-chopping. Critics wanted candidates for a degree at least to demonstrate that they had a deep understanding of their subject of study. At the beginning of the Revolution, Félix Vicq d’Azyr (1748–1794), one of the leading medical physicians in the capital, called for the soutenance in medicine to be replaced by written examinations and practicals.50 In the event, though, this 46  F rom Provincial Savant to Parisian Naturalist. The Recollections of Pierre-Joseph Amoreux (1741–1824), edited and introduced by Laurence Brockliss, Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment (Oxford: 2017) 135–136. 47  Ibidem 78 (introduction). 48  Amoreux wrote to Linnaeus on 6 January 1763 enclosing a copy: Linnaeus’ correspondence, L5391: synopsis at http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/index.php (last accessed 2 February 2017). Linnaeus did not reply. 49  Four copies exist in British libraries. 50  Vicq d’Azyr F., “Nouveau Plan de constitution pour la médecine en France”, Histoire et Mémoires de la Société royale de médecine: Années 1787–1788, IX (1790) 45ff.

Printed Theses in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century France

205

did not happen. The faculties which were established by Napoleon in place of the old universities still gave an important place in the process of examination to some kind of soutenance based on a written set of theses in Latin.51 As hardly any serious work has yet been undertaken on the dissertations in the first half of the nineteenth century, it is impossible to say whether their intellectual rigour and interest increased. There is some reason for optimism, however. The new Paris medical faculty was much more populous than the old: between 1803 and 1815 it awarded 2,153 doctorates compared with the ten or so per year in the 1780s. At the Restoration complaints were frequent that examinations were perfunctory and no candidate failed.52 Nevertheless, it has been maintained that the dissertations sustained in its immediate predecessor, the Paris school of medicine hastily set up by the Convention to supply doctors for the army in December 1794, were much more original than the average Ancien-Regime theses: they were now much longer and displayed knowledge of current clinical research in the capital’s hospitals.53 It might just be the case that the Convention’s medical school set a precedent for the future and that the dissertations sustained in its successor and the other Napoleonic faculties showed a similar independence of thought. After all, the format of the academic dissertation was a subject of discussion in many parts of Europe in the late eighteenth century, long before the foundation of the University of Berlin in 1810. The Napoleonic faculties would only have been following in the wake of several universities in Europe, such as Edinburgh, which had already moved to make academic dissertations more substantial and thought-provoking than hitherto.54

51  Napoleon set up a series of separate faculties under a single Université impériale which also controlled the secondary schools. For an introduction, see Aulard F.A., Napoléon 1er et le monopole universitaire (Paris: 1911). 52  E.g. Caron Jean-Charles-Félix, Démonstration rigoureuse du peu d’utilité de l’École de mé­ decine, du grand avantage que l’on a retiré et que l’on retirera toujours du rétablissement du Collège de chirurgie (Paris, Pillet: 1818). 53  Rey R., “L’école de santé de Paris sous la Révolution : transformations et innovations”, Histoire de l’Education 57, 1 (1993) 23–57. Paris in the 1790s became the dynamic centre of European clinical medicine as the state took over France’s hospitals from the church and encouraged medical research. See Ackerknecht E.H., Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794–1848 (Baltimore, MD: 1964). 54  A large number of the medical theses sustained at Edinburgh survive in the Wellcome Library (London) and in Edinburgh University Library. Those composed by older students, especially surgeons who had been in practice for many years before they took a medical degree (which was allowed in Britain), nearly always drew on their own experience in discussing the character of a disease or the value of a particular remedy. Conclusion based on personal research.

206

Brockliss

Selected Bibliography Very little attention has been paid to the theses sustained in French universities and colleges in the early-modern period. This is reflected in the small number of titles cited below. Berlan H., Faire sa médecine au XVIIe siècle. Recrutement et devenir professionnel des étudiants montpelliérains (1707–1789) (Montpellier: 2013). Brockliss L.W.B., French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. A Cultural History (Oxford: 1987). Chartier R. – Compère M.M. – Julia D., L’éducation en France du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: 1976). Gidon F., “Le tome 1 des thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine de Caen 1659–1740”, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de médecine 26 (1932) 21–49. Guelliot O., “Les thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine de Reims”, Travaux de l’Académie de Reims 81 (1870) 198–263. Le Grand N., La collection des thèses de l’ancienne faculté de médecine depuis 1539 et son catalogue inédit jusqu’en 1793 (Paris: 1913). Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Louis XIV en thèses, Collection “Histoire” – Série “Aulica. L’Univers de la cour” (Rennes: 2017). Porter R.S., “The Scientific Revolution and Universities”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (Cambridge: 1996) 531–562. Rey R., “L’école de santé de Paris sous la Révolution : transformations et innovations”, Histoire de l’Education 57, 1 (1993) 23–57. Spink J.S., “Un abbé philosophe: l’affaire de J.M. de Prades”, Dix-Huitième Siècle 3 (1971) 145–180.

chapitre 8

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska Véronique Meyer Summary This article presents two theological theses dedicated to Queen Marie Leczinska, shortly after her marriage to Louis XV celebrated in Fontainebleau on September 4, 1725. Both are illustrated with her portrait in coronation costume engraved by Laurent Cars, who was admitted to the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture on February 26, 1729. The painting that served as the model was by Jean-Baptiste Van Loo, a painter of historical subjects and portraits and himself a member of the Academy. The first thesis was defended by Pierre-Cosme Savary de Brèves in Paris, at the College of Navarre, on 22 January 1729 before a prestigious assembly including the Parliament, the nobility and high-ranking clergymen. The portrait was engraved at his request and he alone bore the expense, which was considerable, all the more so because of the expenses incurred in decorating the thesis room. The second thesis, of which only the upper part containing the portrait and the dedication remains, was defended in the south of France, in Arles, on 18 September 1730 by Pierre de Morand in the church of the Récollets. The same copper that had been engraved for Savary de Brèves but which had remained in the possession of the engraver was reused for this new thesis : only the name of the candidate engraved on the frame of the portrait was changed. In contrast to the previous thesis, the defence was a collective event, a tribute paid to the Queen and hence to the King, by the whole city, which financed the printing of the thesis, the decoration of the church and all the other expenses incurred. The governor of Provence and protector of the convent asked the consuls and aldermen of Arles to lend their support to the celebrations. Exceptionally rare documents of varied nature and origin, archives, prints and manuscripts each yield distinct insights into the characteristics of the defence, the engraving itself, and the importance of and motivations behind these events, for the candidate, for his family and for the city.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_009

208

Meyer

Fréquentes en France au XVIIe siècle, les dédicaces de thèses à de hauts personnages y sont plus rares au XVIIIe. Ainsi alors qu’on dédia quelques 142 thèses à Louis XIV,1 Louis XV ne reçut semble-t-il que 8 fois2 un tel hommage. Quant aux reines, elles n’en furent qu’exceptionnellement les bénéficiaires, surtout celles qui ne furent pas régentes, comme Marie de Médicis et Anne d’Autriche. Si Marie-Thérèse d’Autriche, épouse de Louis XIV, fut choisie quatre fois par les étudiants pour être l’héroïne de leur soutenance,3 Marie Leczinska, épouse de Louis XV, ne le fut que deux. A partir des deux thèses qui lui furent dédiées, l’une soutenue à Paris, l’autre à Arles et de quelques sources oubliées qui s’y rapportent, nous tenterons d’analyser l’importance de la soutenance pour le candidat et pour la vie de la cité, ainsi que la place qui y était accordée à l’illustration.4 Remarquons d’emblée que ces deux thèses datent des premières années du mariage de Marie Leczinska, célébré d’abord par procuration le 15 août 1725 à la cathédrale de Strasbourg, en présence du cardinal de Rohan, grand aumônier de France, puis le 4 septembre à Fontainebleau. Ces précisions ne sont pas indifférentes : l’aura de la reine n’avait pas encore eu à pâtir du désintérêt de son époux ; son rôle n’était pas encore aussi effacé qu’il le devint. Et elle avait en outre donné à la France les héritiers qu’on attendait d’elle et qui avaient justifié le choix de sa personne.5 1

La thèse parisienne

1.1 La soutenance La première thèse est une Mineure6 soutenue le 22 janvier 1729 par PierreCosme Savary de Brèves (1701–1781), sous-diacre du diocèse de Paris,7 au collège

1  Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Louis XIV en thèses, Collection « Histoire » – Série « Aulica. L’Univers de la cour » (Rennes : 2017). 2  Encore ne s’agit-il dans la plupart des cas que d’hypothèses : quelques dédicaces qui apparaissent au bas des portraits invitent à cette supposition. 3  Meyer, Louis XIV 312. 4  Pour une étude générale, Meyer, Louis XIV, chapitre I–III. 5  Louis XV était alors de santé fragile et on craignait qu’il ne meure avant que sa succession soit assurée. 6  Durant leur licence, les étudiants en théologie devaient soutenir trois thèses en deux ans, la première année la Sorbonique et la Majeure, qui duraient 12 heures, repas compris, la deuxième année la Mineure nommée ainsi car elle ne durait que 5 heures. Voir Guénée S., Les Universités françaises des origines à la Révolution. Notices historiques (Paris : 1982). 7  Né le 28 décembre 1701, l’abbé était le fils aîné de Cosme-César Savary de Brèves, capitaine de cavalerie, mort en 1708, et d’Antoinette de Poitiers, fille de Poitiers de la Vergne chirurgien,

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

209

de Navarre8 à Paris, avec pour président Nicolas de Saulx-Tavannes (1690–1759), évêque-comte de Chalons et pair de France, premier chapelain de la reine depuis 1725.9 Le Mercure de France10 rapporte l’évènement : après avoir consacré la moitié de sa relation à l’ancêtre prestigieux du candidat, François Savary de Brèves (1560–1628),11 ambassadeur d’Henri IV à Constantinople et à Rome, qui conclut en 1604 l’alliance entre la France et la Sublime Porte, signalant qu’on avait édité un volume de ses voyages au Levant,12 ‘dans lequel on trouve à s’instruire avec exactitude, de plusieurs choses curieuses ignorées ou négligées par d’autres voyageurs’, le journaliste13 précise, selon une formule convenue, que le jeune abbé ‘fit paraître beaucoup d’esprit et de capacité sur toutes les matières qui furent agitées dans la dispute’. Comme à l’accoutumée, rien n’est dit du contenu de la thèse qui roulait sur cette question : ‘Quis unâ oblatione consummavit in sempiternum Sanctificatos ? Hebr. C. 10. V.14’.14 Aussi est-ce pour son   voir Nupied Nicolas, Journal des principales audiences du Parlement avec les arrêts, t. 5 (Paris, Compagnie des libraires associés : 1757) 619–621. Dans la Collection des procès-verbaux des assemblées générales du clergé de France depuis l’annee 1560 jusqu’à présent […], t. 8 (Paris, Guillaume Desprez : 1778) 435, en 1755, il est dit chanoine de l’église de Vienne, abbé de Dilo, prieur de Saint Pierre de Champ-Dieu, vicaire général de l’archevêque de Vienne. 8  Le collège de Navarre, situé à Paris sur la Montagne Sainte-Geneviève (quartier latin), comptait parmi les collèges les plus réputés ; on y soutenait avant tout des thèses de philosophie, mais également de théologie. Cependant les leçons y étaient moins recherchées qu’à la Sorbonne. 9  Les précisions concernant la soutenance se trouvent au bas des positions au-dessus de la couronne comtale : ‘Die Sabbati 22a mensis Januarii anno 1729 a prima’. 10  [Anonyme], « Thèse de théologie dédiée à la Reine », Mercure de France, février (1729) 335–336. 11  Il s’agit du quadrisaïeul du candidat, qui fut le 1er comte de Brèves. Il accéda à cette dignité en 1625, après que Marie de Médicis eut converti les terres de Brèves en comté pour le remercier de ses services diplomatiques et de sa responsabilité dans l’éducation de son fils, voir Grillon des Chapelles A., Esquisse biographique du département de l’Indre (Paris : 1861) 305. L’[Anonyme], « Thèse de théologie » 336, précise qu’il était ‘chevalier des ordres du Roy, Ambassadeur de France à la Porte, puis à Rome, sous les Rois Henry le Grand et Louis XIII qui le fit Gouverneur de la personne de Gaston de France, Duc d’Orléans, son frère, puis premier Gentilhomme de la Chambre, et maître de la Garde-Robe de ce Prince. Il fut aussi premier Écuyer de la Reine Marie de Médicis et Conseiller d’État d’épée’. Les Savary sont une très ancienne famille originaire de Touraine. 12  Savary de Brèves [François], Relation des voyages de Monsieur de Brèves, tant en Grece, terre saincte et AEgypte, qu’aux Royaumes de Tunis et Arger [sic] ensemble un traicté faict l’an 1604 entre le Roy Henry le Grand, et l’Empereur des Turcs […] (Paris, Nicolas Gasse : 1628). Il est également question de ‘Jacques Savary, marquis de Lancosme, son oncle’, qu’il avait accompagné dans son ambassade au Levant et à qui il succéda. 13  [Anonyme], « Thèse de théologie » 335–336. 14  Hébreux, chapitre 10, verset 14 : ‘Qui, par une seule offrande, a amené pour toujours à la perfection ceux qui sont sanctifiés ?’

210

Meyer

caractère mondain, et parce qu’elle était dédiée à la reine, que cette thèse retint l’attention du rédacteur. Rien d’étonnant donc qu’il rende compte du décor de la salle, qui comme souvent en de telles occasions était ornée d’une ‘belle tenture des Gobelins qui représentait des Sujets de l’Écriture. On avait élevé un Trône au lieu le plus apparent, accompagné d’une Estrade et couvert d’un Dais magnifique’. Y était placé le grand portrait peint de la reine qui avait servi de modèle au graveur. Le président était dans ‘une chaire couverte de riches tapis et surmontée d’un dais’. Les thèses attiraient un public considérable, membres de la noblesse et des cours constituées, parlementaires, évêques et cardinaux, qui saisissaient cette occasion pour témoigner de son attachement ou de sa protection à la famille du candidat et de sa fidélité au dédicataire. C’est ainsi que ‘plusieurs Prélats et quantité de personnes de distinction de la Cour et de la Ville’ assistèrent à celle de Pierre-Cosme Savary de Brèves. Parmi elles se trouva l’archevêque d’Embrun, Pierre Guérin de Tencin (1680–1758) futur cardinal, ce qui occasionna des murmures dans l’assistance.15 Ce prélat ambitieux avait présidé dans sa ville au concile qui conduisit le 21 septembre 1727 à la suspension de l’évêque de Senez, Jean Soanen (1647–1740), accusé de jansénisme et opposant farouche de la bulle Unigenitus dès sa publication en 1713. Cette condamnation avait causé une forte émotion dans le clergé et au sein de l’université. L’archevêque se plaignit au nonce du pape de ce mauvais accueil de l’assistance, comme le rapporte Charles-Joachim Colbert de Croissy (1667–1738),16 évêque de Montpellier, un des appelants contre la bulle, dans un courrier envoyé à l’évêque de Senez, lui-même, le 26 février 1729 :17 J’appris hier des nouvelles de votre Métropolitain, qui ne m’ont pas fait de déplaisir. On me mande que s’étant présenté à la Thèse de l’Abbé de Brèves, il s’éleva un murmure de la part des Bacheliers et des assistants, 15  L’« Extrait de Lettres d’Auvergne du mois de janvier 1729 », Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, ou Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la constitution Unigenitus (Utrecht, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1729) 1er mars, p. 6, note a, précise que la Thèse est dédiée à la reine mais ne dit rien du candidat. Il ajoute que Pierre de Tencin ‘excite dès qu’on le voit le mécontentement et l’indignation’, et : ‘c’est de quoi il s’aperçoit souvent lui-même’. 16  Colbert de Croissy, fils du secrétaire d’État aux affaires étrangères et ministre d’État du même nom et donc neveu de Jean-Baptiste Colbert, ministre de Louis XIV, était au nombre des quatre premiers évêques appelants, opposants à la bulle, avec Soanen, La Broue, évêque de Mirepoix, et Pierre de Langle, évêque de Boulogne. 17  Recueil des lettres de Messire Charles Joachim Colbert, Evesque de Montpellier (Cologne, aux dépens de la compagnie : 1740), lettre CCCXLI, 373. Cet incident est rapporté dans la Vie de Messire Jean Soanen, évêque de Senez, t. 2 (Cologne, aux dépens de la Compagnie: 1750) 206.

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

211

qui déconcerta le Prélat au point qu’il ne put tenir, et sortit promptement pour aller décharger son cœur et boire sa honte chez le Nonce. Plus que la dédicace à la reine, cette présence du prélat dut attirer l’attention des contemporains sur le candidat, qui sans doute n’avait pas besoin d’un tel éclairage car l’année précédente, Les Nouvelles ecclésiastiques18 avaient fait savoir à leurs lecteurs qu’un membre de la famille Savary de Brèves, dont on a tout lieu de penser qu’il s’agit de Pierre-Cosme, ne fut reçu à sa thèse que grâce à une intervention royale : par une lettre de cachet, le roi ordonna à la faculté de ‘Recevoir un Ecclésiastique nommé Savary de Brèves, refusé à sa Thèse appelée Sorbonique pour son impéritie, mais qui en sait assez pour avoir mis dans sa Thèse que la paix de Clément IX19 est une vraie chimère’. La thèse en question n’a pu être retrouvée, mais les archives de la Maison du roi20 donnent le détail de l’affaire : Cher et bien aimés, Nous avons été informés que led[it Savary de Brèves Bachelier de vôtre faculté, ayant soutenu sa thèse de Sorbonique, le 26 juillet dernier [1728], il se serait trouvé à l’ouverture de sa capse,21 cinq mauvais suffrages des censeurs, quoique la plupart des huit censeurs ayant assuré ouvertement lui en avoir donné de bons, et ne voulant pas que led[it]. sr. de Brèves dont on nous a rendu les meilleurs témoignages, souffre d’un évènement aussi douteux, Nous vous mandons et ordonnons que conformément à ce qui s’est pratiqué en de pareilles occasions, les mêmes huit censeurs qui ont assisté à la thèse dud[it]. sr. de Brèves, mettent de nouveau leurs suffrages le jour du prima mensis prochain dans une capse qui sera déposée.

18  N  ouvelles ecclésiastiques ou Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus (Utrecht, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1735), Suite du supplément […] pour l’année 1728, t. 1, 293. 19  En 1669, le pape Clément IX (1600–1669), tenta d’apaiser la querelle entre le Saint-Siège et certains prélats français qui refusaient de signer le formulaire rédigé sous Alexandre VII condamnant les écrits de Jansenius. Ce fut la Paix de L’Église, ou Paix Clémentine, qui ne fut pas de longue durée. 20  Lettre aux Doyen, Syndic et Docteurs de la faculté de Théologie ; au sujet de la thèse sorbonique du Sr. Savari de Brèves du 16 dudit août 1728 (Paris, Archives nationales, AN/O/1/72, fol. 312–313). Cette thèse n’a pas été retrouvée. 21  La capse, du latin capsa, caisse ou boîte, était une urne dans laquelle étaient recueillis les bulletins de vote des docteurs de Sorbonne qui jugeaient de la thèse.

212

Meyer

1.2 La gravure Alors que Le Mercure ne mentionne que rarement l’illustration des thèses, celle que Savary de Brèves dédia à la reine fait exception. Il indique que le portrait de Marie Leczinska est ‘gravé en taille-douce par une habile main au haut de la Thèse’. Ce portrait [Fig. 8.1], œuvre de Laurent Cars (1699–1771),22 qui avait été agréé à l’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture23 le 26 février 1729, interprète en contrepartie une effigie en pied peinte par Jean-Baptiste Van Loo (1684–1745),24 qui montre la reine en costume de mariage (1725). Sans doute pour l’occasion, le graveur a un peu modifié son modèle : le diadème est enrichi de perles, le plastron fleurdelisé est couvert d’hermine et orné d’agrafes […].25 Aucune des versions peintes aujourd’hui connues ne reprend ce costume, et bien qu’en 1727 Nicolas IV de Larmessin (1684–1755) ait déjà gravé le tableau de Van Loo avec fidélité et dans ses moindres détails, Laurent Cars ne s’est pas soucié de copier cette gravure, comme en atteste sa transcription assez différente du visage plus émacié de la souveraine dont le nez est devenu plus régulier.26 Notons qu’il existe une gravure médiocre de Louis Crépy, de petit format, inversée par rapport à celle de Cars et qui procède du même modèle. Cette pièce n’étant pas datée, on pourrait penser qu’il s’agit d’une copie de 22  R  oux M., « Cars Laurent », Inventaire du fonds français, graveurs du XVIIIe siècle (IFF), t. 2, n° 20, 454–517. Voir aussi Rizzo A., « Profilo di Laurent Cars (1699–1771) », La Sfida delle stampe Parigi Torino 1650–1906, ed. C. Gauna (Torino : 2017) 61–84, qui reproduit également la thèse de Savary de Brève. 23  Il y sera reçu académicien le 31 décembre 1733 et sera nommé conseiller le 26 février 1757. 24   Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Inventaire MV 9020. La lettre de la gravure précise, ‘Vanloo pinx[it]’. Sur l’artiste qui fut reçu académicien en 1731, voir Debrabandère-Descamps B. – Zanella A. – Astro C. (eds.), Les Van Loo, fils d’Abraham, exp. cat., Musée des beaux-arts de Nice (Nice : [2000]). 25  Le motif des agrafes se retrouve sur la version du musée de Nice, mais cette copie n’est pas celle qui servit à Cars ; le corps de la robe est en effet différent (voir Debrabandère-Descamps – Zanella – Astro (eds.), Les Van Loo, exp. cat). 26  I FF t. 12, n° 22, 394, voir Larmessin Nicolas ; le portrait qui faisant pendant à celui du roi avait été annoncé : [Anonyme], « Annonce du portrait de la reine par Larmessin », Mercure de France, juin (1727) 1180. Signalons parmi les autres portraits dérivant de ce modèle, celui que grava Jacques Chéreau le jeune (1688–1776) en 1730 où la composition de Van Loo est gravée en entier mais inversée (IFF t. 4, n° 34, voir Chéreau Jacques le jeune), avec là aussi un costume légèrement modifié. Il parut également d’autres portraits en buste de la reine, celui de Crépy dont il sera question plus loin, aucun ne reprend exactement le modèle suivi par Cars. Le portrait de Van Loo fut l’occasion de répliques pour certaines autographes, auxquelles on apporta parfois quelques modifications, ce qui explique aussi ces différences. Vers 1734, Nicolas de Larmessin grava lui aussi le portrait de la reine en médaillon (IFF t. 12, n° 50, voir Larmessin Nicolas), mais dans un costume différent de celui que porte la reine dans la gravure de Cars.

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

213

figure 8.1 Thèse de Savary de Brèves dédiée à Marie Leczinska en 1729. Portrait par Laurent Cars d’après Jean-Baptiste Van Loo, bas de thèse édité par Jean-François Cars, burin et eau-forte, portrait H. 453 × L. 376 ; bas H. 512 × L. 587 ; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Estampes, AA6 Cars Photo de Véronique Meyer

214

Meyer

l’estampe de Laurent Cars, mais l’annonce parue dans le Mercure de France de janvier 1728,27 un an avant la soutenance au collège de Navarre, fait savoir qu’il ‘vient de paraître deux Portraits du Roi et de la Reine fort ressemblants, en Buste, grandeur in-4 gravés par le sieur Louis Crepi le fils, d’après les Originaux de M. Venlo [sic]. On les trouve chez ce Graveur, rüe S. Jacques’. Comme cela arrivait fréquemment, Laurent Cars aurait-il été plagié avant de livrer sa gravure au public ? C’est probable, car on retrouve les mêmes modifications du visage et du costume, et surtout le même cartouche aux armes de France et de Pologne, surmonté d’une couronne royale, et le même manteau qui dépasse de l’ovale, qui sont certainement de l’invention de Cars. Le fait qu’il ait été obligé d’attendre la date de la soutenance explique cette contrefaçon, contre lequel il ne pouvait réagir n’ayant pas pris de privilège pour sa gravure.28 Pour personnaliser son affiche de thèse, Pierre-Cosme Savary de Brèves célébra sa propre famille par l’apposition de ses armoiries au bas du socle renfermant les positions. Il présentait ainsi l’équivalent d’un arbre généalogique pour mettre en évidence ses illustres ancêtres paternels.29 Par un luxe exceptionnel, réservé en général aux thèses dédiées aux plus illustres mecenas comme c’est le cas ici, il fit graver le texte des positions par un graveur en lettres François Baillieul (1697?–1754)30 et inscrire la dédicace sous l’ovale : ‘offerebat P. Cômas-Savary Brèves Subd. // Paris Bac T. e Regiae Societate’. Le bas de thèse avait-il été fait pour l’occasion ? il est impossible de l’affirmer ; on remarquera que la largeur du portrait est inférieure à celle de l’encadrement des positions, ce qui laisse planer un doute. 27  [Anonyme], « Annonce du portrait de Marie Leczinska par Louis Crépy », Mercure de France, janvier (1728) 140. Pour le portait : IFF t. 5, n° 10, 388, voir Crépy Louis. La légende est en français avec l’inscription : ‘a Paris chez Crépi le fils rue St. Yves’ (sans date, 230 mm × 178 aux travaux). La gravure qui n’est pas datée mesure aux travaux 230 mm × 178. Sur cet éditeur, actif vers 1727–1754, mais mort en 1760, voir Préaud M. – Casselle P. [et autres] (eds.), Dictionnaire des éditeurs d’estampes à Paris sous l’Ancien Régime (Paris : 1987) 93–94. 28  Sur les plagiats à l’époque, voir Meyer V. – Nadeau A., « Le graveur Louis Simonneau et ses plagiaires : Gantrel, Cars, Malbouré, et Limousin », dans Barbier F. – Sordet Y. (eds.), Contrefaçons dans le livre et l’estampe, XV e–XXIe siècle ; études d’histoire du livre ; livres, travaux et rencontres, Histoire et civilisation du livre – Revue internationale 13 (Genève : 2017) 95–113. 29   On y trouve les armes des Bartholy, Damas d’Anlezy, Carmain de Negrepellisse, Maillé-Brézé, de Thou, Caraman-Foix, Beaumanoir, Médicis, du Plessis de Jarzé, Neufville-Villeroy […]. Du côté de sa mère Marie-Antoinette de Poitiers de la Vergne, fille d’un chirurgien, aucune alliance n’est évidemment signalée. 30  En bas à gauche des positions : ‘F. Baillieul scripsit’. Sur cet artiste qui fut également graveur et géographe du roi, voir la notice de l’IFF (t. 1, 398–402), où cette œuvre n’est pas mentionnée. Parmi les 20 autres textes qu’il grava signalons en 1742, les trois planches pour Le Sacre de Louis XV.

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

215

Là ne s’arrêtait pas l’hommage. Philippe Le Roux, professeur d’éloquence au collège de Navarre dès avant 1712, qui avait déjà consacré quelques panégyriques au roi, à la reine et au dauphin,31 publia lors de la thèse une ode latine32 célébrant la bonté de Marie Leczinska et son portrait ‘peint d’une main artiste’. Ce poème, probablement distribué à l’assistance avant la soutenance, faisait par ailleurs connaître à ceux qui n’avaient pu y assister l’hommage rendu à la souveraine et les invitaient par ce biais à s’y associer d’autant qu’entre la dédicace, Ad Reginam, surmontées des armoiries du roi et de la reine, gravées sur bois, et le titre Carmen, étaient indiquées avec les noms du candidat et du président, l’heure, la date et le lieu de la soutenance [Fig. 8.2]. Le choix de Laurent Cars pour graver le portrait de la Reine n’est pas pour surprendre, car il avait déjà à son actif un grand nombre de portraits33 et s’était fait remarquer pour ses traductions des sujets d’histoire, et surtout celles des œuvres de Watteau, pour Jean de Jullienne (1686–1766),34 et de son maître François Lemoyne (1688–1737), qui lui avait enseigné la peinture et du dessin. D’après Lemoyne, il venait ainsi d’achever Hercule et Omphale, Persée délivrant Andromède et l’Annonciation,35 dont en signe de satisfaction le peintre offrit le 3 avril 1728 une épreuve de chaque gravure à l’Académie où, peu de temps auparavant, Laurent Cars avait été élève. En outre Lemoyne avait dédié son Annonciation au duc d’Antin, directeur des bâtiments du roi, ce qui signala Laurent Cars à l’un des hauts personnages de l’État. On peut aussi penser que l’illustration de la thèse du Père Eugène Mecenati, dédiée au pape Benoît XIII36 31  Signalons ainsi, pour la guérison du roi, Le Roux Philippe, Regi ob valetudinem restitutam (Paris, sans éditeur : 1721), pour son mariage, idem, Religio pronuba. Epithalamium, cum Ludovicus XV Mariam Stanislai regis filiam duxit uxorem (Paris, sans éditeur : 1725). Idem, In recentem serenissimi Delphini ortum (Paris, Claude-Louis Thiboust : 1729) s’était adressé au Dauphin et avait orné son livret d’une vignette aux armes du roi et de la reine et d’un bandeau allégorique aux armes du Dauphin. 32   Le Roux Philippe, Ad Reginam, cum ducatam ipsi minorem ordinariam, praeside […] Nicolae de Saulx-Tavannes, episcopo et comite Catalaunensi […] propugnaret Petrus-Cosmas-Savary-Breves, baccalaureus theologus […] die 22 mensis januarii […] 1729, in regia Navarra, carmen (Parisiis, typis Theobusteis [Thiboust] : 1729). 33  On lui attribue la soixantaine de portraits qui illustrent Vertot R.-A., Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, 4 vol. (Paris, Rollin : 1726) (IFF t. 3, n° 4, 458). 34  En 1726 avait paru la Diseuse davanture (sic) dont le tableau appartenait alors Gilles-Marie Oppenord (1672–1742), architecte et dessinateur du roi (IFF t. 3, n° 11, 461). 35  I FF t. 3, n° 12–14, 463–465. La thèse illustrée la plus remarquable qui ait été offerte à Louis XV a été gravée par Laurent Cars d’après Lemoyne en 1738 pour l’abbé Armand de Rohan-Soubise (1717–1756), et montre le roi donnant la paix à l’Europe (IFF t. 3, n° 103, 486–487). 36  I FF t. 3, n° 10, 461–462, indique par erreur que la soutenance se fit à la Sorbonne. Une gravure d’Antoine Herisset donne une idée précise du décor de la salle, voir Meyer V., « Le décor

216

Meyer

figure 8.2 Page du livret de l’Ode offerte à la reine en 1729, à l’occasion de la thèse par Philippe Le Roux, BnF, Tolbiac, Yc-3463

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

217

et soutenue au couvent des Carmes à Paris le 24 janvier 1726, ne fut pas étrangère au choix que Savary de Brèves fit du graveur. Si Laurent Cars copia pour l’abbé Mecenati une des gravures les plus célèbres de Gérard Edelinck (1640–1707), conçue par Charles Le Brun (1619–1690) pour la thèse de l’abbé de Polignac,37 pour celle de l’abbé de Brèves il avait donc été chargé d’une gravure faite spécialement pour l’occasion. 2

La thèse arlésienne

2.1 La soutenance Peu après la thèse parisienne, le 18 septembre 1730, le même portrait en ornait une autre, soutenue dans l’église du couvent des Récollets38 d’Arles dont le Mercure de France39 et une Relation circonstanciée40 de Pierre de Morand (1701–1757)41 rendent compte [Fig. 8.3]. Le prieur Gélase Mottet avait demandé au père Chrysostôme Julien, récollet de Versailles,42 d’intercéder auprès de la reine pour obtenir son agrément. Averti, le maréchal Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars (1653–1734), gouverneur de Provence et protecteur du couvent,43 pria de la salle lors des soutenances de thèses sous l’Ancien Régime », dans Caracciolo M.T. – Le Men S. (eds.), L’Illustration essais d’iconographie (Paris : 1999) 193–212, illustration 1 et 2. 37  Ibidem fig. 3 et Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du roi. Louis XIV en thèses. Catalogue, Collection « Histoire » – Série « Aulica. L’Univers de la cour » (Rennes : 2017) n° 100 (http://chateauversailles-recherche.fr/IMG/pdf/catalogue_meyer.pdf) ; pour une raison inconnue, cette thèse ne fut pas soutenue. 38  Les Récollets sont des Franciscains réformés à la fin du XVIe siècle. 39  [Anonyme], « Thèse dédiée à la reine par les RR. PP. Récolets [sic] d’Arles », Mercure de France, Octobre (1730) 2248–2250. 40  Morand Pierre de, Relation De ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de Theologie dédiée à la Reine, soûtenüe dans l’Eglise des RR. PP. Recollets de la Ville d’Arles le 18. Septembre 1730 (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1730 ; 25 p. in-8 ; Bibliothèque Méjanes d’Aix-en-Provence [recueil G. 3295] et Bibliothèque d’Arles [fonds Bonnemant, vol. 58 et Ms 42]), mentionnée par Rance A.-J., « Une thèse au collège d’Arles », Revue de Marseille et de Provence, janvier-février (1887), 28–58. 41  Cet auteur prolixe, haut en couleurs, avocat au parlement, correspondant du Journal encyclopédique et fondateur de la 2ème académie de musique d’Arles, fut journaliste et auteur de théâtre. 42  On apprend dans la Suite de la Clef, ou Journal historique sur les matières du tems, may (1731) 377, que le père avait prêché le carême devant la reine dans le couvent des Récollets de Versailles. 43  Le couvent des Récollets qui venait d’être reconstruit fut achevé en 1729. Il était considéré comme un des plus grands et des plus magnifiques de la Provence. Il en subsiste la façade et une partie du cloître. Le maréchal de Villars, gouverneur de Provence, leur avait donné les 2000 livres dont la ville lui avait fait présent en 1716 lorsqu’il y fit son entrée en qualité

218

Meyer

figure 8.3 Page de titre de la Relation de ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de théologie dédiée à la Reine, Arles, 1730 (Fonds Méjanes, Aix-en Provence, C. 3295, 10)

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

219

les consuls et édiles d’Arles de s’associer à cette fête. Contrairement à la soutenance précédente, ce fut ici un acte politique collectif par lequel la cité manifesta sa reconnaissance envers le roi pour son aide après l’orage de grêle qui avait ravagé la région l’année précédente et détruit blé, vignes, arbres fruitiers, survenu huit ans après une épidémie de peste dévastatrice.44 L’archevêque Jacques de Forbin-Janson (1680–1741) vint avec son chapitre, suivi de la noblesse et des ‘Dames’, avec des gardes ‘afin d’éloigner la populace que la nouveauté du spectacle, attirait de tous les quartiers’.45 Au centre de l’église, ornée des ‘plus belles tapisseries qu’on put trouver dans la ville’,46 un ‘superbe’ dais surmonte le trône destiné au portrait de la reine. Ses armes, avec celles du roi et du dauphin, décorent des tentures de velours. 2.2 Concert et compliments L’académie de musique de la ville47 composa un concert, avec des paroles de Morand,48 auteur de la Relation De ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de Théologie, mises en musique par Jean Clavis.49 On avait fait chercher dans les environs les musiciens nécessaires.50 Divisé en quatre entrées, le texte met en scène la Théologie, la Vérité, la Foi, les Vertus et célèbre l’action de la reine et du roi en faveur de la Théologie qui terrasse, l’Envie et le Mensonge, en d’autres termes de gouverneur, voir Fassin É., « Les rues d’Arles », Bulletin de la société des amis du vieux Arles, janvier (1907), 173–187, ici 179–180. 44  Caylux O., Arles et la Peste de 1720–1721 (Aix-en-Provence : 2009) 59 et 103, indique que le roi allégea la capitation pour la ville de 8100 livres par an pendant cinq ans. 45  Morand, Relation Thèse de Théologie 4. 46  Idem 3. 47  Créée en 1715, décimée par la peste en 1721, elle ne renaît qu’en 1729, voir Signorile, « L’Académie » 440. 48  Morand Pierre de, Concert à l’honneur de la Reine chanté par ordre de messieurs les consuls a la thése de théologie qui lui a eté dediée soutenue dans l’eglise des P.P. Recolets de la viille [sic] d’Arles (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1730) (Arles, Bibliothèque municipale, A-27.982). 49  Maître de musique de l’académie, chanteur haute-contre et violoniste (ibidem). Tous deux étaient aussi intervenus lors des réjouissances organisées par la ville en 1729 pour célébrer la naissance du dauphin, voir Relation de ce qui s’est passé à Arles à l’occasion de la Naissance de Monseigneur le Dauphin (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1729 ; Bibliothèque d’Arles, manuscrit 424). Rares sont les témoignages attestant en France la présence de la musique dans les soutenances de thèses et les exercices des collèges. Signalons qu’en 1788, dans un exercice public des élèves de seconde sur Virgile et Homère, dédié le 7 août à Alexandre d’Anterroches, évêque de Condom, les pensionnaires chantèrent pour terminer la séance une cantate composée par le professeur de seconde et mise en musique par M. Hazard, premier maître du collège, et chantée par les pensionnaires, voir Gardère J., L’instruction publique à Condom (Auch : 1889) 156–157. 50  Si contrairement à l’[Anonyme], « Thèse dédiée » dans le Mercure, Morand, Relation Thèse de Théologie 11–16, ne retranscrit que le texte.

220

Meyer

la Religion réformée. La Religion catholique et romaine en appelle aux vertus pour que les chants résonnent au son des trompettes et des musettes : ‘Sous les coups de La reine, protectrice des Récollets, que l’Erreur tombe et périsse’. La Charité, à l’égal des autres vertus, glorifie la conduite de la reine : Dans les soins les plus généreux, Elle passe sa vie ; Et soulage les malheureux, C’est sa plus douce envie L’Humilité chante son cœur qui : Au-dessus de son rang suprême, Exempt d’une faiblesse extrême, méprise la fausse grandeur. Et chacune en refrain, d’en appeler aux : Bruyantes Trompettes, Douces Musettes, Prêtez-nous vos sons : Que les échos en retentissent ; Que les Cieux applaudissent A nos chansons. Bruyantes Trompettes, Douces Musettes Prêtez-nous vos sons. Après que la Religion ait célébré la gloire et le destin de la ‘trop heureuse France’ de posséder un roi et une reine ‘qui aiment tant sa puissance’ et la gloire et le destin glorieux qui l’attend, puisque rien ne l’affligera plus, ‘La paix, l’abondance’ étant ‘la récompense due à leurs vertus’, il appartient au chœur des Vertus de conclure : Chantons, chantons, célébrons leur mémoire ; Qui pourrait mieux chanter leur gloire ? C’est nous qui, de leur cœur, réglons les mouvements, C’est nous qui leur prêtons les plus purs sentiments ; Chantons, chantons, célébrons leur mémoire.51 51  Morand, Relation Thèse de Théologie 5–7.

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

221

Ce concert venait après le compliment du soutenant, le père Didier, professeur de théologie. On avait alors distribué au public la thèse, le livret de Morand et celui du concert [Fig. 8.4]. Le texte du compliment, donné en latin et en français, tourne autour des paroles du Christ : ‘De qui est cette Image ?’ (Matth. 22.20). Soulignant la nature divine des monarques, le P. Didier brosse le portrait spirituel et moral autant que politique et historique de la reine, ‘image de la Vertu’, ‘image de Dieu qui aime à se représenter sous la forme des Rois’. Selon lui, le portrait gravé en donne une vue imparfaite, mais atteste de l’éclat de sa ‘Grandeur divine’, ‘adouci avec art, de peur que se montrant dans toute sa splendeur, nous n’en fussions éblouis’. Si peinture et éloquence ne suffisent pas à rendre ses qualités, c’est qu’elle ‘se trouve au-dessus de l’art’ car elle ‘règne sur les Vertus avant que de régner sur les Français’. En elle revivent Marie-Thérèse et Anne d’Autriche. Comme dans les allégories convoquées dans le chant, les Vertus se réjouissent du pouvoir de la reine et le Vice frémit à son aspect. Si le portrait est silencieux, c’est par modestie, ‘pour apprendre aux personnes de votre sexe, quel doit être le respect et leur silence sur les matières […] révélées de la théologie auxquelles elles ne doivent pas s’insérer’.52 Le récollet résume l’histoire de sa famille, et cite quatre bienheureux parmi ses ancêtres dont Hedwige 1ère par qui la Pologne devint chrétienne, saint Casimir et peut-être Stanislas Kostka. Il fait ensuite l’éloge de la maison de France ‘race non moins sainte’, qui a aussi ‘des Clotildes’ (femme de Clovis). Il célèbre les cinq héritiers donnés par la reine à la France,53 qui assurent sa puissance et cimentent la Paix. Il rappelle enfin ce que les Récollets doivent aux trônes de France et de Pologne, à Henri IV, Louis XIII54 et à Louis XIV, qui leur a donné une maison ‘dans les lieux de ses délices’,55 et qui dans ses Armées les a rendus ‘compagnons de ses Victoires’,56 et à Louis XV et à la reine, dont l’affection s’est signalée par ‘ces riches ornements dont elle a enrichi leur église de Versailles’.57 52  Dans le concert, la Foi tient des propos très proches : ‘Du mystère le plus caché / adorant la grandeur sublime, / A vouloir en sonder l’abîme, / Son esprit n’est point attaché : / De cette recherche inutile / Elle se délivre humblement ; / A ma voix, son âme docile / Se rend toujours aveuglément’ (Morand, Relation Thèse de Théologie 5–6). 53  Les jumelles Élisabeth et Henriette en 1727, Marie-Louise 1728, Louis-Ferdinand en 1729 et Philippe en 1730. 54  Depuis le siège de La Rochelle (1628), ils assuraient le service d’aumônier aux armées, voir Meyer F., « Pour faire l’histoire des Récollets en France (XVIe–XIXe siècles) », Chrétiens et sociétés, XVIe–XXIe siècles, 2 (1995) 83–99. 55  De ce couvent des Récollets de Versailles que Louis XIV fit en 1684, il ne reste aujourd’hui que le cloître. 56  A la suite de Louis XIII, Louis XIV en fit les aumôniers de ses armées. 57  La reine était assidue à leurs offices, et leur donna en 1754 une relique de saint Jean Népomucène.

222

Meyer

figure 8.4 Page de titre du Concert à l’honneur de la Reine, Arles, 1730 (Arles, Bibliothèque municipale, A-27.982)

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

223

Le vicaire procéda alors à l’ouverture de la thèse et prononça lui aussi un compliment, suivi par un représentant de chacune des sept autres communautés religieuses.58 Selon l’habitude, le public posa quelques questions au candidat. Pour terminer, Morand adressa une ode à la reine,59 en français pour faire ‘plaisir aux Dames’ où il regrette son impuissance à célébrer celle qui ‘Des Dieux véritable image // D’attrait et de vertus est un riche assemblage’. Lui aussi proclame que, bienfait du ciel, ‘elle règne et l’Hérésie est dans les fers’ ; de nouveau il évoque sa ‘Bonté’ qui apaise les souffrances. Le chevalier de Romieu, associé de l’académie, entreprit ensuite un parallèle entre la reine et ‘la femme forte dont Salomon n’a tracé que l’idée’.60 Pour clore la séance, le P. Didier remercia l’auditoire et adressa ses vœux à la famille royale, à l’archevêque et au maréchal de Villars. La Relation De ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de Théologie qui restitue les différentes phases de la soutenance permet de se faire une idée précise du déroulement de ces joutes oratoires, du contenu et du ton des panégyriques dont on ne garde que de trop rares vestiges. En raison sans doute du rôle de Morand, la présente cérémonie offre une réelle homogénéité et la reine, incarnée par son portrait peint et gravé, en fut toujours l’héroïne ; vers elle convergeaient tous les regards. 2.3 La gravure Si l’on conserve plusieurs exemplaires de la thèse de Savary de Brèves, une seule épreuve du portrait nous est connue pour attester que le cuivre servit à Arles.61 La dédicace du Père Mottet [Fig. 8.5] y remplace celle de Savary : ‘offerebat R. ad. P. Gelasius – Mouttet exprovincialis Recollectus’62 avec un fragment du 58  Bénédictins, carmes, cordeliers, trinitaires, capucins, jésuites, augustins déchaussés. 59  Il la republia avec très peu de changements : Morand Pierre de, Théâtre et œuvres diverses, 3 vol. (Paris, Sébastien Jorry : 1751) t. 2, 332–338, ajoutant en note une référence au portrait. 60  Morand, Relation Thèse de Théologie 22–23. Proverbes, livre IX ; il s’agit de la Sagesse. Déjà, lorsqu’en 1729 la ville avait célébré la naissance du Dauphin dans l’Hôtel de ville, au-dessous du portrait peint de la Reine apparaissaient ces vers : ‘Grande Reine, je suis bien au-dessous de tous / Aussi pour vous louer simplement, je rapporte ce que dit Salomon vantant la Femme Forte / Elle a le cœur de son Auguste époux / Confidit in ea corviri fui’ (Morand, Relation Naissance Dauphin 19–20). Ce passage des proverbes de Salomon était célèbre, et en 1713, Calmet Augustin, Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. […] Les Proverbes, l’Ecclesiaste, le Cantique des Cantiques, et la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris, Pierre Emery : 1713) 101, cite en latin ce proverbe et explique que sous le nom de Femme Forte, Salomon ‘entendait une femme qui a toute la perfection de son sexe : la sagesse, la pudeur, la conduite, la vertu’. 61  Bibliothèque Méjanes, Inv., Portr 1. 62  Cet état était jusqu’à présent ignoré, comme un autre où Savary de Brèves est écrit Savary-Brèves (BnF, Est. N2, D28999).

224

Meyer

figure 8.5 Portrait de Marie Leczinska par Laurent Cars d’après Jean-Baptiste Van Loo, avec dédicace du père Gélase Mottet pour la thèse du père Didier, Arles, 1730 ; H. 483 × L. 387 (Fonds Méjanes, Aix-en Provence, Portr. 1)

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

225

même encadrement. Alors que les candidats gardaient parfois les cuivres où était gravée leur thèse, Savary avait dû les laisser à Jean-François Cars (1661– 1738), père du graveur, spécialisé dans le commerce des illustrations de thèses qui apposa son excudit au bas des positions.63 Savary de Brèves et sa mère, s’étaient engagés là dans une dépense considérable, et le 10 mai 1735, pour s’acquitter de leur dette envers le graveur, ils lui constituèrent une rente annuelle de 171 livres 5 sols au principal de 3425 livres.64 Il est clair que les frais des Récollets furent bien moindres, parce qu’il n’y eut pas de nouvelle gravure à exécuter65 et que le nombre d’exemplaires dut être moins important.66 Que devint ce portrait ? Fut-il dédié à la reine en d’autres occasions ? Toujours est-il qu’il ne figure pas plus dans les catalogues du fonds de Laurent Cars67 et de son héritier Babuty que dans l’inventaire après décès de son père et dans le sien.68 Pour conclure signalons de nouveau la rareté des placards de thèses qu’ils soient ou non illustrés. Ainsi qu’en est-il de la thèse mentionnée en 1889 par Joseph Gardère, vue chez M. Solon, ancien officier en retraite à Auch qui était, écrit-il, ‘dédiée à l’intendant en 1730 (et) portait en tête les portraits du roi et de la reine’.69 Cette rareté des gravures touche aussi les œuvres des burinistes les plus célèbres. Ainsi aucune épreuve n’a encore été retrouvée du portrait allégorique de Louis XV exécuté d’après Jean-Baptiste Van Loo par Jean Daullé (1703–1763) pour l’éditeur Robert Hecquet (1693–1775), qui en juin 1734, par le 63  En bas à gauche : ‘a Paris chez J.F. Cars rue St. Jacques au nom de Jesus vis-à-vis le Plessi[s]’. 64  Paris, Archives nationales, MC/ET/XLIX-556, 10 mai 1735 et inventaire après décès de Jean-François Cars, MC/ET/XLIII-366, 3 février 1738. Cette dette était entièrement due aux frais de la thèse dédiée à la reine. Le contrat avait été signé, sans doute sous seing privé car aucun nom de notaire n’est indiqué. 65  Cars a fait effacer le texte gravé et les armoiries. 66  On ignore quel fut le tirage de celle de Savary de Brèves, mais on peut supposer qu’il était proche du millier ; pour exemple les thèses des frères d’Aligre, dédiées au roi en 1679 furent tirées à 2500 exemplaires, voir Meyer, Pour la plus grande gloire du roi. Catalogue, n° 89. 67  Catalogue des estampes qui se vendent chez Laurent Cars Graveur du Roi […], Paris sans date [après 1767] ; BnF, Tolbiac, 4-V36-1030. Ce catalogue est retranscrit en annexe par Rizzo A., « Profilo di Laurent Cars (1699–1771) », dans Gauna C. (ed.), La Sfida delle stampe. Parigi Torino 1650–1906, Editris 2000 (Torino : 2017) 61–84, ici 84. 68  Babuty [François-Joachim], Catalogue des sujets de Thèses formant le fonds général de feu M. Cars, graveur du Roi. Acquis par Babuty, libraire (Paris, Babuty : 1771). 69  Malheureusement l’auteur n’en dit rien de plus. On ignore s’il s’agissait de portraits en buste et qui était l’inventeur de la composition, le graveur ou l’éditeur, et l’étudiant. Le dédicataire était sans doute Charles-Nicolas Leclerc de Lesseville intendant d’Auch en 1730. Ainsi la gravure n’était pas ornée de son portrait, mais de celui de Louis XV et de Marie Leczinska. Nous n’avons pu la mettre en rapport avec aucun portrait connu. Voir Gardère, L’instruction 154 note 2.

226

Meyer

biais du Mercure de France, faisait savoir aux professeurs de collèges et marchands d’estampes de province, ‘souvent embarrassés pour les sujets de thèses, ne sachant à qui s’adresser à Paris pour en avoir qui soient convenables et bien conditionnées’,70 qu’il venait de mettre au jour une planche ‘généralement applaudie à la Cour et à Paris’ dont il donnait la description. Pour avoir connaissance de ces exercices académiques et de leurs soutenances, il est donc nécessaire de croiser les sources les plus diverses, mais aussi de prêter attention à la lettre des estampes. Bien que tirées à des centaines d’exemplaires les gravures elles aussi sont devenues rares. Ainsi, sans la dédicace au bas du portrait de la reine, on ignorerait l’utilisation pour la thèse des Récollets d’Arles et le rôle du père Mottet qui dédia la gravure à Marie Leczinska au lieu du père Didier, ce qui montre aussi la difficulté qu’il y a à interpréter correctement les dédicaces, puisqu’en général dans de tels cas, le dédicataire n’est autre que l’impétrant. Mais cet exemple prouve que la réalité est parfois plus complexe qu’il n’y paraît. Je remercie M. Philippe Ferrand (Aix en Provence, Bibliothèque Méjanes) et Mme Fabienne Martin (Bibliothèque Municipale d’Arles) pour leur aide précieuse. Bibliographie sélective Manuscrits

Constitution de rente entre Laurent Cars, Pierre-Cosme Savary de Brèves et sa mère, 10 mai 1735 (Paris, Archives nationales, minutier central, MC/ET/XLIX-556). Inventaire après décès de Jean-François Cars, 3 février 1738 (Paris, Archives nationales, MC/ET/XLIII-366). Lettre aux Doyen, Sindic et Docteurs de la faculté de Théologie au sujet de la thèse sorbonique du Sr. Savari de Breves du 16 dudit août 1728 (Paris, Archives nationales, AN/ O/1/72 [MIC /O1/72]) fol. 312–313.



Publications avant 1800

[Anonyme], « Annonce du portrait de la reine par Larmessin », Mercure de France, juin (1727) 1180. [Anonyme], « Annonce du portrait de Marie Leczinska par Louis Crépy », Mercure de France, janvier (1728) 140.

70  Hecquet Robert, Mercure de France t. 1 (1734), 1189 ; IFF, t. 6, n° 6, 65 voir Daullé Jean.

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

227

[Anonyme], « Thèse de théologie dédiée à la Reine », Mercure de France, février (1729) 335–336. [Anonyme], « Fêtes à Arles en l’honneur de la naissance du dauphin », Mercure de France, décembre (1729) 2837–2851. [Anonyme], « Thèse dédiée à la reine par les RR. PP. Récolets [sic] d’Arles », Mercure de France, octobre (1730) 2248–2250. Babuty [François-Joachim], Catalogue des sujets de Thèses formant le fonds général de feu M. Cars, graveur du Roi. Acquis par Babuty, libraire (Paris, Babuty : 1771). Calmet Augustin, Commentaire littéral sur tous les livres de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. […] Les Proverbes, l’Ecclesiaste, le Cantique des Cantiques, et la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris, Pierre Emery : 1713). Cars Laurent, Catalogue des estampes qui se vendent chez Laurent Cars, Graveur du Roi (Paris, Rue St. Jacques vis-à-vis le College du Plessis : sans date). Collection des procès-verbaux des assemblées générales du clergé de France depuis l’annee 1560 jusqu’à présent […], t. 8, (Paris, Guillaume Desprez : 1778). « Extrait de Lettres d’Auvergne du mois de janvier 1729 », Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, ou Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus, pour l’année 1729, t. 1 (Utrecht, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1729) 293, 1er mars 1729, 6, note a. Le Roux Philippe, Regi ob valetudinem restitutam (Paris, sans éditeur : 1721). Le Roux Philippe, Religio pronuba, epithalamium, cum Ludovicus XV Mariam, Stanislai Poloniae regis filiam, duxit uxorem (Paris, sans éditeur : 1725). Le Roux Philippe, In recentem serenissimo Delphini ortum (Paris, Claude Louis Thiboust : 1729). Le Roux Philippe, Ad Reginam, cum ducatam ipsi minorem ordinariam, praeside […] Nicolae de Saulx-Tavannes, episcopo et comite Catalaunensi […] propugnaret Petrus-Cosmas-Savary-Breves, baccalaureus theologus […] die 22 mensis januarii […] 1729, in regia Navarra, carmen (Parisiis, typis Theobusteis [Thiboust] : 1729). Morand Pierre de, Relation de ce qui s’est passé à Arles à l’occasion de la Naissance de Monseigneur le Dauphin (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1729 ; Bibliothèque d’Arles, manuscrit 424). Morand Pierre de, Relation De ce qui s’est passé à la Thèse de Theologie dédiée à la Reine, soûtenüe dans l’Eglise des RR. PP. Recollets de la Ville d’Arles le 18. Septembre 1730 (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1730 ; 25 p. in-8°). Morand Pierre de, Concert a l’honneur de la Reine chanté par ordre de messieurs les consuls a la thése de théologie qui lui a eté dediée soutenue dans l’eglise des P. P. Recolets de la viille [sic] d’Arles (Arles, Gaspard Mesnier : 1730). Morand Pierre de, Théâtre et œuvres diverses, 3 vol. (Paris, Sébastien Jorry : 1751). Nouvelles ecclésiastiques ou Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus. Suite du supplément […] pour l’année 1728, t. 1 (Utrecht, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1735) 293.

228

Meyer

Nupied Nicolas, Journal des principales audiences du Parlement avec les arrêts, t. 5 (Paris, Compagnie des libraires associés : 1757) 619–621. Recueil des lettres de Messire Joachim Colbert, Recueil des lettres de Messire Charles Joachim Colbert, Evesque de Montpellier (Cologne, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1740). Savary de Brèves [François], Relation des voyages de Monsieur de Brèves, tant en Grece, terre saincte, AEgypte, qu’aux Royaumes de Tunis et Arger [sic] ensemble un traicté faict l’an 1604 entre le Roy Henry le Grand, et l’Empereur des Turcs […] (Paris, Nicolas Gasse : 1628). La Vie de Messire Jean Soanen, Evêque de Senez, t. 2 (Cologne, aux dépens de la Compagnie : 1750). Vertot René-Aubert de, Histoire des chevaliers hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, 4 vol. (Paris, Rollin : 1726).



Publications après 1800

Caylux O., Arles et la Peste de 1720–1721 (Aix-en-Provence : 2009). Debrabandère-Descamps B. – Zanella A. – Astro C. (eds.), Les Van Loo, fils d’Abraham, exp. cat., Musée des beaux-arts de Nice (Nice  : [2000]). Fassin E., « Les rues d’Arles », Bulletin de la société des amis du vieux Arles, janvier (1907), 173–187. Gardère J., L’instruction publique à Condom (Auch : 1889). Grillon des Chapelles [A.], Esquisses biographiques du département de l’Indre (Paris : 1861). Guénée S., Les Universités françaises des origines à la Révolution. Notices historiques (Paris : 1982). Inventaire du fonds français, graveurs du XVIIIe siècle (Adam – Le Grand), ed. Y. Bruand – E. Pognon – M. Roux – Y. Sjöberg [et autres] 13 tomes (Paris : 1931–1977) ; abréviation IFF. Meyer F., « Pour faire l’histoire des Récollets en France (XVIe–XIXe siècles) », Chrétiens et sociétés, XVIe–XXIe siècles 2 (1995) 83–99. Meyer V., « Le décor de la salle lors des soutenances de thèses sous l’Ancien Régime », dans Caracciolo M.T – Le Men S. (eds.), L’Illustration essais d’iconographie (Paris : 1999) 193–212. Meyer V. ‒ Nadeau A., « Le graveur Louis Simonneau et ses plagiaires : Gantrel, Cars, Malbouré, et Limousin », dans Barbier F. – Sordet Y. (eds.), Contrefaçons dans le livre et l’estampe, XVe–XXIe siècle ; études d’histoire du livre ; livres, travaux et rencontres, Histoire et civilisation du livre – Revue internationale 13 (Genève : 2017) 95–113. Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du Roi. Les thèses dédiées à Louis XIV, Collection « Histoire » – Série « Aulica. L’Univers de la cour » (Rennes : 2017).

Un même portrait pour deux thèses dédiées à Marie Leczinska

229

Meyer V., Pour la plus grande gloire du roi. Louis XIV en thèses. Catalogue, Collection « Histoire » – Série « Aulica. L’Univers de la cour » (Rennes : 2017) (http :// chateauversailles-recherche.fr/IMG/pdf/catalogue_meyer.pdf). Meyer V., « Laurent Cars, un graveur-éditeur entrepreneur sous Louis XV », dans DixHuitième Siècle 52 (2020), à paraître (24 p.). Pognon E., voir Inventaire du fonds français, t. 9–10 (Paris  : 1962–1968). Préaud M. ‒ Casselle P. [et autres] (eds.), Dictionnaire des éditeurs d’estampes à Paris sous l’Ancien Régime (Paris : 1987). Rance A.-J., « Une thèse au collège d’Arles », Revue de Marseille et de Provence, janvier-février (1887) 28–58. Rizzo A., « Profilo di Laurent Cars (1699–1771) », dans Gauna C. (ed.), La Sfida delle stampe. Parigi Torino 1650–1906, Editris 2000 (Torino : 2017) 61–84. Roux M., voir Inventaire du fonds français, t. 1–8 (Paris : 1931–1955). Signorile M., « L’Académie de Musique d’Arles et les fêtes de 1729 », Provence Historique 149 (1987) 439–446. Sjöberg Y., voir Inventaire du fonds français t. 9–13 (Paris  : 1962–1977).

part 3 Germany, Austria and Switzerland

∵

chapter 9

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy: Johannes Regiomontanus’s “An Terra Moveatur An Quiescat” Alberto Bardi and Pietro Daniel Omodeo

Summary

This article discusses Regiomontanus’s Disputation on the Motion of the Earth (An Terra moveatur an quiescat, Joannis de Monte Regio disputatio). Given Regiomontanus’s ties with late fifteenth-century Vienna and Padua, his text was very likely defended in a university setting. Later on, it was posthumously printed by the German astronomer Johannes Schöner, at the time when the Copernican theories began to circulate among astronomers and became topics of uttermost interest. All of this shows that academic disputations offered a fertile soil for debates on innovative scientific views. The ex-post insertion of Regiomontanus’s disputation into the Copernican debates on terrestrial motion sheds new light on the lasting legacy of university practices in the time of the ‘Scientific Revolution’. We would like to point to the institutional settings of Regiomontanus’s disputation and of early science in general, at the crossroads of academic practices, scholarly networks and editorial policies.

In 1533, an excerpt from a disputation on the motion of the Earth, entitled An Terra moveatur an quiescat […] disputatio (‘Disputation on whether the Earth Moves or Rests’), was printed in Nuremberg and attributed to none other than the highly respected fifteenth-century astronomer Johannes Regiomontanus.* It tackled a crucial issue of the event that is today known as the “Astronomical Revolution” or “Copernican Revolution”, which was ignited by the publication of the first modern mathematical proposal of a heliocentric astronomy (that is, Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium).1 However, the connection of the printing of the disputation with Copernicus’s planetary theory is * This paper is the outcome of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (GA n. 725883 EarlyModernCosmology). 1  Cf. Kuhn T.-S., The Copernican Revolution. Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (New York: 1959).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_010

234

Bardi and Omodeo

not an obvious one. First, the disputation refuted terrestrial motion. Second, Nicolaus Copernicus’s geokinetic and heliocentric reform of astronomy had not been completed by 1533. His major work, the aforementioned De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (‘On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres’), would only be printed ten years later (also in Nuremberg, in 1543). Third, a scholastic disputatio does not seem to be the best candidate for a ballon d’essai aimed at preparing the learned community for one of the most controversial issues of Renaissance astronomy and natural philosophy. In fact, the developments in mathematical astronomy ranging from Copernicus to Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler have often been considered external to – if not openly in conflict with – the scholastic philosophy of the universities, of which the disputation was a typical genre. However, if we consider the cultural contexts of Renaissance science, especially the relevance of humanistic networks and university intellectual life, we will be able to appreciate several circumstances that connect the printing of 1533 to the first reception of Copernicus. The disputation An Terra moveatur an quiescat appeared as a chapter within a larger work. Mathematician Johannes Schöner2 (1477–1547) inserted it into his book on geography that bore the generic title Opusculum geographicum (‘Geographical Booklet’) (Nuremberg 1533), a work that offered an overview of cosmographic themes.3 The opusculum is arranged into two parts: the first one provides the general premises of geography, such as establishing the spherical form of the Earth and its immobility; the second one deals with the geographical divisions of the Earth, their denominations and up-to-date geographical coordinates.4 Schöner printed the disputation in the first part (as the second chapter) and attributed it to Regiomontanus, who was regarded at that time as the most important mathematical astronomer of the earlier generation. The attribution seems reliable to us, in consideration of the fact that it was Regiomontanus’s intellectual heirs who edited the text in the town (Nuremberg) where his legacy was alive and where his library and manuscripts were preserved.5 It was printed by Johannes Petreius, then renowned for the quality of his scientific 2  Cf. Schmeidler F., “Schöner, Johannes” in Neue Deutsche Biographie vol. 23 (Berlin: 2007) 405–406. 3  The original, full title reads as follows: Ioannis Schoneri Carolostadii Opusculum geographicum ex diversorum libris ac cartis summa cura et diligentia collectum, accommodatum ad recenter elaboratum ab eodem globum descriptionis terrenae (Nuremberg, Johann Petreius: 1533). 4  ‘Prima pars principalis huius opusculi, de rotunditate terrae, de circulis Sphaerae, in terrae globo etiam intellectu constitutis; Secunda pars principalis huius opusculi, de generali ac particulari divisione nostrae habitabilis, secundum recentiores cum Geographos tum Hydrographos’. Schöner, Opusculum geographicum. 5  Regiomontanus, Opera collectanea, ed. F. Schmeidler (Osnabrück: 1972) XIII–XIV.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

235

publications. Today, he is principally remembered for the editio princeps of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus. Petreius received the manuscript of the book that revolutionized planetary theory from the young Wittenberg professor of mathematics – and Copernicus’s pupil – Georg Joachim Rheticus. They must have met in 1538 when Rheticus paid Schöner and his scientific circle a visit in Nuremberg.6 On that occasion, Schöner persuaded him to travel to Polish Varmia and meet Copernicus in order to receive the details of his work and conceptions first-hand.7 As a matter of fact, rumors about Copernicus’s geokinetic and heliocentric project of astronomical reform had spread across Europe from Poland since 1514 at the latest. In that year, cosmographer Maciej of Miechów recorded Copernicus’s preparatory booklet, which is known today as De hypothesibus motuum coelestium commentariolus (‘Brief commentary on the Hypotheses of Heavenly Motions’), in the catalogue of his library.8 Rheticus wrote the very first report on the novel planetary theory, entitled Narratio prima (Danzig 1540), and acknowledged Schöner by dedicating the work to him. These elements are enough to trigger the interest of any historian of Renaissance astronomy, despite the fact that Regiomontanus’s disputation on terrestrial motion is short and rather unsurprising. The fact that the motion of the Earth, which was the most unconventional thesis brought forward by Copernicus, could be presented to a learned readership in the form of a disputatio invites us to reconsider the scholastic entanglements of Renaissance science – or, in other words, the connections between the new science and university culture. This interest in the educational roots of science is not unprecedented: for instance, seminal works in historical epistemology such as those by Ludwig Fleck and Thomas Kuhn, Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlicher Tatsache (1935) and On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), have already stressed the importance of teaching and its forms to adequately understand the science of the present and the past. Studies on the connections between science and universities have flourished, especially in recent years in the wake of Charles Schmitt’s work, which advocated the study of Italian-university Aristotelianism in order to gain an adequate comprehension of Western intellectual history.9 6  Kraai J., “The Newly-found Rheticus Lectures”, in Beiträge zur Astronomiegeschichte 1 (1998) 32–40. 7  Włodarczyk J., Introduction to Georg Joachim Rheticus, Narratio prima or First Account of the Books On the Revolutions by Nicolaus Copernicus (Warsaw: 2015) 9–70, especially 13. 8  Biskup M., Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus’ Papers) (Wrocław: 1973) 63–64, n. 91. 9  Schmitt C., Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science (London: 1981). For an institutional history of English scientific culture see Feingold M., The Mathematicians’ Apprenticeship: Science, Universities and Society in England 1560–1640 (Cambridge: 1984). On Jesuit colleges

236

Bardi and Omodeo

This essay focuses on Regiomontanus’s disputation about the immobility or the motion of the Earth because it has only received scant attention thus far. We would like to call the attention of intellectual historians to this singular fifteenth-century astronomical disputation that addresses such a vexata quaestio. First, its scholastic style means it is illustrative of the encounter between established modes of scientific practice and novel outlooks. Regiomontanus’s persona is also exemplary of such an encounter between tradition and innovation: he is at once the classicist-mathematician, the humanistic erudite personality, the university lecturer and the editorial entrepreneur. Second, Regiomontanus’s text constitutes a rare piece of evidence involving European university culture in its transition from a manuscript culture to a printed one. 1

The Text and the Arguments of the Disputation

In this section, we offer the reader our translation of Regiomontanus’s text with comments. The original text is edited in Felix Schmeidler’s facsimile edition.10 We transcribed the text from the Opusculum geographicum and compared it with Schmeidler’s edition. As has been stated, the disputation originally appeared as the second chapter of Schöner’s geographical work; it followed an introductory chapter in which the sphericity of the Earth is justified with arguments derived from Ptolemy’s Almagest Book 1 and Theon Alexandrinus’s Commentary to the Almagest.11 The disputation begins as follows: An Terra moveatur an quiescat, Ioannis de Monte regio disputatio. Caput II. Quod moveatur, quia per motum terrae circularem ab occidente in orientem omnia salvari possunt, quae in astris apparent. Igitur si dicimus terram moveri et coelum quiescere, nullum apparet inconveniens. In oppositum est autor Sphaerae. Nota quaestio quaerit de motu locali, et non

  in early modernity, see Romano A., La contre-réforme mathématique: Constitution et diffusion d’une culture mathématique jésuite à la Renaissance (Rome: 1999), Baldini U., Saggi sulla cultura della Compagnia di Gesù (secoli XVI–XVIII) (Padua: 2000) and Hellyer M., Catholic Physics: Jesuit Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany (Notre Dame, Ind.: 2005). On the scientific culture of the protestant universities in early modernity see, among others, Omodeo P.-D. – Friedrich K. (eds.), Duncan Liddel (1561–1613): Networks of Polymathy and the Northern European Renaissance (Leiden: 2016). 10  Regiomontanus, Opera collectanea 37–39. 11  Schöner, Opusculum geographicum, fol. 3r.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

237

de motu alterationis, sive generationis et corruptionis. Quaerit itaque an terra localiter moveatur: de quo quidam antiqui opinati sunt, quod coelum quiesceret, et terra moveretur super polis suis circulariter, in die faciendo unam revolutionem ab occidente versus orientem. Ita imagi­ nabantur, quod terra haberet se sicut assatura in veru, et Sol sicut ignis assans. Dicebant enim: Sicut ignis non indiget assatura, sed e converso, ita Sol non indigeret terra, sed potius terra Sole. Johannes Regiomontanus’s “Disputation on whether the Earth Moves or Rests”, Chapter 2. One can argue that the Earth moves because all heavenly phenomena can be saved through the circular motion of the Earth from West to East. Therefore, if we say that the Earth moves and that the heavens are at rest, everything appears to hold together. The author of the Sphaera holds the contrary view. A well-known question (‘quaestio’) concerns local motion [from place to place] – not the motion of alteration, that is, of generation and corruption – but precisely whether the Earth moves (‘moveatur’ = is moved) by local motion. Some ancients already argued that the heavens were at rest and the Earth moved circularly around its poles, daily accomplishing a rotation (‘revolutio’) from West to East. On this account it was thought that the Earth was like roasted meat on a spit, and that the Sun would roast it like the fire. They argued indeed that, as the fire does not long for the roasted meat, similarly it is not the Sun that longs for the Earth, but rather the Earth for the Sun. Here Regiomontanus presents terrestrial motion as a well-known problematic. In fact, the Earth’s rotation and its displacement from the centre of the cosmos had been dealt with and refuted by the most important authors of mathematical astronomy and celestial physics in Antiquity, Aristotle and Ptolemy. The need for such refutation indirectly testifies that several philosophers embraced terrestrial motion in Antiquity. Timaeus the Pythagorean defends the thesis that the Earth rotates around its axis in the dialogue that is named after him (Plato, Timaeus, 40b–c). Aristotle later dismissed such a “Pythagorean” doctrine together with another cosmological view of the same origin according to which the Earth moves around a “central fire” from which it receives light and warmth (Aristotle, De coelo II,13). The name of other ancient supporters of terrestrial motion was inferred from classical sources. Copernicus mentions Philolaus the Pythagorean, who allegedly taught his astronomical theories to Plato, Hiketas of Syracuse, Herakleides of Pontus and Ekphantus the

238

Bardi and Omodeo

Pythagorean.12 Archimedes referred to the heliocentric system of Aristarchus in the Sand Reckoner without offering any details of the theory.13 However, Regiomontanus refers to the topic of the Earth’s motion as a quaestio, alluding to his scholastic context or even projecting a typical scholastic genre onto the ancient past. The ‘autor Sphaerae’ in the quoted passage most likely refers to Sacrobosco, who was the standard source for spherical astronomy in medieval universities; it could also refer to Regiomontanus’s favourite introduction to the same subject written by the Islamicate astronomer Alfarghani. These works resumed standard arguments derived from the first book of the Almagest.14 University exercises, quaestiones and disputationes on spherical astronomy which were based on such sources had to deal with the question of the motion of the Earth. Famous medieval magistri also discussed the topic and devised new arguments pro and contra. They also embedded such discussions in new conceptual frameworks. The most studied sources are John Buridan’s Quaestiones super libris quattuor de caelo et mundo (‘Questions on the Four Books on the Heavens and the World’) and Nicole Oresme’s Le livre du ciel et du monde (‘Book on the Heavens and the World’).15 Using a purely optical viewpoint, they argued that the motion of the ‘observer’ (we on the Earth) and that of the ‘observed thing’ (the heavens) are equivalent. One of Buridan’s arguments in favour of terrestrial motion is based on the nobility of the heavens, and draws upon the ancient Greek conception that the noblest state is being at rest. According to Buridan, this characterizes the highest celestial sphere of the fixed stars. By contrast, the lowest realm of the Earth is affected by motion. Notwithstanding 12  Aujac G., “Le géocentrisme en Grèce ancienne?”, in Avant, avec, après Copernic: La représentation de l’Univers et ses conséquences épistémologiques. XXXIe Semaine de Synthèse (Paris: 1975) 19–28. 13  Dijksterhuis E.-J., Archimedes (Copenhagen: 1956) 360–373, Chap. XII, “The SandReckoner”. 14  As one can read in a Renaissance edition of Alfarghani: Alfragnus, Chronologica et astronomica elementa, e Palatinae bibliothecae veteribus libris versa, expleta, et scholiis expolita, ed. Iacobus Christamannus (Frankfort on the Main, Marne – Aubry: 1590) chap. IV: ‘Quod terra sit centrum universi et sese instar puncti habeat respectu coeli’, p. 21: ‘Neque terra movetur. Si enim perpetuo descendendo moveretur, tunc res levis ut stipula aut palea nunquam eam assequeretur, ipsa enim utpote res gravis citius descenderet. Si autem in latera volutaretur, sagitta directo a capite in coelum eiecta, non recideret in eundem locum. Neque avis e nido suo egressa ad eundem redire posset, quoniam terra velocius moveretur. Si autem terra perpetuo ascendendo moveretur, non haberet naturam elementarem, ex frigido, sicco, calido et humido constantem. Sed hoc adversatur placitis antiquorum philosophorum’. 15  For an overview: Omodeo P.-D., Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance. Reception, Legacy, Transformation (Boston – Leiden: 2014) 205–209.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

239

this opinion, Buridan ended up dismissing terrestrial rotation due to “physical” considerations. Both he and Oresme considered whether an inner tendency, called impetus, could make terrestrial motion acceptable. Their theory of motion was based on the reworking of the Aristotelian theory of motion by the renowned philosopher of Late Antiquity, John Philoponus. For Buridan, impetus is a quantity associated with the matter of the projectile and its speed. In accordance with this concept, the motion of a projectile comes to an end because of its weight and the resistance of air.16 Impetus is the basis for the perpetual motion of the celestial bodies; according to neo-Platonic views brought forward by Philoponus, it was conceived as a virtue that God conferred upon the celestial bodies in the act of Creation. Although Buridan rejected the wellknown Ptolemaic claim that the resistance of the air would make the motion of the Earth impossible, he regarded the argument concerning an arrow vertically thrown in the air as decisive. He argued that it is impossible that the projectile is transported along with the rotating Earth because, as he assumed, it is physically (he actually meant conceptually) impossible that a body suffers two impetus simultaneously when they come from different directions. For Buridan, the non-viability of the composition of motions constituted a postulate that was irreconcilable with the thesis of terrestrial motion. Conversely, Oresme did not reject such a physical limitation, but the irreconcilability of terrestrial motion and scriptural exegesis eventually led him to reject geokinetic views (he mentioned Herakleides Ponticus as an ancient supporter of terrestrial mobility).17 Regiomontanus was more cautious than such Aristotelian predecessors in his disputation, which can be seen in the ensuing passage detailing his first thesis or conclusio prima. He referred to (apparently well-known) upholders of terrestrial mobility as ‘isti’ (‘they’) without expressly naming them. We cannot say whether he was thinking of scholastic masters or ancient authors. Conclusio prima. Terra non movet circulariter ab occidente versus orientem super polis suis et centro motu diurno, ut isti opinabantur. Patet quasi sic difficilius esset ire contra occidentem quam orientem quod est contra experientiam. Oporteret enim aerem terrae vicinum etiam ita moveri, qui esset ambulanti impedimento. Aves etiam non possunt bene volare contra orientem propter aerem insequentem, qui pennas 16  Buridanus, Quaestiones super libros quattuor de caelo et mundo, ed. E.-A. Moody (Cambridge, MA: 1942; repr. New York: 1970) 226–229. 17  Oresme Nicole, Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. A.-D. Menut and A.-J. Denomy (Madison – London: 1968) sect. II, 25.

240

Bardi and Omodeo

earum elevaret. Nam melius volare videmus aves contra ventum quam cum vento. Item proiectum sursum non rediret in locum a quo exivit. Item aedificia ex tam vehementi impetus viderentur rumpi. Manifestius tamen indicium est quod non moveatur terra motu diurno, in hoc quod aves videntur in sublimi moveri versus orientem, similiter nubes faciunt, quod nequaquam accideret si terra sic moveretur, adeo enim velociter oporteret terram moveri, quod ipsa motu suo superaret motum omnium in sublimi existentium, omnes igitur aves et omnes nubes viderentur moveri versus occidentem. First thesis: The Earth has no West-East circular motion around its poles or around the centre of the daily motion, as they (‘isti’) thought.18 This is fairly clear, for it would be more difficult to go westwards instead of eastwards, which is against experience. One would expect that the air near the earth would move in such a way that it would become an obstacle for those who walk. Moreover, the birds could not fly properly towards the East (‘contra orientem’) because the air would overtake them and lift their wings up. Namely, we see that birds prefer to fly with head winds (‘contra ventum’) than with tail wind (‘cum ventum’).19 Also, what is thrown upwards would not come back to its point of origin. In a similar manner, we would see the buildings breaking down by means of a very violent impulse (‘impetus’). However, a clear piece of evidence that the Earth does not move (‘moveri’ = is not moved) by daily motion is that we see the birds moving through the air eastwards (‘versus orientem’), and the clouds do the same; this would never happen if the Earth moved in such a way so that it would be moved faster in order to overtake, with its own motion, the motion of all that is in the air. Hence, we would see birds and clouds moving westwards (‘versus occidentem’). This first thesis in support of the immobility of the Earth is reminiscent of arguments by Aristotle in De Caelo and by Ptolemy in the Almagest – arguments 18  ‘They’ could refer to various ancient authors, for instance Herakleides of Pontos and Aristarchus. The expression in Latin, isti, recalls Almagest 1, 7, τινες. See Ptolemaeus, Claudii Ptolemei opera, ed. J.-L. Heiberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig: 1898–1903) vol. 1, 24. See also Neugebauer O., A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols. (Berlin – Heidelberg – New York: 1975) vol. 2, 694–696. 19  Birds do indeed prefer to take off into the wind and fly against the wind. See: Kogure Y. et al., “European Shags Optimize Their Flight Behavior According to Wind Conditions”, The Journal of Experimental Biology 219, 3 (2016).

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

241

that were dismissed by the scholastics mentioned above. As far as the impossibility of the circular motion of the Earth is concerned, Aristotle’s argument in De Caelo can be briefly summarized as follows:20 the motion itself is natural if a whole and its parts share the same tendency. The earth, as an element, tends toward the center of the universe (gravity), and this is in accordance with experience. Therefore, the motion of the Earth would be in contrast with the eternal regularity of nature. Second, terrestrial motion would affect the heavenly appearances, in particular the immobility of the fixed stars. Ptolemy defends the immobility of the Earth in Almagest I,7.21 In particular, he rejects diurnal rotation, for such a rotation would create atmospheric phenomena contrary to experience. For instance, clouds would be overtaken by the Earth and we would always have a strong wind from East to West. We would like to stress Regiomontanus’s choice of the passive form ‘moveri’ to discuss the motion of the Earth. This is in accordance with the Aristotelian principle that ‘nothing is moved by itself’, a principle that was at the core of scholastic celestial physics (and physics in general). According to this principle, separate intelligences (angelical agents, in some cases) were the external causes accounting for the motion of celestial bodies, that is to say, the spheres deputed to transport the heavenly bodies.22 Regiomontanus’s treatment of the motion of a hypothetical “planetary Earth” does not depart from this crucial principle. Conclusio secunda. Quaelibet pars terrae movetur continue localiter, patet. Nam continue pars arida terrae radio Solari calefit, rarefit et levificatur et multae particulae terrae, et etiam aquae de parte arida deportantur in fluminibus in mare magnum. Unde tunc pars terrae aquis cooperta gravior fit, quae etiam aquae frigiditate condensatur et gravificatur, oportet igitur ut illa pellat aliam sursum tam diu, donec centrum gravitatis totius fiat medium mundi, ad quod sequitur quamlibet terrae portione continue localiter moveri. Second thesis: it is evident that any part of the Earth moves continuously from place to place (‘localiter’). 20  Omodeo P.-D. – Tupikova I., “Cosmology and Epistemology: A Comparison between Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s Approaches to Geocentrism”, in Schemmel M. (ed.), Spatial Thinking and External Representation: Towards a Historical Epistemology of Space (Berlin: 2016) 145–174. 21  Pedersen O., A Survey of the Almagest, with annotations by A. Jones (New York: 2011) 44. 22  Grant E., Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200–1687 (Cambridge: 1994) 469–487.

242

Bardi and Omodeo

In fact, the dry part of the Earth is ceaselessly warmed by the Sun’s rays, and is made thin and polished; many small parts of the earth and of the water are also brought from the dry part through the rivers towards the open sea. Hence the part of the earth covered by the water becomes heavier, because it has been condensed and solidified due to coldness. Therefore, it pushes another part upwards until the center of weight (‘gravitas’) of the whole [Earth] coincides with the center of the world (‘medium mundi’). As a consequence, any part of the Earth is moved ceaselessly from place to place (‘localiter moveri’). This is another scholastic conception, linked to the so-called thesis of the ‘little motions’ of the Earth. Small displacements of materials on the surface of the terrestrial globe produce imbalances, due to the geological shift of the centre of gravity. This produces little motions in the sphere of the elemental earth aimed to create a new balance.23 Sixteenth-century peripatetic philosophers such as Andrea Cesalpino, Galileo’s professor in Pisa, continued discussing this topic. In his 1571 Peripateticae quaestiones (‘Peripatetic questions’) III, 5 (the chapter on sea tides entitled Maris fluxum et refluxum ex motu terrae non lunae fieri), Cesalpino argued motion was communicated downwards, from the eighth sphere, which is the sphere of the fixed stars, to the various planetary orbs and, eventually, from the most external elements to the internal element in the following order: fire, air, water, earth.24 In this context, Cesalpino anticipated a famous Galileian argument, that is, that the sea tides are produced by terrestrial motion, in his case by the same one responsible for the precession of the equinoxes.25 Regiomontanus’s theses are followed by two corollaries. Here is the shorter one: Correlarium. Non semper eadem pars terrae, manet medium mundi, sed [a]lia et successive. 23  Pierre Duhem discussed these medieval topics in relation to Leonardo da Vinci. See Duhem P., Études sur Léonard de Vinci, 3 vols. (Paris: 1906–1913) vol. 2, 332–336. 24  ‘Iusta etiam ratione motus caeli communicatur omnibus corporibus infra ipsum maxime quidem igni, quia propinquissimus est; minime autem terrae, quia remotissima; medio autem modo corporibus mediis, aeri quidem magis, quia iuxta ignem; aquae autem minus, quia iuxta terram. Nam cum aeterna sint elementa, secundum totas sphaeras non minus quam coelum: motum etiam quendam aeternum habuisse iustum fuit’. From Cesalpino Andrea, Peripateticae quaestiones (Venice, Iuntas: 1571), fol. 61r. 25  See Omodeo P.-D., “Riflessioni sul moto terrestre nel Rinascimento: tra filosofia naturale, meccanica e cosmologia”, Scienze e Rappresentazioni (2015) 285–299.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

243

Corollary. The same part of the earth does not always stay in the centre of the world, but another comes in succession, and so on. This passage recalls the medieval discussion on whether the geometric centre and the gravitational centre coincide. Buridan, for one, gave a negative answer on the grounds that the elements are not distributed equally on the Earth. On this view, the globe is bound to periodical adjustments aimed to continuously restore the coincidence of the geometrical and gravitational centres. Regiomontanus limits his treatment to the motion of the parts. Geological phenomena, such as mountain erosion and earthquakes, redistribute matter and produce constant changes. The subject matter of the second corollary addresses these arguments/points: Correlarium. Stat longo temporis successu, supposita perpetuitate mundi, partem terrae quae quandoque fuit in centro mundi, venire ad superficiem, et contra. Inde habetur occasio magnorum montium et scopulorum, partes enim terrae minus tenaces per pluviam asportantur, et manent partes terrae tenaciores quae successive radiis Solaribus coquuntur, et duriciem maiorem accipiunt. Huiusmodi terrae sportationem si quis nolet credere, videat radices arborum antiquarum in sylvis, videbit enim ea siam terrae supereminentes, quas tamen quondam in terra conditas esse oportuit. Corollary. After a long period of time, if the perpetuity of the world is taken for granted, we see that a part of the earth that for a certain time was at the centre of the world comes to the superficial ground and viceversa. From this arises the destruction of the great mountains and the rocks, for the less tough parts of the earth are taken away by the rain, while the tougher parts stand still for they are cooked by the Sun’s rays and thus are stronger. In the same manner, if someone does not want to believe in the erosion of the earth, let him take a look at the roots of the trees in the woods, and he will see them coming out of the earth, while, once upon a time, they must have been inside [it]. The passage lists the phenomena that are observable consequences of a sort of elemental cycle of terrestrial matter: the erosion of rocks and mountains, and the emergence of the tree roots. The earth, seen as the heaviest element, is only affected by these adjustments insofar as its parts are always re-adjusted but its central position as a whole is maintained. Local terrestrial motion is thus presented as the motion of the parts but not of the whole.

244

Bardi and Omodeo

A summary of the aforementioned theses against circular motion and motion from place to place follows: Sic patet qualiter intelligatur terram esse immobilem, id est non movetur circulariter circa centrum suum, sicut Sphaerae. Etiam ipsa non est ita in continua mutatione locali, propter sui gravitatem sicut caetera elementa, quae leviora sunt et faciliter agitari possunt et moveri. Therefore, it is clear to what extent we mean that the Earth stands still, that is, it does not move circularly around its centre, as if it were [the centre] of the celestial sphere.26 Moreover, it is not continuously affected by local alteration owing to its weight, unlike the other elements, which are lighter and more easily bound to agitation and motion. The refutation of the possible motion of the Earth is strengthened in the last passage of the disputation: Ad rationem negandum quod omnia possint salvari. Nam per hoc non possunt salvari. Coniunctiones et oppositiones planetarum, et diversitates motuum eorum. Sed neque salvari posset, quod videmus aves et nubes quandoque moveri versus orientem imo oporteret eas moveri semper versus occidentem. It is reasonable to refute that all the appearances can be saved. In fact, through it [i.e. terrestrial motion] neither the conjunctions nor the oppositions of the planets nor the differences of their motions can be saved. Moreover, we cannot save the fact that we see the birds and the clouds moving sometimes eastwards (‘versus orientem’), while they should always be moving westwards (‘versus occidentem’). The motion of the Earth cannot be reconciled to all of the observed appearances. According to Regiomontanus, the heavenly phenomena cannot “be saved” if one takes the geokinetic thesis as a premise. However, as Copernicus was to argue in the years of the publication of the disputation An terra moveatur, the motion of the Earth makes a number of the aspects of planetary theory geometrically intelligible, including the retrograde motions of the planets, the elongations of the inferior planets and the ratio between distance and periods 26  S phaera stands for celestial sphere, the eighth sphere, the topic of the treatises of Sacrobosco and al-Farghani.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

245

of planetary motions. Without the theory of the Earth’s mobility these aspects remain obscure and would either require ad hoc explanations or an appeal to metaphysical principles, as was the case with pre-Copernican astronomy. Although Regiomontanus was far from acknowledging this, the very fact that he disputed the issue shows that he deemed it not to be self-evident but to require supporting argumentation. The disputation ends, anticipating the next topics to be dealt with: Sic terrae rotunditatem ac immobilitatem (quae centrum mundi) hoc est omnium elementorum et sphaerarum existit, sine ulla distinctione circulorum expressimus. Nunc de circuli Sphaerae, qui et ipsi in globo terrae quemadmodum et in coelo imaginantur, dicendum venit, et primo de axe mundi. We have dealt with the sphericity and the immobility of the Earth (which is the centre of the world), that is the centre of all elements and of the celestial spheres, without further treatment of the [heavenly] circles. Now it is time to speak about the circles of the celestial spheres, which are depicted in the terrestrial globe as well as in the heavens, beginning with the definition of the axis of the world. The sphericity of the Earth is actually absent from Regiomontanus’s disputation but is treated in chapter 1 of Schöner’s Opusculum. In the original disputation, the next topic to be addressed was the axis of the world and the heavenly circles. Following this proposal, Schöner dealt with these matters in the chapters succeeding the disputation (chapters 3 and 4) of his Opusculum. It is also possible that the last passage does not belong to the ‘original’ text of the disputation, and can be seen as a bridging passage between chapters. If this is not the case, the disputation was not written down in its entirety and the preliminary discussion of terrestrial sphericity and of the circles of the celestial spheres was part of a larger disputation of which the motion of the Earth constituted only one topic. 2

The Cultural Contexts of a Renaissance Astronomical Disputation on Terrestrial Motion

Schöner’s publication of (a part of) a text by Regiomontanus was perhaps an instrumental move on his part to increase the prestige of his book’s argument for terrestrial immobility. In the economy of the Opusculum geographicum,

246

Bardi and Omodeo

it matched Schöner’s own discussion of the cosmological arguments that Ptolemy provided in the first book of the Almagest, and also reinforced them with a modern authority. It should be mentioned that prominent scholars have questioned Regiomontanus’s authorship of An Terra moveatur an quiescat. Ernst Zinner, author of the standard prosopography on Regiomontanus, questioned the attribution of the text. Zinner argued that the disputation was perhaps just a copy that Regiomontanus transcribed in his own hand and that Schöner attributed it to him by mistake or in order to give authority to the discussion of the argument – or both.27 According to Zinner, it is likely that this text was in the files named Quaestiones varii in the catalogue of Regiomontanus’s Nachlass of 1512. The disputation An terra moveatur most likely served as a source material for a discussion of the topic in Georg Peuerbach and Regiomontanus’s Epytoma in Almagestum Ptolemaei (‘Epitome of Ptolemy’s Almagest’). This is a fundamental source in the history of Western astronomy as it constituted a substantial leap forward in the Latin appropriation of the methods of mathematical astronomy that had been developed in Hellenistic antiquity and the Islamicate world. It constituted the basis for the work of the subsequent generations, including Copernicus. The question of the motion of the Earth was addressed and solved in accordance with Ptolemy and Aristotle in Epytoma, Book 1, conclusion 5, which was originally redacted by Peuerbach, Regiomontanus’s professor in Vienna: Quod terra localem motum non habeat declarare. Ex superioribus constat terre non accidere motum rectum. Sic enim medium mundi relinquere cogeretur, quod ante hac prohibuimus. Oporteret denique terram velocissime moveri mole sua id agente, unde reliqua corpora minus gravia terre adiacentia in aere relinquerentur si omnia gravia ad unum niterentur terminum, quod nusquam apparet. Terra demum circularem non habet motum. Si enim circa axem mundi moveretur ab occidente ad orientem, omnia que in aere moverentur semper versus occidentem moveri viderentur. Non enim possent consequi motum terrae. Cuius contrarium in nubibus motis atque avibus sepenumero experimur. Idem quoque accideret: si aerem una cum terra hoc pacto moveri putaveris. Terra postremo circa alium quempiam axem non movetur. Sic enim altitudo poli nobis in terra quiescentibus varia haberetur. Quod cum nemini appareat, terram hac lege moveri non posse constat. 27  Zinner E., Regiomontanus: His Life and Work (Amsterdam: 1990) 203.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

247

Declaration that the Earth has no local motion. From the above arguments, it follows that the Earth has no rectilinear motion. It [i.e. the Earth] would be forced to leave the centre of the world (‘medium mundi’), a possibility that we rejected above. Therefore, it follows that the Earth must move (‘moveri’) very swiftly pushed by its own mass (‘mole sua id agente’). Also, if all heavy bodies strove towards the same direction, other, lighter bodies near the Earth would be left back in the air, which never happens. Moreover, the Earth has no circular motion. If it moved (‘moveretur’) around the axis of the world from West to East, all things in the air would always be seen moving (‘moveri’) towards the West (‘versus occidentem’), which means that they could not take part in the motion of the Earth. We often observe the contrary of this [argument] in the motion of clouds and birds. The same applies to the case in which the air is only moved by the earth. Moreover, the Earth does not move around any other axis. If this was so, we would have a variable height of the poles in the Earth while we are at rest. As this never occurs, it follows that the Earth cannot be in motion in this manner (‘hac lege’).28 This discussion in the Epytoma is closely connected to the disputatio against terrestrial motion. As for Zinner’s doubts concerning the attribution, we would like to stress that Schöner was in a privileged position to be informed about Regiomontanus’s work and views. He belonged to the community of German astronomers in the generation that followed Regiomontanus, in which some pupils of the latter (e.g. Bernard Walther) were still active and could remember him. Even though an error of attribution might be possible, we do not see compelling reasons to accept this conclusion. Assuming the text was not penned by Regiomotanus himself, it could well be a report by one of his pupils, who might have written down some notes; it would have been an easy matter for the fame of such a paper to spread easily in the community that continued Regiomontanus’s work. However, for us it is less important to secure the paternity of the source than it is to assess its function within the astronomical debates of the sixteenth century. One of the main goals of the cultural program that Regiomontanus had initiated in Nuremberg was to foster mathematical scholarship through the publication of new works as well as the Latin translation and publication of 28  Regiomontanus, Epytoma in Almagestum Ptolemaei (Venice, Grossch-Roemer: 1496), inspected in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana and transcribed from it.

248

Bardi and Omodeo

classics from antiquity and the Islamicate Middle Ages. In order to achieve this, Regiomontanus had opened a printing house in the 1470s. The list of the books he planned to publish is still extant: Haec opera fient in oppido Nuremberga Ger­ mania ductu Ioannis de Monteregio [These Works Will Be Printed by Johannes Regiomontanus in the Town of Nuremberg, Germany]. The trade list comprised Regiomontanus’s unpublished writings, works by authors from classical and late antiquity such as Euclid, Archimedes, Theodosius and Ptolemy, as well as medieval and recent works, for instance Witelo’s optics, Jordanus Nemorarius’s Arithmetica and Peuerbach’s Theoricae novae planetarum (‘New Planetary Theory’). In fact, Regiomontanus also printed Peuerbach’s Theoricae in 1474 but could not continue his publication program due to an untimely death.29 Nonetheless, Nuremberg continued to print scientific works prolifically. The printer Petreius initiated a series that comprised titles from Regiomontanus’s list, among them, Regiomontanus’s De triangulis (‘On triangles’) (1533) and Witelo’s Optics (1535). Moreover, he printed ground-breakingly novel works that comprised not only Copernicus’s De revolutionibus (1543) but also many of Girolamo Cardano’s most significant writings on astrology (1543), algebra (Ars magna, 1545) and universal natural philosophy (De subtilitate, 1550). Among other publications, Petreius also printed one of the most famous historical and rhetorical works by Regiomontanus in 1537: the Oratio introductoria in omnes scientias mathematicas (‘Introductory Oration on all Mathematical Sciences’). Regiomontanus had delivered this oration in 1464 in Padua on the occasion of his lectures on Alfarghani’s Sphere.30 In Petreius’s edition, the Oratio served as an introduction to John of Seville’s translation of Alfarghani’s Rudimenta astronomica (‘Elements of Astronomy’) and Plato of Tivoli’s translation of Albategnius’s De motu stellarum (‘On the Motion of the Stars’). Schöner was in charge of the revision and editing of these texts, at least one of which, De motu stellarum, came from Regiomontanus’s personal library. In addition to the close relationship with the Nuremberg intellectual context, the disputation we deal with in this essay is connected to the university contexts of fifteenth-century Europe, including Vienna and Padua. The text of Regiomontanus’s disputation on the motion of the Earth probably originates from Vienna, in a university climate in which mathematical and astronomical studies were taught within a curriculum that was centered on rhetoric, logic 29  See Malpangotto M., Regiomontano e il rinnovamento del sapere matematico e astronomico nel Quattrocento (Bari: 2008) 211–217, for an overview of the publication of the books listed in Regiomontanus’s Program. 30  Robert Goulding has called it ‘the first modern history of mathematics’. Cf. Goulding R., Defending Hypatia. Ramus, Saville, and the Renaissance Rediscovery of Mathematical History (Dordrecht: 2010) 8–10.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

249

and philosophy. It is possible that Regiomontanus defended the disputatio in Padua, where he probably lectured in the years 1462–1464.31 At any rate, we must be careful not to form a narrow image of Regiomontanus the humanist, perceiving him as an intellectual detached from the university culture of his time. According to a schematic vision of the “Renaissance of mathematics” to which Paul Lawrence Rose was particularly committed, the appropriation of classical sources on mathematics and astronomy occurred outside, if not in contrast with, the scholastic culture dominating universities. However, we believe that the Oratio is revealing of Regiomontanus’s ties to the educational context of universities and his willingness to improve their curricula in order to strengthen the teaching of mathematics.32 The genre of the disputatio constituted one of the pedagogic pillars of university culture from the Middle Ages to early modernity. While the lectio, and the quaestio and the commentatio connected to it, were fundamental as far as the transmission, appropriation, comprehension and elaboration of the discussed authors were concerned, the disputatio was the crucial instrument of reasoning for purposes as diverse as teaching, the establishment of doctrine and polemics.33 It has been argued that the disputatio offered the most important “method” of clear and logical thought for four centuries, from the twelfth to the end of the seventeenth. As such it was not only appropriate to reassert given truths but also to open up new investigations, especially in natural philosophy and medicine.34 The University of Vienna, which Regiomontanus attended, was no exception.35 Scholarship on the history of that university has documented the extent to which the disputatio was practiced.36 Aristotelian logic and philosophy undoubtedly played a dominant role in the curriculum of the Faculty of

31  Rose P.-L., The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics. Studies on Humanists and Mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo (Geneva: 1975) 90–117. 32  These topics will be elaborated in the forthcoming paper, Omodeo P.-D., “Johannes Regiomontanus and Erasmus Reinhold: Shifting Perspectives on the History of Astronomy”. 33  Cf. Weijers O., A Scholar’s Paradise: Teaching and Debating in Medieval Paris (Turnhout: 2015) chap. 8 “The omnipresent disputation”, 121–138. 34  Lawn B., The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic ‘Quaestio disputata’ with Special Emphasis on its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science (Leiden: 1993) 145. 35  Zinner, Life and Works 13–16. 36  Kink R., Geschichte der kaiserlichen Universität zu Wien (Wien: 1854) vol. 1, part 2, 11; Lhotsky A., Die Wiener Artistenfakultät, 1365–1497 (Wien: 1965) 236 and 243; Shank M.-H., “Scientific tradition in Fifteenth-Century Vienna” in Ragep J.-F. – Ragep S. (eds.), Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science Held at the University of Oklahoma (Leiden: 1996) 117–120.

250

Bardi and Omodeo

Arts. As the records document, the core of the teaching was formed by the Parva logicalia, Physica, Metaphysica, Sacrobosco’s Sphaera and the theorica planetarum. Euclid’s Elements was exclusive to the mathematics curriculum, where Book 1 was used in the introductory classes and Books 1 to 5 were used in the more advanced classes on geometry. This curriculum was maintained from the fourteenth century to the fifteenth.37 The practice of disputation was an integral part of the students’ training.38 As far as the ‘disputability’ of fundamental cosmological theses like terrestrial motion is concerned, Olga Weijers, in her solid introduction to the medieval university culture of Paris, has made two important remarks of general relevance relative to disputations. First, ‘the final answer given by the master of philosophy […] to the questions treated in the disputations was not necessarily seen as the definitive answer to the problem. They [masters and doctors] often display a certain degree of modesty and are ready to change their opinion’.39 Secondly, ‘the arguments adduced for the opposing position, the position that would be rejected, were of course rebutted, but they were not despised or seen as worthless. On the contrary, they contributed to the discussion, revealed the various aspects of the problem and helped to show why the opposite answer was not valid’.40 In this regard, Regiomontanus’s disputation against terrestrial motion and the appreciation by his early modern readers appears in a different light than the bare dismissal of the core thesis of Copernican astronomy. Rather, it reveals that the topic was disputable and was, in fact, disputed in the late Quattrocento and early Cinquecento. As they have come down to us, Regiomontanus’s theses on terrestrial motion are fragmentary. The text seems to be taken from a broader disputation on astronomy, so long as we do not consider its conclusion to be a bridging sentence written by Schöner in order to integrate the fragment in his cosmographic booklet: ‘Now is the time to speak about the circles of the celestial spheres, which are depicted in the terrestrial globe as well as in the heavens, starting from the definition of the axis of the world’. Even though was dismissive of that elementary textbook of spherical astronomy embedded in an Aristotelian physical framework. In his Padua Oratio he regarded Sacrobosco’s handbook as 37  Cf. Shank, “Scientific tradition” 120. 38  Cf. Zinner, Life and Works 13: ‘At Vienna the Bachelor [student] had to demonstrate knowledge of Johannes de Sacrobosco’s De Sphaera, algebra and the first book of Euclid’s Elements; the MA candidate also had to know Gherardo da Sabbioneta’s theory of planets, perspective [optics], the first five books of the Elements, and an arbitrary book of his own choice. In addition, there were mathematical disputations’. 39  Weijers, A Scholar’s Paradise 122. 40  Ibidem.

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

251

revealing of the decadence of astronomical studies in the Latin world. He remarked with corrosive irony that in his times the ignorant and the amateurish claimed to be astronomers by reducing the discipline to such a poor book as Sacrobosco’s Sphere. In Regiomontanus’s view, the restoration of mathematical studies in the Latin world had to be renewed by selecting better sources for teaching, for instance Alfarghani, the reference used in his own classes on the subject.41 In spite of Regiomontanus’s limited activity in Padua, his relevance for the consolidation of a scientific culture in that city – something which Copernicus and other students benefitted from – has been often pointed out.42 3

Concluding Remarks

Regiomontanus’s disputation discusses a major cosmological topic, the mobility of the Earth, in the form of a disputatio, which is organized, after a general introduction, in conclusiones and corollaria. Although the text is directed against the motion of the Earth, the theses are conceived as problematic, and thus disputable. Moreover, it is possible that the ‘original’ disputation was a longer text dealing with spherical astronomy. We would like to emphasize that the genre of the disputatio was part of Regiomontanus’s educational background. As a student at Vienna and a lecturer at Padua he might well have disputed on the motion of the Earth at a Renaissance university. Given Regiomontanus’s criticism of theoretical issues of astronomy, in particular against the drawbacks of Sacrobosco’s treatise, no conclusive argument can be given against our acceptance of the attribution of the disputation to him; further, the original disputation might be longer than the one printed in the Opusculum. Nevertheless, at present it is impossible to know if the original disputatio was oral or written. The circulation of this disputation is linked to the history of the early reception of Copernicus, in particular the ground-breaking novelty of his defence of terrestrial motion. The disputation specifically addresses this crucial problematic at the threshold of the sixteenth century. The circulation of Copernicus’s ideas presupposed the existence of an open-minded group of scholars, such as those who were gathered in Nuremberg. Schöner’s decision to put a disputatio 41  Regiomontanus, Oratio introductoria in omnes scientias mathematicas, quoted from Melanchthon Philipp, “Oratio Iohannis de Monteregio quam habuit ipse Patavii in praelectione Alfragani”, in Selectissimarum orationum clarissimi viri Domini Philippi Melanchthonis vol. 3 (Erfurt, Sturmer: 1551), fol. 190r: ‘Nunc reliquum est Alfraganum insignem Astronomiae historicum ad limina domus uno verbo salutemus’. 42  Biliński B., “Il periodo padovano di Niccolò Copernico (1501–1503)”, in Scienza e filosofia all’Università di Padova nel Quattrocento (Padova: 1983) 223–286.

252

Bardi and Omodeo

on the motion of the Earth in his Opusculum geographicum is revealing of the positive disposition towards discussions of fundamental problems among sixteenth-century German mathematicians, astronomers and cosmographers. Further, the disputatio connects this milieu with the university culture of the time. Schöner preserves the scholastic form of the text. His attribution of the text to Regiomontanus, whether legitimate or not, bears witness to the perceived relevance of the topic. Otherwise, there would be no need to note the prestige of its author. Moreover, Schöner’s editorial choice bears witness to the transferral of the question on the motion of the Earth from an oral and manuscript culture, accessible to learned circles and university communities, to the established printing culture of sixteenth-century Germany. Such a transferral is remarkable inasmuch as it is the earliest occurrence of the discussion of the motion of the Earth in terms of a problematic. In fact, in 1533 Copernicus’s Commentariolus (first draft) was circulating in a non-printed form, while the Narratio Prima appeared only in 1540, and the De revolutionibus in 1543. Bibliography Alfragnus, Chronologica et astronomica elementa, e Palatinae bibliothecae veteribus libris versa, expleta, et scholiis expolita, ed. Iacobus Christamannus (Frankfort on the Main, Marne – Aubry: 1590). Aujac G., “Le géocentrisme en Grèce ancienne?”, in Avant, avec, après Copernic: La représentation de l’Univers et ses conséquences épistémologiques. XXXIe Semaine de Synthèse (Paris: 1975) 19–28. Baldini U., Saggi sulla cultura della Compagnia di Gesù (secoli XVI–XVIII) (Padua: 2000). Biliński B., “Il periodo padovano di Niccolò Copernico (1501–1503)”, in Scienza e filosofia all’Università di Padova nel Quattrocento (Padua: 1983) 223–286. Biskup M., Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus’ Papers) (Wrocław: 1973). Buridan J., Quaestiones super libros quattuor de caelo et mundo, ed. E.A. Moody (Cambridge, MA: 1942; repr. New York: 1970). Cesalpino Andrea, Peripateticae quaestiones (Venice, Iuntas: 1571). Dijksterhuis E.-J., Archimedes (Copenhagen: 1956). Duhem P., Études sur Léonard de Vinci, 3 vols. (Paris: 1906–1913). Feingold M., The Mathematicians’ Apprenticeship: Science, Universities and Society in England 1560–1640 (Cambridge: 1984). Goulding R. Defending Hypatia. Ramus, Saville, and the Renaissance Rediscovery of Mathematical History (Dordrecht: 2010). Grant E., Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200–1687 (Cambridge: 1994).

The Disputational Culture of Renaissance Astronomy

253

Hellyer M., Catholic Physics: Jesuit Natural Philosophy in Early Modern Germany (Notre Dame, IN.: 2005). Kink R., Geschichte der kaiserlichen Universität zu Wien (Vienna: 1854). Kraai J., “The Newly-found Rheticus Lectures”, Beiträge zur Astronomiegeschichte 1 (1998) 32–40. Kuhn T.-S., The Copernican Revolution. Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (New York: 1959). Lawn B., The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic ‘Quaestio disputata’ with Special Emphasis on its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science (Leiden: 1993). Lhotsky A., Die Wiener Artistenfakultät, 1365–1497 (Vienna: 1965). Malpangotto M., Regiomontano e il rinnovamento del sapere matematico e astronomico nel Quattrocento (Bari: 2008). Neugebauer O., A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3. vols. (New York – Heidelberg – Berlin: 1975). Omodeo P.-D., Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance. Reception, Legacy, Transformation (Boston – Leiden: 2014). Omodeo P.-D., “Riflessioni sul moto terrestre nel Rinascimento: tra filosofia naturale, meccanica e cosmologia”, Scienze e Rappresentazioni (2015) 285–299. Omodeo P.-D., “Johannes Regiomontanus and Erasmus Reinhold: Shifting Perspectives on the History of Astronomy” [forthcoming]. Omodeo P.-D. with Friedrich K. (eds.), Duncan Liddel (1561–1613): Networks of Polymathy and the Northern European Renaissance (Leiden: 2016). Omodeo P.-D. – Tupikova I., “Cosmology and Epistemology: A Comparison between Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s Approaches to Geocentrism” in Schemmel M. (ed.), Spatial Thinking and External Representation: Towards a Historical Epistemology of Space (Berlin: 2016) 145–174. Oresme Nicole, Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. A.D. Menut and A.J. Denomy (Madison – London: 1968). Pedersen O., A Survey of the Almagest, with annotations by A. Jones (New York: 2011). Ptolemaeus, Claudii Ptolemei opera, ed. J.L. Heiberg, 2. vols. (Leipzig: 1898–1903). Regiomontanus, Opera collectanea, ed. F. Schmeidler (Osnabrück: 1972). Regiomontanus, Epytoma in Almagestum Ptolemaei (Venice, Grossch-Roemer: 1496). Regiomontanus, Oratio introductoria in omnes scientias mathematicas, quoted from Melanchthon Philipp, Oratio Iohannis de Monteregio quam habuit ipse Patavii in praelectione Alfragani, in Selectissimarum orationum clarissimi viri Domini Philippi Melanchthonis vol. 3 (Erfurt, Sturmer: 1551). Romano A., La contre-réforme mathématique: Constitution et diffusion d’une culture mathématique jésuite à la Renaissance (Rome: 1999). Rose P.-L., The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics. Studies on Humanists and Mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo (Geneva: 1975).

254

Bardi and Omodeo

Schmitt C., Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science (London: 1981). Schöner Johannes, Ioannis Schoneri Carolostadii opusculum geographicum ex diversorum libris ac cartis summa cura et diligentia collectum, accommodatum ad recenter elaboratum ab eodem globum descriptionis terrenae (Nuremberg, Johann Petreius: 1533). Shank M.-H., “Scientific tradition in Fifteenth-Century Vienna” in Ragep J.-F. – Ragep S. (eds.), Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science Held at the University of Oklahoma (Leiden: 1996) 117–120. Weijers O., A Scholar’s Paradise: Teaching and Debating in Medieval Paris (Turnhout: 2015). Włodarczyk J., Introduction to Georg Joachim Rheticus, Narratio prima or First Account of the Books On the Revolutions by Nicolaus Copernicus (Warsaw: 2015). Zinner E., Regiomontanus: His Life and Work (Amsterdam: 1990).

chapter 10

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600 Ulrich Schlegelmilch Translated by Ulrike Nichols Summary Despite attempts during the earlier half of the 16th century to establish surgical training for medical students at German universities, it was not before the end of the century that a graduation in surgery became possible in some places. Through a detailed analysis of a series of doctoral dissertations on surgical themes held in Basel between 1583 and 1609, I am going to show how this change in the medical curriculum came about and who its protagonists were. Moreover, I will explain why these doctores chirurgiae, together with their surgical training, were to remain a short-lived episode in Northern European university history for a long time afterwards.

Medical disputations in the German speaking world in the 16th century would mainly cover theoretical discussions or particular diseases but would hardly ever touch on the topic of surgery, or chirurgia. Thus, it is notable that Basel University produced a small number of medical dissertations between 1583 and 1609 with the term chirurgia in the title. The respondents either exclusively or partially covered surgical topics in these theses, some of them even aiming at the degree of a Doctor of Surgery. As this was very unusual in the German speaking world at the time, it requires an explanation. On the one hand, northern European universities tried to gain more independence from those in Italy, which had included surgery in their academic curriculum. On the other hand, they tried to conquer new segments of the ‘medical market’ for academic medicine that had traditionally been in other hands. 1

The Context of the Disputations: Academic Surgery around 1600

German medical students in the sixteenth century who moved to France or Italy to broaden their knowledge found surgery had a very different status in Montpellier, Venice and Padua, but also in other places like Pisa and Bologna.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_011

256

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

At Montpellier the large proportion of practical teaching in surgery was noticeable,1 and in the territory of the Venetian Republic and thus in Padua, the members of the College of Surgeons enjoyed significant respect and received an academic training that could lead up to a doctorate. There were even physicians here who worked as surgeons.2 The appreciation of the subject was expressed by having individual professorships for it. Despite the fundamental differences between anatomy and surgery – one is practised on a corpse while the other is performed on an ill but living body – both disciplines had much in common not least because they taught manual skills. As a consequence, both anatomy and surgery were taught by the same professor, as for instance in Padua throughout 1662, and the theory was supplemented with courses in operative surgery that were taught by surgeons.3 In the German speaking countries, the situation was fundamentally different: for a long time there had been a sharp divide between physicians with an academic degree and barber surgeons. Despite many polemical and stereotypical remarks by physicians, the difference did not always mean an oppositional relationship.4 However, when during the first half of the 16th century, philologically trained physicians rediscovered and translated the surgical writings of the Corpus Hippocraticum and Galen they gained more knowledge in the area of surgery, which deepened the potential rift to the barber surgeons even more.5 During the same time, in many different places in Germany there were similar yet isolated attempts mainly by the authorities to copy the southern European model and establish surgical training at the home universities both for medical students and for barber surgeons. The level of practice-orientation 1  Nutton V., “Humanist Surgery”, in Wear A. – French R.K. – Lonie I.M. (eds.), The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: 1985) 75–99 at 81. 2  Palmer R., “Physicians and Surgeons in Sixteenth-Century Venice”, Medical History 23 (1979) 451–460 at 453–455; Klestinec C., Theaters of Anatomy. Students, Teachers, and Traditions of Dissection in Renaissance Venice (Baltimore: 2011) 151–152. 3  Bertolaso B., “Ricerche d’archivio su alcuni aspetti dell’insegnamento medico presso la Università di Padova nel Cinque- e Seicento”, Acta medicae historiae Patavina 6 (1959/60) 17–38 at 29–31. Very recently on this subject: Stolberg M., “Teaching Anatomy in Post-Vesalian Padua: An Analysis of Student Notes”, The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 48 (2018) 61–78. See also Klestinec, Theaters of Anatomy 153 (on the demonstration of surgical operations following a ‘private’ anatomy). 4  As rightly emphasised in Kinzelbach A., Gesundbleiben, Krankwerden, Armsein in der früh­ neuzeitlichen Gesellschaft (Stuttgart: 1995) 290. On efforts of city authorities to get both groups to cooperate cf. eadem, Chirurgen und Chirurgiepraktiken. Wundärzte als Reichsstadtbürger, 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Mainz: 2016) 27–28 (examples from Ulm). 5  Nutton, “Humanist Surgery”.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

257

of these professorships vastly differed which probably had something to do with the biography of the respective professors. The definition of the relationship between anatomy and surgery also varied. There has been no comparative overview as of yet, which is why I include some notes in order to adequately assess the dissertations from Basel. In the Wittenberg of the Reformation years, the Professor of Medicine Augustin Schurff (1495–1548), who may have himself studied in Italy, performed public dissections.6 An additional lecture series in surgery was obviously supposed to have a rather theoretical focus on books. Basilius Axt (1486–1558) was discussed as a speaker for it.7 In Heidelberg, it was the Elector’s personal physician Johannes Lange (1485– 1565) who pushed for the establishment of a fourth professorship in surgery. He pursued the clearly recognisable goal to lift the quality of practical surgery through teaching the knowledge regained from Antiquity, a project that initially failed.8 In Leipzig, the University had already received the Elector’s order to appoint a lecturer in surgery in 1542 but the position was not filled for quite some time. An application letter from 1559 reveals that the candidate for this professorship was supposed to be ‘an experienced surgeon and a doctor in surgery’, which meant he almost inevitably had to be someone who had graduated in Italy.9 During the creation of the job description in Leipzig in 1542 6  On the episode of the dissection of a head which has often been cited since Friedensburg W., Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg (Halle: 1917) 210 and which Schurff may have stopped only for climatical reasons, cf. Disselhorst R., “Die medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wittenberg und ihre Vertreter von 1503 bis 1816”, Leopoldina N.F. 5 (1929) 79–101 at 84 and lately Koch H.Th., “Anatomie als universitäres Lehrfach. Das Beispiel Wittenberg,” in Helm J. – Stukenbrock K. (eds.), Anatomie. Sektionen einer medizinischen Wissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: 2003) 169–188 at 169–170 (also on Schurff’s potential relationships to Italy). On the particular appreciation of anatomy in Wittenberg that can largely be attributed to Melanchthon, cf. Nutton V., “Wittenberg Anatomy”, in Grell O.P. – Cunningham A. (eds.), Medicine and the Reformation (London – New York 1993) 11–32. 7  Weimar, Hauptstaatsarchiv, finding aid to Ernestinisches Gesamtarchiv Reg. O, Nr. 369/6: “Das Bedencken facultatis medicae, licentiat Basilium Chirurgi profitiren und lesen zu lassenn” ([‘Verdict of the Medical Faculty in favour of Basilius, lic. med., as a public lecturer in surgery’] around 1525; the file itself is lost). Only in 1536, Jakob Milich was appointed as Professor of Surgery. 8  Nutton, “Humanist Surgery” 94–96. 9  Andreas Ellinger to the Elector August, 1 Jun 1559: Dresden, Hauptstaatsarchiv, Best. 10004 Kopiale, Nr. 280, fol. 67–68, edited by Zaunick R., “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Leipziger chirurgisch-anatomischen Professur vor 1580”, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 16 (1924) 189–208 at 200–201; for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00034896. Gregor Schett who briefly held the post (from 1554, † 1558) had graduated at a place now unknown and gained the title ‘Doctor beyder artzney’ (Doctor of both medicines; more on this title below in note 30). He in turn was the son of a surgeon; see Sigismund Kohlreuter to Johannes Pistorius,

258

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

the presence of the surgeon Apollonio Massa who had earned his doctorate in Venice might have played a role.10 Furthermore, it is remarkable that in Saxony the plan clearly was to achieve a situation already known from Venice, namely to bridge the gap between academic and barber surgeons. Here a professor was desired who die Chyrurgia oder das teil der ertzney, welchs mit der hand wurckt, nicht alleine den Studenten in der Artzney zu Latein, sondern auch den meistern vnd gesellen des Balbirhandtwercks deutzsch gemeinem nutz zum besten, wie dasselbige in Franckreich vnd Italien breuchlich, lesen und profitiren solte.11 should teach surgery or the part of medicine that is performed by hand and to lecture on the topic publicly, not only to the medical students in Latin but also in German for the master barbers and their journeymen, serving the public good, as it is common in France and Italy. However, already in 1562 the university was again looking for a suitable candidate who could teach the students – barbers are no longer mentioned – ‘in chirurgia, auch in practica (daß si die handreichung sehen)’ (‘in surgery but also practical techniques [so that they can see the manual process]’). There was no longer any hope to find such a person at home; only in the following generation would ‘fellow countrymen’ be able to ‘manage’ (‘vorwalten’) surgery, with a pleasant side effect: ‘schwinde dornach die grosse besoldunge des fremden welschen chirurgici, dan die landleute lissen sich wol an einer

   27 Mar 1555: Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 3078 4°, no. LVI; for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00038320. With regard to Leipzig see further: Elector August to the Medical Faculty at Leipzig, concept from 10 Jun 1554: Dresden, Hauptstaatsarchiv, Best. 10004 Kopiale, Nr. 260, fol. 229–230; edited by Zaunick, “Beiträge” 198; for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00034897. The documents edited by Zaunick have been published again, but without the addition of new insights in Sachs M., Geschichte der opera­ tiven Chirurgie, vol. 4: Vom Handwerk zur Wissenschaft: Die Entwicklung der Chirurgie im deutschen Sprachraum vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg: 2003) 136–137. 10  On Massa, see Palmer R., “Nicolò Massa, his family and his fortune”, Medical History 25 (1981) 385–410, at 397–399 and 406–407. 11  Elector August to the Medical Faculty at Leipzig, 10 Jun 1554 (cf. note 9). On Leipzig there is now also a summary by Schütte J.M., Medizin im Konflikt. Fakultäten, Märkte und Experten in deutschen Universitätsstädten des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Leiden – Boston: 2017) 273–274; on a comparable attempt in Vienna (1555) cf. ibidem 101–102.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

259

geringeren begenugen’ (‘the generous payment of the foreign surgeon would disappear because fellow countrymen would be satisfied with less’).12 In Wuerttemberg, the demands went even further: The goal was not only to become independent from importing foreign teaching staff or ‘foreign knowledge’ but to achieve a fundamental restructuring of medical staff in the home country. In 1557 Duke Christoph had the express goal not only to let some of his medical students acquire knowledge in surgery but also to have them work in this field after their exams – an unusual concept to raise the profile of surgery that did not succeed in this form.13 The motivation behind all of these attempts to strengthen surgery was not always the same and depended on the person who started the initiative. In Wuerttemberg, the efforts for better medical care appear as an element of princely ‘good policing’ (‘gute Policey’) but must be linked back to consultations with physicians in the vicinity of the Duke, although there are no direct records at hand for such connections. Yet regarding their euphoria about the regained classics and the subsequent new opportunities in medical training, we must assume that they did not act neutrally and only for the sake of the cause. Physicians would also use their additional knowledge as a pretext for increasing their influence on barber surgeons. For instance, when in a reference for the appointment of a medical professor in Heidelberg, Ludwig Graff Jr (1547–1615) expressed the hope that academic training in surgery would lead to students being more useful in the future than barbers and barber surgeons both within and outside of academia, we must regard this as an attempt to expand the sphere of influence and action of academic medicine at the cost of barber surgeons.14 In Germany, we usually do not find this thought openly expressed, yet we may assume that a number of students had the hope to shift the established areas of responsibility in the market at home by deciding to take on additional studies in anatomy and surgery. 12  From the so-called Political Testament of the Counsellor Melchior von Osse, cited in Zaunick, “Beiträge” 204. 13  Cf. here Thümmel H.-W., Die Tübinger Universitätsverfassung im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Tübingen: 1975) 227 with the source cited there. Accordingly, the Duke also awarded grants for the express support of studies in medicine and surgery, for instance in 1562 to Oswald Gabelkover Jr (1539–1616): Tübingen, Universitätsarchiv, 20/5 No. 2 (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00016247). The idea was to draw on an older, similarly short-lived, tradition as already in 1497 Tübingen had introduced the opportunity to earn a doctorate in surgery (cf. Nutton, “Humanist Surgery” 92). 14  Graff to the Senate of the University, [approx. 1614]: Heidelberg, Universitätsarchiv, RA 6775; published in part by Stübler E., Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät der Universi­ tät Heidelberg 1386–1925 (Heidelberg: 1926) 62–65; for a complete summary see now www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00030202.

260

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

According to current knowledge, the attempts to establish surgery as an academic discipline in German speaking areas that I have briefly sketched out here and that occurred at some scattered places for brief periods of time are not reflected in academic writings of the 16th century. Only in the generation of medical students who were born between 1550 and 1580 did the interest in surgery become apparent for the first time in published dissertations. However, they were not necessarily tied to existing professorships in surgery, and in particular not in Basel after 1583 which is our main example here. Some of the respondents there who had been influenced by their experiences with disputations on surgery or had earned professorships themselves, would again pick up some of these topics a few years later when they served as presiders. This second ‘wave’ lasted only a few years, though (until approx. 1615), which is why we must regard the attempts to integrate surgery into academic teaching and examination schedules as failed. We can only guess about the reasons: they go from local backlashes such as the decline of student numbers in Basel due to epidemics after 1610 to the fundamental damage to German academia because of the Thirty Years’ War.15 There may have been other factors, not least the long-lasting lack of a chair in surgery at the most important place where German students would earn a doctorate, i.e., in Basel, and simultaneously – and maybe even caused by this circumstance, but certainly supported by the war in the country – the strong increase of Germans graduating at Italian universities instead.16 2

Disputations on Surgery in Basel around 1600

The situation of academic surgery north of the Alps around 1600 can best be illustrated through a number of dissertations from Basel University published 15  On Basel in 1610, see Burckhardt A., Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät zu Basel 1460– 1900 (Basel: 1917) 154. A brief increase of inaugural disputations on the treatment of shot wounds (cf. below, 6.8.) seems to have been the only direct ‘gain’ that academic medicine could get from the war, if we disregard the general progress in military medicine that was documented in compendia. 16  For the brief period between 1616 to 1663 alone, the register of doctors from the Natio Germanica at Padua contains nearly 700 names. The real number was even higher since the list only includes those candidates who graduated auctoritate Veneta, i.e., without taking the oath to the teachings of the Catholic church, which was impossible for the majority of students who were Protestants. Thus, the Catholics who graduated in aula episcopali or in collegio universitatis have to be added. Cf. Weigle F., “Die deutschen Doktorpromotionen in Philosophie und Medizin an der Universität Padua von 1616–1663”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 45 (1965) 325–384 at 328–333.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

261

between 1583 and 1609.17 One reason for this is the outstanding level of cataloguing of dissertations from this university.18 Indeed, in Basel we have the most extensive series of theses chirurgicae, and – even more importantly – this university also granted the title of Doctor of Surgery. This was unique in the region north of the Alps and must also be explained, especially as there was no professor of surgery and even the chair in anatomy was only created in 1589, mainly due to a lack of funds. 2.1 The Corpus of Sources The series of published dissertations I discuss in this article includes 14 pieces from a period of 27 years. Since during the same time period 550 medical students obtained a doctoral degree in Basel, our corpus is only a very small proportion of the entire collection of inaugural dissertations from that University. Yet the comparison with other German universities of that time reveals that the series from Basel is unique19 – especially as printed dissertations from Italian universities are unknown apart from very few exceptions.20 Hence, focussing on the details is even more rewarding: Who were the respondents and where were they from? Who were the presiders? Are there indications about how these disputations and contemporary academic teaching in Basel were related? 17  Cf. below, 6.1. With the exception of one piece these writings are all in booklet form; in 1604, only Martinus Lembka used the older form of a broadsheet. 18  All published dissertations from the Medical Faculty at Basel have long been listed in Husner F., “Verzeichnis der Basler medizinischen Universitätsschriften von 1575–1829” in Festschrift für Jacques Brodbeck-Sandreuter […] zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Basel: 1942) 137–269. The majority is accessible at no cost under www.e-rara.ch. 19  The cataloguing of publications from Basel since Husner (cf. note 18) and the situation of their preservation is disproportionately better than in nearly all other universities. The initial results of the first cataloguing of dissertations in German union catalogues has already revealed that similar numbers as in Basel cannot be expected for other places in the future. 20  The Italian union catalogue OPAC SBN has only produced (January 2018) two titles so far that both mainly seem to support that northern Europeans insisted on the disputation model they were familiar with: Cagnati Marsilio (Pr.) – Viverius Franciscus (from Ghent; Resp.), Disputatio medica de convulsione (Rome, Aloisius Zannettus: 1606); Wolf Johann Caspar (Pr.) – Varnesius Georg Theodor (Resp.) – Fürstlof Ephraim (Resp.), Opiniones medicae de febribus (Padua, Giovanni Battista Pasquati: 1687). To contemporary Italians, ‘disputatio medica’ apparently meant a longer essay even though the rules were similar to German disputations. Cf. e.g. Eustachi Ferrante, De vitae humanae a facultate medica prorogatione disputatio (Rome, Vincenzo Accolto: 1589; however, directed to the Pope and hence not an academic writing in the actual sense) and a few more medical treatises titled ‘disputatio’ by the aforementioned Marsilio Cagnati around 1600. – On printed theses from Montpellier see below, note 79.

262

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

2.2 Theses and Topics In 1583, Emanuel Didymus (Zwilling, 1557–1621) opened the series of disputations on surgery with a very poignant statement in favour of this discipline: [Th. 1] Inter tres medicinae partes ab efficienti instrumentali desumptas [2] Diaetetice communissima omniumque prima, [3] Pharmaceutice nobilissima, [4] Chirurgia evidentissima, et professione antiquissima est. [5] Quae ipsa ut ab opere manuario nomen suum acceperit, [6] et idcirco mechanica penitus, et medico eleganti et humano indigna videatur. [7] At ipsa tamen necessitate facile seipsam excusare et commendare potest [8] methodoque nulla suarum sororum inferior, [9] medico dogmatico potius quam empirico convenire iudicanda. If we divide the entire field of medicine into three parts according to the instruments used in each, diet is the first and most common area, the treatment with medicine is the most noble one, but surgery is the most obvious and simultaneously the one with the richest tradition. Since the latter received its name from working with your hands it might appear completely as a craft that is not worthy of an educated physician of the world. Yet, it is able not only to apologise for itself due to its mere necessity but rather recommend itself, and we must not only consider it completely equal to its sister arts in terms of methodology but also as an appropriate activity for a practising physician even more so than for other practitioners who can only draw on their experience. Such a plea for a medicus dogmaticus trained in surgery, i.e., an academically and philologically educated physician who also possessed practical knowledge, could only be made in the context of studies in southern Europe. Indeed, Didymus’ publication is dedicated to Angelo Visc(h)a, a famous surgeon and anatomist who had just established both subjects at Turin University. The following theses illustrate that the candidate had obviously gained practical knowledge in surgery there because he discusses various types of wounds and the instruments required to manage them, but also the rules for dangerous operations of the thorax and lower abdomen. At the end there are some anatomical theses as corollaries because ‘surgery required anatomy as an honourable and necessary servant’ – a hierarchy that was unusual for Germany and that might reflect on Visca’s own positions.21 The question is why Didymus felt the 21  Th. 75: ‘cum chirurgia anatomiae famulitio ut honorario sic imprimis necessario utatur’. Angelo Visca from Savona (fl. 1565–1583) according to Didymus’ dedication was Professor

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

263

need to expose himself in such a way in Basel. As a son of a practitioner who had worked for years in the hospital and ‘Seelhaus’ (smallpox house) in Ulm,22 he may have come to know the surgical practice profoundly better than others but the medical faculty in Basel was initially not a place that dedicated much attention to surgery. Moreover, we cannot assume that Didymus tried to propagate innovations by himself even if he was the author of the theses (which cannot be decided); he would have needed either the support of the presider or the faculty to be able to have them printed and defend them in this way. Here we are touching upon another peculiarity of the surgical dissertations from Basel that Didymus shares with the other candidates in the following years: of the fourteen prints, thirteen do not contain any details on the presider.23 While this can be found at times in other areas (such as strictly medical dissertations) it never occurred this often.24 This phenomenon has gone unnoticed before and cannot be easily explained. The most plausible explanation might be that for topics that could not explicitly be ascribed to one of the three professorships (medicina practica, medicina theorica and – from 1589 – anatomy including botany) this piece of information would be omitted and that at times – as in the case of Didymus – instead of the presider, the consensus totius collegii was confirmed on the title sheet. Yet even if this were the case we would still have to ask: Who among the medics in Basel had an interest in introducing ‘new’ topics and why would this have happened anonymously, as described of Surgery (equally Cibrario L., Notizie sull’Università degli Studi di Torino ne’ secoli XV e XVI e sull’Instituto Politecnico di Vienna [Turin 1845] 14), while in other sources he appears as Professor of Anatomy; cf. Grassi G., Dell’Università degli Studi in Mondovì disserta­ zione (Mondovì: 1804) 48 (according to archival research by Giuseppe Vernazza Freney); [Bonino G.G.], Biografia medica piemontese, vol. 1 (Turin: 1824) 301. 22  Gabriel Zwilling (c. 1528–1572) from Torgau; as of 1554 documented as physician in Ulm; 1556 as town physician; 1560/61 as practitioner at the hospital. Cf. www.aerztebriefe.de/ id/00033188. 23  The only exception is Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Fleisser Johann (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de hysterotomia (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1606). In other dissertations we find the substitute formulas praeside Deo, also common in other fields in Basel (N.N. [Pr.] – Rumler Johann Ulrich [Resp.], De potionibus vulnerariis exhibendis quaestio physi­ ca chirurgica [Basel, Typis Oporinianis: 1589]) or TrinVno agonotheta (N.N. [Pr.] – Rosa Johann [Resp.], De natura et curatione vulnerum, quae sclopetorum globulis infligi solent, theses (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1602). – The disputatio sine praeside has not been systematically studied for the Early modern period; in the 18th and 19th centuries it was regarded in some places as a special honour for particularly talented candidates. Cf. e.g., Tütken J., Privatdozenten im Schatten der Georgia Augusta: Zur älteren Privatdozentur (1734 bis 1831). Teil 1: Statutenrecht und Alltagspraxis (Göttingen: 2005) 107. 24  There are more than 100 inaugural disputations in which the Professor of Theoretical Medicine, Johann Niklaus Stupan, served as presider and is mentioned as such. On Stupan’s circular practice disputations, see below.

264

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

above? Which kind of academic instruction was the basis for the disputations in surgery, and who taught those courses? There is only insufficient and incomplete information to answer these questions. We only know for sure that Basel did not have a Professor of Surgery. Before attempting to gain more clarity on this issue I will discuss a few more dissertations in this series. Five years after Didymus, Johann Sebastian Frid from Pforzheim disputed on Theses medicae chirurgicae de phlegmone et eius curatione. We know nothing about his medical curriculum, but he dedicated his disputation to Ulrich Chelius Jr (Geiger, 1535–1605) who had been trained in Montpellier and practised in Strasbourg as a town physician. Frid reveals that he had lived with Chelius for more than six years and had obviously received practical training by him. Frid’s 63 theses are limited to generic statements on the nature and treatment of inflammations that should take place both by medication and by surgery. He stops stating: ‘Quae enim speciatim facienda, periti medici et chirurgi prudentiae committimus’ (‘We leave the decision in the individual case to the experience of the physician and the thoroughness of the surgeon’).25 One year later, Johann Ulrich Rumler from Augsburg († 1622) who had received a grant by the Fugger family and gained practical experience during his time in Italy and in particular during a year in Florence, graduated with a Quaestio physica chirurgica, a thesis on healing potions. In his 96 theses, it is noticeable that on the one hand post-antiquity ‘classics’ of surgery – Guy de Chauliac, Jean Tagault, Ambroise Paré – are repeatedly named as authority figures, and on the other hand that the collaboration between physicians and surgeons is strongly promoted: ‘Chirurgus, quod manus sinistra medici sit, eius quoque operam cum in morbis dignoscendis, tum et curandis iisdem, opportune requiret’ (‘The surgeon is the physician’s helping hand which is why he should also seek the physician’s help when diagnosing and treating the patient’).26 All of the dissertations I mentioned above, as well as the theses on head wounds defended by Andreas Doerer (1557–1622),27 were published by candidates who were trying to earn their doctorate in medicine but who also wanted to place value on mentioning surgery in the title of these prints. At least in Doerer we can see that he continued to be interested in this field because in 1590 he ordered books on surgery in Italy and later disputed (pro loco) in Leipzig 25  N.N. (Pr.) – Frid Johann Sebastian (Resp.), Theses medicae chirurgicae de phlegmone et eius curatione (Basel, no printer given: 1588) th. 63. 26  Rumler, De potionibus vulnerariis exhibendis quaestio th. 6. 27  N.N. (Pr.) – Doerer Andreas (Resp.), Ἀμφισβήτησις ἰατρικὴ χειρουργικὴ περὶ τῶν ἐν κεφαλῇ τρω­ μάτων κατὰ τὸν Ἱπποκράτην (Basel, Typis Oporinianis: 1589).

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

265

on a surgical subject.28 With others, the practical ‘surplus’ of experience in surgery may have shown in the everyday practice. Yet here it was important that the surgical qualifications of a physician should also be recognised outside of the university. This is precisely the reason why some years later, between 1595 and 1605 a number of candidates in Basel did not only hold disputations de chirurgia but were also interested in earning an additional doctorate degree in this discipline. The first student who submitted this request to the faculty was Stephan Bacher in 1595. He referred to the Italian practice of granting a doctor chirur­ giae but also pointed out that he would have better job opportunities in his – Flemish – home country if he had the additional degree. The request was finally granted, but rather hesitatingly and with express reference to Bacher’s foreign origin. Simultaneously, amendments to the by-laws were put in place as the faculty may have already foreseen that more requests of this kind would occur. Cum Stephanus Bacherus Antwerpiensis docturam medicam petens privatim quoque chirurgiae doctoris titulum ambiret causasque, quae illum moverent, praetenderet, quod hoc sibi ad chirurgiam quoque exercendam tractandamque in patria maiorem libertatem concederet, et quod in Italia eo nomine aliqui utriusque medicinae doctores – quod ille chirur­ giae et medicinae interpretabatur – crearent, nos singulis consideratis, maxime vero, quod, qui totum conferendi ius habet, et partem quoque eius conferre posset, et quod Academia nostra iisdem privilegiis quibus et Bononiensis instructa donataque sit (licet, qui medicinae doctores creantur, et theoriae et praxeos, sub qua et chirurgia comprehensa est, docendae faciendaeque potestatem habeant), tamen, ut illi, qui privatim in hac tantum medicinae parte promoveri cupiunt et doctores chirurgiae renunciari, vel hi quoque, qui praeterquam, quod totius medicae docturae potestatem, sub qua et chirurgiae ius continetur, petunt, privatim quoque nomen insuper doctoris chirurgiae ambiunt, a nostro collegio eandem, quam in aliis Academiis recte instructis potestatem accipere possint, unanimi totius collegii consensu conclusum est, ut petitioni illius satisfieret. Coeterum, qua ratione et quibus conditionibus illud fieri debeat, in libro Statutorum inscriptum invenitur.

28  Andreas Doerer to [Joachim Jungermann] in Padua, Leipzig 29 Aug 1590: Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, Trew Doerer Nr. 13 (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/ id/00041257); Doerer Andreas (Resp.), De sphacelo themata medica chirurgica pro loco in facultate medica consequendo disputanda (Leipzig, Michael Lanzenberger: 1592).

266

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

We have discussed the request of Stephan Bacher from Antwerp to acquire privatim a doctorate in surgery in addition to the medical doctorate based on his reasoning that it would provide him with bigger liberties in his home country when practising surgery and that some universities in Italy would grant the title of ‘doctor of both medicines’, referring to both surgery and medicine. We had to consider in particular that those who are allowed to grant the whole title can do so also for a part of it, in particular since our university has the same privileges as the one in Bologna. Furthermore, the ‘doctors of medicine’ should also receive permission to teach and practice both theory and practice of which surgery is a part. If someone only wants to graduate in a part of medicine and be called ‘Doctor of Surgery’ or, while pursuing the doctorate in medicine in its entirety, including surgery, also wants to earn privatim a doctorate in surgery, the faculty [in Basel] unanimously decided that he could do so, just as he could do at other universities with similar privileges. Hence, we accepted his request. Furthermore, the modalities of such a process have been recorded in the by-laws.29 In addition to the obvious discrepancy between the northern and southern European notion of the term ‘utraque medicina’,30 it is noticeable that Bacher was interested in the active practice of surgery. This was new and caught on in subsequent years in Basel. Furthermore, the phrasing that Bacher pursued the surgical title privatim is noteworthy and I will discuss this term later on.

29  Basel, Universitätsbibliothek (UB), AN II 23, pp. 69–70 (a copy from the original Liber de­ cretorum medicorum at Basel, Staatsarchiv, Universitätsarchiv Q 2). This text is – though imprecise in its paraphrasing and with wrong dates – also in Burckhardt, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 160–161, and again in Eulner H.-H., Die Entwicklung der medi­ zinischen Spezialfächer an den Universitäten des deutschen Sprachgebietes (Stuttgart: 1970) 296. – In accordance with the argument by the faculty, the title page of Bacher’s dissertation reads: ‘Conclusiones […] pro summo, seorsim primum chyrurgiae, deinde con­ iunctim in omnibus partibus medicinae gradu consequendo’: N.N. (Pr.) – Bacher Stephan (Resp.), Conclusiones medicae ac chyrurgicae (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1595). The same phrase can be found on the title sheets of Friedrich Heining (1599) and Conrad Hofmann (1600), and slightly modified also in Adam Bruxius (1604). 30  That the two interpretations of the title Dr. med. utr. had co-existed for a long time in Germany and Italy can be seen in, e.g., Andreas Henrici (fl. 1507–1514, Dr. art. et utr. med. in Frankfurt a.d. Oder 1514) where the ‘two medicines’ undoubtedly refer to theoretical and practical medicine, and in Paulus Ricius (c. 1480–1542, Dr. utr. med. presumably in Pavia around 1505) where they refer to medicine and surgery instead. For early examples cf. also Schütte J.M., Medizin im Konflikt 272 and 276.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

267

In the following years, four more candidates from Basel acquired the double title, and a fifth one even earned a triple title of Dr. phil., med. et chir.31 The novelty was that all five were Germans who could not count on actually working as surgeons due to the traditional customs of the country. Yet, if they were not scared away by the fact that the faculty in Basel required a double disputation for a double title and hence also twice the university fees,32 the candidates must have had good reasons for their decision. Indeed, in some we can recognise how strong their desire was to work in practice as a surgeon. In Adam Bruxius from Sprottau (fl. 1604–1625), the conventional title De melancholia hypochondriaca positiones una cum adnexis corollariis does not even point to the fact that among the 75 theses there are a few surgical ones, and in fact there are only six of them. Yet Bruxius, in contrast to many other candidates, allows insights into his development through some personal comments. He refers to experiences with fontanelles (i.e., creating an artificial wound containing pus to drain out the disease substances) that he gained from his friend and teacher Franciscus Mandellius ‘il Campana’ in Padua.33 Furthermore, we know that at the time of his graduation Bruxius already exchanged letters on amputation with the famous surgeon Wilhelm Fabry (1560–1634).34 The same applies to Bartholomäus Fritzsch(e) (1588–1616) who graduated in 1608. We cannot deduct this from his Theses miscellae politico-medicae,35 as they compare various areas of medical activity to the proper ruling of a state and maintaining the 31  Cf. below, 6.1.: Heining F. (1599), Hofmann C. (1600), Hofmann L. (1604; triple title), Bruxius A. (1604), Adam A. (1605; double disputation). Furthermore, there was Martinus Lembka (from Polish Lublin), who disputed in 1604 with a gap of only 13 days first in surgery (cf. below, 6.1.: Lembka) and then in medicine (cf. below, 6.3.: Lembka). From the dedication of his second broadsheet to his father Johannes we learn that he too was a ‘medicus et chirurgus’ and thus apparently a model for the son. The acquirement of a double title was expressly noted in most cases in the matriculation register; the triple doctorate degree of L. Hofmann was celebrated in a collection of poems for which Felix Platter wrote the dedication: Laurentii Hofmanni Halla-Saxonis laurus docturae philosophicae medicae cheirurgicae […] votivis gratulationibus celebrata (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604). 32  Burckhardt, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 161. 33  N.N. (Pr.) – Bruxius Adam (Resp.), De melancholia hypochondriaca positiones una cum ad­ nexis corollariis (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1604) th. 57. Mandellius is mentioned in the congratulatory poems for Bruxius (cf. below, 6.9.2.) as ‘anatomicus, medicus et chirurgus Patavinus’. Cf. th. 59 (a case description) and 65 (a prescription of Ercole Sassonia from Padua). 34  Fabry to Bruxius, Payerne 20 Dec 1604: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 496 [A] 211 (www .aerztebriefe.de/id/00014278). The facilitator of the contact was the philologist and physician Jakob Zwinger from Basel. See Bruxius to Zwinger, Strasbourg 24 Apr 1605: Basel, UB, Frey-Gryn Mscr II 4, Nr. 25 (www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00040174). 35  Cf. below, 6.3.

268

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

order in the corpus rei publicae. Yet, a letter by Fabry confirms that Fritzsche received surgical instruments from him even before completing his doctorate.36 Finally, another of the candidates from Basel, Johann Fleischer (Fleisserus, 1582–1608) from Breslau, referred directly to Fabry in his thematically unusual and completely practice-oriented disputation on Caesarian sections. These theses themselves were not based on personal insights into surgery but on a publication by a third party – namely the Latin version of François Rousset’s Traitté nouveau de l’hysterotomotokie ou enfantement Caesarien, published in 1581 by Caspar Bauhin in Basel. However, according to his own testimony, Fleischer also received additional insight into relevant letters on the topic that Fabry had written to Jakob Zwinger.37 Unfortunately, there is no information as to whether the doctores mentioned really worked as surgeons in later years.38 Yet, we are all the better informed about Andreas Adam(ius, fl. 1592–1639) who in 1605, i.e., immediately after his graduation, became Extraordinary Professor in Helmstedt. There, he held the lectiones chirurgicae (including the explanation of the operations) and carried out the sectiones anatomicae. His hope to become member of the faculty as Full Professor was not fulfilled because Duke Heinrich Julius – himself very much interested in anatomy – seems to have regarded Adam’s practical skills as even more important.39 These are expressly mentioned in Adam’s petition for being granted the professorship so that we have indeed evidence for a physician who worked as a surgeon: ‘auch, da Ich zu patienten gefordert, die handt als [= wie] ein chirurgus selber anzulegen mich nicht verdrießen lassen […]’

36  Fabry to Fritzsche, Payerne 1607: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 495 [A] 88 (see www .aerztebriefe.de/id/00014457). In the case of Fritzsche we again have evidence that Jakob Zwinger was the facilitator; see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00015202. 37  Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Fleisser Johann (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de hystero­ tomia (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1606) th. 8; cf. th. 72 (reference to a ‘Methodus exsecandi faetum’ that Fabry had announced). A few weeks later, Fleischer gained also the title of Dr. med.: N.N. (Pr.) – Fleisser Johann (Resp.), Theses de calculis humani corporis (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1606). 38  The same applies to most of the other candidates in surgery from Basel. To the extent that we have letters by them (evidence in www.aerztebriefe.de; in addition: https://aleph .unibas.ch s.v. HAN), in later years they show no further special interest in surgery. The small number and accidental preservation of the material do not allow conclusions about the possibility of a later implementation of the surgical interests at the physicians’ places of work. Fleischer died in 1608 during a botanical expedition in the newly founded Jamestown, Virginia; it is unknown whether he performed surgeries during this trip. 39  Duke Heinrich Julius to Johann von Jessen, 10 Jun 1601, in: Jessen Johannes a, Academiae Witebergensis studiosis s.d. (Wittenberg, Lorenz Säuberlich: 1601) fol. [A4]r (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00040196).

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

269

(‘also, when I was asked to visit patients I have not been annoyed to use my hands like a surgeon […]’).40 3

Lessons in Surgery

So far, the corpus of sources revealed that around the year 1600 in Basel there was a heightened interest both in the theory but also in the practice of surgery. We must now ask how this had developed, i.e., which prerequisites the candidates had when they came to Basel. Moreover, how did the preparation for the disputatio pro gradu itself work? We do not have evidence of studies in Italy for all candidates41 but the well-analysed situation of the most popular university, Padua, provides insights into the training there. Yet, even after the latest research by C. Klestinec and M. Stolberg it remains uncertain to what extent students who in the late 16th century visited lectures in anatomy and/or surgery also acquired practical skills such as cutting techniques or the proper handling of instruments. The temporary ‘withdrawal’ from anatomy into natural philosophy by Girolamo Fabrizi d’Acquapendente, which Klestinec has interpreted as a central move,42 should in any case be regarded merely as an episode during a directional debate between ‘philosophical’ and ‘practical’ anatomists. For the field of anatomy, we know for sure that the students themselves got involved because Acquapendente largely delegated the specific preparation of public dissections – i.e., the cutting and preparation of a corpse in a separate chamber before the presentation in the Theatrum Anatomicum – to student assistants

40  Adamius to Helmstedt University, ibidem 18 Apr 1607: Wolfenbüttel, Niedersächsisches Landesarchiv, 37 Alt 361, fol. 83–84 at 84r (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/ id/00034898). On Adam cf. Herbst K.-D., Biobibliographisches Handbuch der Kalender­ macher von 1550 bis 1750 s.v. Adamius, Andreas, www.presseforschung.uni-bremen.de/ dokuwiki/doku.php?id=adamius_andreas (as of 16 Apr 2018). 41  In the Padua matriculation register two thirds of the fourteen German candidates in Basel have been recorded: J.U. Rumler (1583), J.S. Frid and A. Doerer (1588), St. Bacher (1593), C. Hofmann (1597), L. Hofmann (1602), A. Adam (1603), G. Meindel, and also M. Lembka (1604). See Matricula nationis Germanicae artistarum in Gymnasio Patavino (1553–1721), ed. Rossetti L., Fonti per la storia dell’Università di Padova 10 (Padua: 1986). On Didymus’ studies in Turin see above. 42  Klestinec C., “Practical Experience in Anatomy”, in Wolfe C.T. – Gal O. (eds.), The Body as Object and Instrument of Knowledge: Embodied Empiricism in Early Modern Science (Dordrecht: 2010) 33–57 at 36 ‘he [Fabrizi] effectively situated the study of anatomy within the theoretical branch of the medical curriculum’.

270

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

(‘massari’ oder ‘anatomistae’).43 The ‘private’ anatomies – that were thus called since Vesalius’ times – must have played an even more important role. They took place in the houses of practitioners or professors, just like private colleges in other subjects, but also in chapels and pharmacies. The attendees were small groups of students; this would have allowed a better view of the dissection table and also facilitated the gaining of some practical experience.44 The sources only contain vague hints as to whether the students were allowed to practice the cutting techniques they had just been shown by themselves.45 The same applies to surgery that was closely tied to anatomy. There were presentations that linked both subjects, in particular by Giulio Casseri(o, c. 1552–1616), but at least from 1596 onwards also by both Acquapendente himself and by surgeons involved in the teaching.46 Yet there also seem to have been more 43  On this topic, cf. most clearly Klestinec C., “Theater der Anatomie. Visuelle, taktile und konzeptuelle Lernmethoden”, in Schramm H. – Schwarte L. – Lazardzig J. (eds.), Spuren der Avantgarde: Theatrum anatomicum. Frühe Neuzeit und Moderne im Kulturvergleich, Theatrum scientiarum 5 (Berlin – New York: 2011) 75–96 at 90. The terms were equivalent according to contemporaries; cf. Atti della nazione germanica artista nello Studio di Padova, ed. A. Favaro, vol. 2 (Venice: 1912) 170: ‘anatomistae, quos vulgo massarios vocant, qui publicae anatomiae administratori in secandis et separandis corporibus auxiliares manus offerre solent’ (‘the a., in Italian m., are those who assist the organiser of public dissections with the cutting and dissecting the body’; entry from November 1599). I cannot confirm, at least not from the Acta nationis Germanicae, the multiple changes of terminology that Klestinec mentions in Theaters of Anatomy 138 and 162, allegedly to underline the different level of participation of these assistants. According to an older study, we also find, in the same source, a competitive term ‘consiliarii anatomici’: Lippich F.W., “Über die öffentlichen Anstalten für ärztliche Realbildung und Wirksamkeit in Padua [2. Teil]”, Medicinische Jahrbücher des kaiserl. königl. österreichischen Staates 29 (1839) 107–112 at 108. 44  In Vesalius, the term originally referred to the individual particularities of a corpse which is why he regarded it particularly suitable for a dissection in a smaller circle (De humani corporis fabrica 5,19; on which see Schütte J.M., Medizin im Konflikt 87–88 and 98–99). 45  Stolberg, “Teaching Anatomy” 72–73 remains undecided. An argument for an active participation seems to be a remark by the medical student Bernhard Müller († 1565) ‘ipse etiam privatim sectioni interfui, cuius pars magna fui’ (‘I also participated in a private dissection, indeed, I was very much involved in it’), Müller to Hubert Languet, Venice 19 May 1558; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. lat. 8583, fol. 113r; for a complete summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00038439. Müller’s note, however, does not refer to Italy but to Germany (Wittenberg or Nuremberg). 46  Klestinec, Theaters of Anatomy 149–151. Entries in the Acta nationis Germanicae such as the following are evidence that Acquapendente included surgery already much earlier: ‘Aquapendens interim saepius a quibusdam nostrum […] excitus sese ad VI. Kal. April. ad administrationes chirurgicas accingit’ (‘After our repeated requests A. returned on 27 Mar [1590] to presentations in surgery’): Atti della nazione germanica artista nello Studio di Padova, ed. A. Favaro, vol. 1 (Venice: 1911) 290; for a very similar passage written in 1599, see ibidem vol. 2 (Venice: 1912) 170. Yet, it remains unclear whether he performed these

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

271

‘hands-on’ lessons: In 1606, the physician Christoph Stymmel (1556–1615) from Frankfurt looked back to the ‘chirurgicae encheiriseis’ that were held by Acquapendente quem nomino libentius, quod ipsum praeceptorem fautoremque habui per totum ferme quadriennium, quo eius ductu sectiones et chirurgicas enchiriseis cum publice tum privatim ut et aegrotantium visitationes frequentavi whom I particularly like to mention by name because he has been my teacher and supporter for nearly the entire four years and because I participated under his guidance both in private and public anatomies as well as in exercises in surgical skills and also in visiting patients.47 The Greek term probably stands for a ‘hands-on participation’ during the surgeries – either in living patients or, as has been repeatedly documented for Acquapendente, in the corpse.48 There was, as we have seen, no Professor of Surgery in Basel. In his history of Basel University, A. Burckhardt simply decided to guess about surgical training there: Probably, some theoretical skills were taught because no member of the faculty was able to do a practical demonstration. […] Perhaps the students and in particular those from abroad tried to learn something ‘administrationes’ by himself or whether he let assistants do this. Georg Rumbaum (letter to Jakob Horst, 12.2.1594, printed in: Horst Jacob, Epistolae philosophicae et medici­ nales [Leipzig, Voegelin: 1596] 473) reported on ‘chirurgicae operationes’ of the spleen and hydrops in Padua which students were allowed to attend (for a summary see www .aerztebriefe.de/id/00038162): apparently, this refers to living patients being operated on. 47  Solemnia anni secularis (cf. below, 6.9.2.) fol. MM 2v. – The term appears with the same meaning in a university certificate from Königsberg from 1635, issued for the medical student Benedikt Husmann who had learned his skills in herniotomy, lithotomy, couching and the removal of cleft lips from barber surgeon masters, as was customary in the country: ‘[…] in Chirurgicis quibusdam ἐγχειρήσεσι profectum non possumus non laudare, quas ille ab illarum peritis artificibus addidicit’ (‘it is furthermore laudable how the candidate gained his surgical skills from the masters of this art’): Olsztyn, Archiwum Państwowe, 1646/272, pp. 11–13 at 12. For a complete summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/ id/00022578. 48  Acquapendente’s ‘administratio’ mentioned above (note 46) was performed on a corpse, as well as another one from 1601: Atti della nazione germanica, vol. 2: 180. A significantly earlier example for surgery in a corpse is mentioned by Stolberg, “Teaching Anatomy” 71.

272

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

privately and on their own; there was no shortage of competent surgeons in Basel either.49 In this context two prominent people have been mentioned in the literature time and again: one is the ‘Scherer’ (i.e., surgeon) Franz Jeckelmann (1504– 1579), who in 1542 assisted Andreas Vesalius during a dissection in Basel and later became Felix Platter’s father-in-law. The other is his younger colleague Felix Wirtz Jr (Würtz, fl. 1551–1596) who had also been to Padua.50 Both surely contributed to the somewhat closer relationship that developed between (some) physicians and surgeons in Basel. Yet, in remarkable accordance with some of his colleagues around 1600, Burckhardt considered the double degree of Dr. med. et chir. just as a caprice of some candidates craving attention and stuck to the old cliché of the ‘physician who does not get his hands dirty’.51 This view omits a large part of the teaching at the university, and in fact the one type that was the most innovative in the Early modern period, namely, the private colleges. In the following I will show that the theses chirurgicae were most probably the outcome of this kind of courses. Because the names of the presiders were missing on the title sheets of the published dissertations we need other means to identify them. We must not use the information listed in the matriculation register in Basel here because the promoters of the individual candidates were only in a few cases identical with the presiders during their examination.52 Neither can we refer to a course 49  Burckhardt, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 161 (translation: U. Nichols). 50  Insufficient for today’s standards: Steiner G., “Ärzte, Wundärzte, Chirurgenzunft und medizinische Fakultät in Basel”, Basler Jahrbuch (1954) 179–209 at 186–189 (Jeckelmann and Platter) and 195–202 (Wirtz). 51  ‘Der akademisch gebildete Arzt pflegte nicht selbst Hand anzulegen’: Staehelin A., Geschichte der Universität Basel 1632–1818 (Basel: 1957) 335, following a nearly verbatim passage in Burckhardt, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 161. Current research has found very different results: cf. Stolberg M., “Examining the Body (1500–1750)”, in Toulalan S. – Fisher K. (eds.), The Routledge History of Sex and the Body in the West, 1500 to the Present (London – New York: 2013) 91–105. 52  List of promotions and promoters, Basel matriculation register vol. 2 (Basel, UB, AN II 21; for 1583–1609 the relevant folios are 9v–23r). In the only case of an inaugural disputation where the presider is explicitly mentioned (Stupanus Johann Niklaus [Pr.] – Fleisser Johann [Resp.], Disputatio chirurgica de hysterotomia), Bauhin is documented as the promoter (AN II 21, fol. 20v). – Besides promotor we find at times designator; both mean the same as we know from the case of Adam Bruxius (prom. 1604): Caspar Bauhin was the promoter (AN II 21, fol. 19v), and he is also listed in the title of the congratulatory poems for Bruxius (cf. below, 6.9.2.) under the latter term: Coronae Adami Bruxii […] quarum alteram […] Caspar Bauhinus […] designator […] imposuit (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1604). Furthermore agonotheta (only used until 1591) in the matriculation register has to

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

273

catalogue as these are not available in Basel for the time before 1665.53 Instead, the small number of practice disputations that was printed (or has been preserved) in the field of surgery provides an important clue. In separate disputations Martinus Lembka from Lublin earned his medical doctorate on 15 August 1604 and his surgical doctorate on 3 October of the same year. In addition, during this ‘exam period’ he twice responded exercitii gratia to surgical topics (on 14 May and 20 August).54 Both prints name Johann Niklaus Stupanus (born in 1542) as presider. He held the chair in Theoretical Medicine from 1589 until 1621. The theoricus Stupan made huge efforts to document his academic lessons and to provide his students with handbooks. In doing so, he differed from his colleagues Felix Platter (1536–1614; Prof. med. pract. from 1571) who to this day is revered as the founding father of anatomy at Basel, and Caspar Bauhin (1560–1624) who was experienced in anatomy but had a professorship in philology until a third chair in medicine was introduced in 1589. Starting before 1600 and from 1604 annually, Stupan had collections printed, each containing the theses of up to ten practice disputations that were – as disputationes ordinariae – based on Stupan’s public lectures, i.e., nearly all from the Galenic corpus. With the addition of another one of these collections, the Prolegomena medica from 1608, all these individual volumes were put together again in 1614 as one large compendium with the summarising title Medicina theorica. It contains 119 dissertations.55 For our context it is noteworthy that the two dissertations by Lembka from 1604 are not part of the ‘Medicina theorica’ while the volume for that year includes a lecture on Galen’s de symptomatum differentiis.56 This means that Stupan’s volume be understood as a synonym to promotor as seen in the entry on fol. 10v: ‘agonotheta rite lecto D. Heinrico Panthaleone (i.e. promoti sunt)’. For a different meaning of agonotheta in the printed disputations, see note 23. 53  Bonjour E., Die Universität Basel von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart 1460–1960 (Basel: 1960) 273. 54  Cf. below, 6.2. 55  Stupanus Johannes Nicolaus, Medicina theorica (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1614); brief and not always correct notes on the volume in Burckhardt, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 124–125, who otherwise has no information on Stupan. On similar compendia such as the Medicina theorica that serve as evidence of one’s own teaching and one’s students as well, cf. the article by S. Schlegelmilch in this volume. – Around the same time as Stupan, Caspar Bauhin produced his own characterisation of his discipline in his Praeludia anatomica from 1601 (cf. below, 6.4.). Unlike Stupan’s works, this reads much more like a programmatic speech and the respondent is reduced to being an accessory. On this text cf. also Kolb W., Geschichte des anatomischen Unterrichtes an der Universität zu Basel 1460–1900 (Basel: 1951) 46–47. 56  Stupanus, Medicina theorica 397–423; first edition: idem, Tertiae partis pathologiae caput I. De symptomatum differentiis maxime principalibus (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1604).

274

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

from 1614 exclusively documents his lectiones publicae with the respective exercises (thus also working as an individual schedule of his lectures) and that he held additional courses privatim that must have included a surgical course that produced the practice disputations.57 This is also the explanation for the statement mentioned before that Stephan Bacher’s graduation in surgery took place privatim: the term ultimately refers to the type of coursework that was the base for the examination. It would be useful to know whether, due to this finding, all surgical dissertations can be accredited to Stupan. For the time being, we can only ascertain this for three practice disputations58 and for the theses by Fleischer on Caesarian sections, these being the only ones among the inaugural dissertations that bear Stupan’s name. While Stupan got the chair only in 1589, i.e., some years after the beginning of the printing of surgical theses, it cannot be ruled out that he offered private courses in surgery already before his appointment. He had graduated in 1569 and has been listed as presider of disputations in other medical fields from 1576.59 Yet it is also possible that his predecessor as Professor of Theoretical Medicine Theodor Zwinger (1533–1588) had started this tradition.60 Strictly speaking, the initiator of the series does not even have to be exclusively searched for among the theorici because surgery was regarded as the third and strongest ‘weapon’ of medicine (following diet and pharmacy) so that its methods did also find space in the teachings and publications of practici such as Platter.61 However, we know of no inaugural dissertation that 57  On the organisation and procedure of private practice colleges cf. Schlegelmilch U., “An­ dreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationscollegiums zur Physiologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna 2016) 49–88. 58  In addition to the two printed dissertations by Lembka this is: Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Meindel Georg (Resp.), Nemeaea certamina de ΧΕΙΡΟΥΡΓΙΑ in genere (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1603). 59  Basel, UB, La I 11:35 (broadsheet by Henricus a Bra; see http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-9734). On this collection of single sheet prints, cf. Husner, “Verzeichnis” 139. 60  After Didymus left Basel, he and Zwinger exchanged letters (see www.aerztebriefe.de/ id/00038534; letter from 1 Feb 1584). However, this just illustrates a close relationship at the time of graduation. 61  We can indeed show that Platter in the early 1590s lectured on for instance ‘affectus externi’ and their surgical treatment. I thank Michael Stolberg for pointing me to lecture notes taken by Konrad Zinn (1571–1636; Dr. med. in Basel 1595 following a disputation on de vulneribus capitis) that have been preserved in Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. med. et phys. qt. 10, fol. 217r–264r. Cf. already Gurlt E., Geschichte der Chirurgie und ihrer Ausübung, vol. 3 (Berlin: 1898) 9 according to whom ‘Professor praxeos […] die specielle Pathologie und Therapie mit Einschluß der Chirurgie zu lehren

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

275

lists either Platter or Bauhin explicitly in the title, and in contrast to Stupan there are no indicators that suggest that these two taught private courses in surgery. In any case, we can see that the theoretical professorship bore more significance than some anachronistic judgement of our time wants to make us believe.62 Furthermore, this post linked anatomy (which had always been part of it in Basel) and surgery in a way that had long been the common view in Italy. We can only decide whether this finding can be generalised for other universities at the time when more collections of dissertations have been ana­ lysed and especially when we have learned more about the content of surgical courses north of the Alps. So far, we can only gain deeper insights for a few individual places such as Wittenberg or Ingolstadt.63 4

Strategies and Goals

Let us finally return to the question of what goals medical students pursued around 1600 when they turned to the topic of surgery and what benefits they hoped to gain with a double degree. As we have seen, C. Klestinec’s statement ‘By the early seventeenth century, medical students eagerly pursued lessons on surgery because they wanted to learn how to perform operations’ can only have been the decisive motivator for very few of them.64 People like Andreas Adam who became a physician and surgeon himself remained the exception around 1600.65 If they nonetheless tried to gain additional knowledge about hatte’ (i.e.: in Basel, the Professor praxeos ‘[…] had to teach the special pathology and therapy including surgery’) (giving no reference). 62  Burckhardt A., Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät 169 misunderstood the professio theorica as the backwater of professors without practical skills. The same judgement still resonates in Kolb, Geschichte des anatomischen Unterrichtes 24. 63  For Wittenberg: Jessenius J., Institutiones chirurgicae, quibus universa manu medendi ratio ostenditur (Wittenberg, Lorenz Säuberlich [printer] – Samuel Selfisch [publisher]: 1601). Cf. here Pick F., Joh. Jessenius de Magna Jessen, Arzt und Rektor in Wittenberg und Prag, hingerichtet am 21. Juni 1621. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit des Dreissigjährigen Krieges, Studien zur Geschichte der Medizin 15 (Leipzig: 1926) 101–118. For Ingolstadt: fragment of a lecture in surgery, probably by the Ingolstadt anatomist and surgeon Anton Jonas Kilianstein († 1638): Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. st 611, pp. III–XLIX. Cf. Littger K.W., Die neuzeitlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt: Die staat­lichen Handschriften, Kataloge der Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt II/1 (Wiesbaden: 2012) 191–192; on Kilianstein’s time in Padua cf. www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00020284 with information on him and additional references. 64  Klestinec, Theaters of Anatomy 154 (my italics). 65  In the scope of this paper I cannot examine a reverse tendency during the later 17th century among trained barber surgeons who sought to distinguish themselves through additional

276

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

anatomical and surgical topics and were even willing to go abroad for this for a number of years, mainly three reasons were the decisive factors: advantages in diagnosis and thus in medical practice, advantages when applying for the position of a town physician, and better chances to distinguish oneself from the barber surgeons, as the physicians usually became the surgeons’ supervisors in the cities of the German-speaking countries (including their examinations). A fourth but rather rare possibility was an academic career and, in some instances, even a professorship in surgery. Medical students could already read in the programmatic writings of famous anatomists that gaining anatomical knowledge did not so much serve as an invitation for manual work but rather as an expansion of one’s knowledge.66 An important area of application for such knowledge was the autopsy, which had to be conducted correctly and frequently to enable physicians to develop a routine in recognising signs and causes of diseases. This would in turn provide advantages in advising therapies for new patients. The physical examination of a patient also benefited from the precise knowledge of anatomical facts.67 Yet, it was at least equally important to prevent anyone from doubting one’s own capabilities or, if any doubts had crept up, to divert them during dealings with authorities and competitors on the so-called ‘medical market’ through respective actions. This applied both to the participation in, or supervision of, autopsies that were conducted by barber surgeons and to regular examinations for surgeons, barber surgeons and midwives.68 Most importantly, howmedical studies. I only want to mention Matthias Glandorp (1595–1636; Dr. med. et chir. Padua 1617) as a famous example. His ‘hands-on’ work continued to be admired as remarkable for a long time: ‘medicus Bremensis qui ad Italorum, quos audiverat, exemplum etiam manu medebatur’ (Haller A. von, Bibliotheca chirurgica, qua scripta ad artem chirur­ gicam facientia a rerum initiis recensentur, vol. 1 [Bern, Haller – Basel, Schweighauser: 1774] 304). Moreover, there is an unusual appointment as both town physician and surgeon at the same time for Michael Harmes (1602–1665; Dr. med. Padua 1627) in the same city of Bremen in 1640; see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00039471. 66  Bauhin Caspar (Pr.) – Höchstätter Philipp (Resp.), Praeludia anatomica (Basel, no printer given: 1601) th. 122–123; Rolfinck Werner, Dissertationes anatomicae methodo synthetica exaratae (Nürnberg, Michael Endter: 1656) 2. 67  Stolberg M., “Post-mortems, anatomical dissections and humoral pathology in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries”, in De Renzi S. – Bresadola M. – Conforti M. (eds.), Pathology in Practice. Diseases and Dissections in Early Modern Europe (London – New York: 2018) 79–95 at 90–91. Schütte is more sceptical with regard to the practical benefits, Medizin im Konflikt 112–115 and 123. She regards the training of medical students through anatomical dissection mainly as a ‘training in the art of self-fashioning’ (‘Ausbildung in der Kunst der Selbstinszenierung’ 123). 68  Stolberg, “Teaching anatomy” 73. Many examples may be found in the database of letters www.aerztebriefe.de.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

277

ever, practical knowledge and skills could be a decisive advantage with the local authorities who in many cases did not look first at the academic diplomas of applicants but wanted to know rather whether they had gained any practical experience since their graduation.69 This occurred most often during the journey from the university to their home town where proportionally most graduates would find a job. We know how some of the Basel candidates presented themselves to potential employers. Simon Berger (†1614) from Altenburg, according to his published dissertation and the matriculation register, earned only a medical doctorate in the same year (1598).70 Yet in Augsburg he produced documents that (in his own words) stated his degree as Dr. phil. et utr. med. or (according to an indirect record) as Dr. utr. med. et chir., probably with the aim to specially emphasise his many skills. He was not successful with the responsible mayors of the city, the Stadtpfleger, though and only received permission to stay in Augsburg for six months – presumably a gesture of good will as Berger had already created a fait accompli and had become engaged.71 By contrast, Friedrich Heining (fl. 1590–1632) had already worked as a plague doctor in Bremen before his graduation (1599) and so provided the base for his future career in that Hanseatic City.72 He was thus able to dedicate his inaugural dissertation to the mayors of Bremen and use his theses to skilfully promote himself: Only a ‘medicus cheirurgus’ (as Heining himself would become) would be able to heal herpes most beautifully, while an ‘empyricus’ would never be able to do so. Heining could also weave in local references in trickier subjects. In cases of injuries of the skull, he maintained, ‘older and foreign surgeons’

69  Examples and analyses in Schlegelmilch S., “Promoting a Good Physician: Letters of Application to German Civic Authorities (1500–1700)”, in Mendelsohn A. – Kinzelbach A. – Schilling R. (eds.), Civic Medicine: Physician, Polity and Pen in Early Modern Europe (Abingdon: 2019) 88–109. 70  Husner, “Verzeichnis” 175, does not know of any other disputation apart from the 1598 Theses (No. 350) either. 71  Berger to Augsburg, presented 5 Dec 1598: Augsburg, Stadtarchiv, CM III 6 no. 1 (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00001206); draft of the city’s answer from 12 Jan 1599: ibidem, no. 2 (mentioning the Dr. chir.; see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00001243); answer and decision by the senate from the same day: ibidem, no. 3 (see www.aerztebriefe .de/id/00001240). Berger got married already on 26 April as is revealed in the print In nuptias […] Simonis Bergeri […] fausta precatio […] (Augsburg, Valentin Schönig: 1599). Later he became court physician in Prague from where in 1612 he reported on the autopsy of Emperor Rudolf II (see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00018294). 72  Lorent C.A.E., Biographische Skizzen verstorbener Bremischer Aerzte und Naturforscher: eine Festgabe für die zwei und zwanzigste Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte zu Bremen (Bremen: 1844) 62.

278

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

would use the means of trepanation but in northern Germany this was hardly ever required.73 Around 1600 physicians and barber surgeons in the cities had been competitors for a long time. The increasing numbers of academic healers who invaded an existing profession required strategies of delineation and self-presentation that have often been described in recent years. Gaining a doctorate in surgery can also be understood as a type of ‘academic equipment’ in opposition to the surgeons who had long felt the threat to their old-fashioned position. Some of them would even begin to concentrate on a scientificalisation of their work.74 One of the candidates from Basel, Christoph Schöbel from Jauer (1576–1633), did not leave any doubt in his well-researched dissertation on the treatment of fractures as to who should be in charge of the procedure but also actively involved in it: Peracto hoc quod primum est officio, medicus qui astat et opus dirigit, alterum praestabit: ut, cum satis ossa retracta esse ex directo ipsis reddito et naturali situ iudicaverit, remissis vinculis ossis fracti extremitates, manuum admotis volis, coaptet componat et conformet […]. Recte autem se fecisse sciet, […] si blando contactu exploraturus an aliqua residua sit cavitas […] nullam invenerit. After completing this first step (scil. the fixation) the physician who is present and supervises the whole procedure will perform the second step: Once he is of the opinion that the bones have been sufficiently aligned because they are straight and in a natural position, he will loosen the fixation and fit the broken bones together by placing his cupped hands over them. He will then put them together and move them in the correct position. He will know whether this was successful when he cannot find a remaining hollow spot which he checks by gently applying some pressure.75

73  N.N. (Pr.) – Heining Friedrich (Resp.), Themata de podagra et quibusdam cheirurgicis (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1599) fol. B 2r (th. 5) and B 3r (th. 13). 74  For an example see Toellner R., “Der Arzt als Gelehrter. Anmerkungen zu einem späthumanistischen Bildungsideal”, in Folkerts M. – Jahn I. – Müller U. (eds.), Die Bausch-Bibliothek in Schweinfurt. Wissenschaft und Buch in der Frühen Neuzeit, Acta historica Leopoldina 31 (Halle: 2000) 39–59 at 45–56. On the competition between physicians and other healers in general cf. most recently Schütte, Medizin im Konflikt. 75  N.N. (Pr.) – Schöbel Christoph (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de fracturis in genere et de fracturae cubiti natura et curatione (Basel, Foiletus: 1602) th. 34.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

279

None of the fourteen graduates from Basel earned a professorship even though Adam who was very practically oriented came very close to this goal, as we have seen. Yet one of them, Conrad Hofmann († before 1637 as town physician in Neustadt/Haardt) initially continued his academic career and is found in 1601 as presider of a surgical disputation at Heidelberg University. Here, we can observe that the brief tradition of theses chirurgicae inherited from Basel found a sequel. 5

Outlook: Basel Catches On

Before his doctorate in Basel, Hofmann had already studied in Heidelberg where he then returned to.76 His respondent was Simon Opsopaeus (1576–1619) who for practice defended surgical theses on bone fractures in September 1601 before moving to Padua shortly afterwards. In 1604, Opsopaeus was the first who earned the double doctorate in medicine and surgery in Heidelberg under Lubertus Esthi(n)us Jr (1569–1606) who had himself studied in Basel. Opsopaeus in turn became professor and continued the tradition of surgical disputations in Heidelberg which continued until 1617, which means that this tradition was only of equally short duration as in Basel.77 Among the other places where we have seen efforts to promote academic surgery in the 16th century, only Leipzig shows a considerable number of relevant dissertations.78 The initiator here was Georg Salmuth (1550–1604) who had already defended propositions on surgery during his studies in Montpellier.79 Later, the Professor of Surgery Johannes Siglicius (1576–1620), another graduate 76  Hofmann is missing in the releveant works such as Stübler, Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät, and Drüll-Zimmermann D., Heidelberger Gelehrtenlexikon 1386–1651 (Berlin – Heidelberg: 2002). 77  Hofmann Conrad (Pr.) – Opsopaeus Simon (Resp.), Theses chirurgicae de fractura ossium ex Hippocratis et Galeni libris de fracturis (Heidelberg, Lancellotus: 1601; H. attributes a triple doctorate phil., med. et chir. to himself on the title sheet). For further dissertations from Heidelberg, cf. below, 6.5. 78  Cf. below, 6.6. 79  Dortomanus Laurentius (Pr.) – Salmuth Georg (Resp.), “Disputatio secunda pro baculariatu. Quaestio chirurgica”, in Salmuth Georg, Disputationes tres Mons-Pessuli in Gallia habitae anno LXXVIII. et LXXIX (Leipzig, Rambau: 1580). It is not known whether the “Disputatio secunda” was already printed in France, but individual prints of theses from Montpellier around 1600 are verifiable, among them one on surgery: Escalier Jehan (Resp.), Thèses chirurgicales pour estre soustenues publiquement à Montpellier (Nîmes, [Sébastien?] Jaquy: 1607). A precise contemporary description of the procedure of disputations and exams in Montpellier mentions the affixio of the theses in the lecture hall before the disputation, but it does not explicitly reveal if they were printed: Petrus Janichius

280

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

from Basel (Dr. med. 1604), continued this tradition until 1611. In other places we only find single cases that can be traced back to the personal interest of the presiders. For instance, Daniel Mögling (1546–1603), Professor of Anatomy in Tübingen, had his son Israel († 1601) dispute de chirurgia for practice.80 A more systematic, yet similarly short-lived approach seems to have been pursued at Würzburg University, newly founded in 1582. When nine years later teaching and disputations began, anatomical and surgical topics were highly represented under Georg Leiherer (Prof. chir., fl. 1585–1616) and Adrianus Romanus (1561–1615). Apparently, the new university tried to propose medicine ‘in its full width’.81 Yet, as in all other places, this remained a short episode and students who had a deeper interest in surgery would for a long time remain dependent on other countries. 6

List of Sources

6.1 Surgical Inaugural Dissertations from Basel

N.N. (Pr.) – Didymus [i.e. Zwilling] Emanuel (Resp.), Theses chirurgicae et anatomicae (Basel, Leonhard Ostenius: 1583) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-182. N.N. (Pr.) – Frid Johann Sebastian (Resp.), Theses medicae chirurgicae de phleg­ mone et eius curatione (Basel, no printer given: 1588) – See http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3931/e-rara-12773. N.N. (Pr.) – Doerer Andreas (Resp.), Ἀμφισβήτησις ἰατρικὴ χειρουργικὴ περὶ τῶν ἐν κεφαλῇ τρωμάτων κατὰ τὸν Ἱπποκράτην (Basel, Typis Oporinianis: 1589). N.N. (Pr.) – Rumler Johann Ulrich (Resp.), De potionibus vulnerariis exhibendis quaestio physica chirurgica (Basel, Typis Oporinianis: 1589) – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-1261. N.N. (Pr.) – Bacher Stephan (Resp.), Conclusiones medicae ac chyrurgicae (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1595) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-8013. N.N. (Pr.) – Heining Friedrich (Resp.), Themata de podagra et quibusdam cheirurgicis (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1599) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-9410. N.N. (Pr.) – Hofmann Conrad (Resp.), Methodus medendi generalis ex XIV libris methodi medendi Galeni cum quibusdam cheirurgicis problematis (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1600) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-8090. to Johann Stephan Strobelberger, Thorn 10 Jun 1628: Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, Waller Ms de-02600, fol. 1r (for a summary see www.aerztebriefe.de/id/00016153). 80  Cf. below, 6.7. 81   Ibidem – On Early modern medicine in Würzburg and the disputations here cf. Schlegelmilch U., “Medizinische Wissenschaft in Würzburg in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in Klein D. – Fuchs F. (eds.), Kulturstadt Würzburg. Kunst, Literatur und Wissenschaft in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Würzburg: 2013) 305–343 at 326–332.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

281

N.N. (Pr.) – Rosa Johann (Resp.), De natura et curatione vulnerum, quae sclopetorum globulis infligi solent, theses (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1602) – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-17917. N.N. (Pr.) – Schöbel Christoph (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de fracturis in genere et de fracturae cubiti natura et curatione (Basel, Jacobus Foiletus: 1602) – See http:// dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-17919. N.N. (Pr.) – Hofmann Laurentius (Resp.), ΑΜΦΙΣΒΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ philosophica medica cheir­ urgica (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-18269. N.N. (Pr.) – Lembka Martinus (Resp.), Supremi in arte podaliria seu cheirurgica gradus, et privileis [sic] obtinendis gratia themata miscelanea [sic] (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604) [broadsheet] – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-64095. N.N. (Pr.) – Adamius Andreas (Resp.), Disputationes binae, prima chirurgica de tho­ racis vulneribus, secunda medica de immodico menstrui profluvio (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1605) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-18277. Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Fleisser Johann (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de hysterotomia (3.2.1606) (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1606) – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-18296. N.N. (Pr.) – Schön Gregor (Resp.), Theses […] chirurgico-medicae de fonticulis (Basel, Johann Jakob Genath: 1609) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-17830.

6.2

Surgical Practice Disputations from Basel

6.3

Additional Inaugural Dissertations from Basel Discussed in the Article

Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Meindel Georg (Resp.), Nemeaea certamina de ΧΕΙΡΟΥΡΓΙΑ in genere (15.3.1603) (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1603) – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-18068. Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Lembka Martinus (Resp.), Theses cheirurgicae de ulceribus (14.5.1604) (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604) – See http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3931/e-rara-18257. Stupanus Johann Niklaus (Pr.) – Lembka Martinus (Resp.), Thematha [sic] cheirurgica de fracturis in genere (20.8.1604) (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604) – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-18264.

N.N. (Pr.) – Berger Simon (Resp.), Theses περὶ τοῦ διαβήτου (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1598) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-9393. N.N. (Pr.) – Bruxius Adam (Resp.), De melancholia hypochondriaca positiones una cum adnexis corollariis (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1604) – See http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3931/e-rara-18268. N.N. (Pr.) – Lembka Martinus (Resp.), Pro summis in arte Apollinaria honoribus, et doctoralibus insignibus capessendis, problemata miscelanea [sic] (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604) [broadsheet] – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-64096.

282

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

N.N. (Pr.) – Fleisser Johann (Resp.), Theses de calculis humani corporis (24.3.1606) (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1605). – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de: bvb:29-bv041349338-3. N.N. (Pr.) – Fritzsche Bartholomäus (Resp.), Specimen inaugurale publicum thesium mis­ cellarum politico-medicarum physiologic[arum] patholog[icarum] simiotic[arum] diaetet[icarum] pharmaceut[icarum] chirurgic[arum] et clinicarum quod […] pro summis in arte medica honoribus […] proponit (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1608) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:29-bv041413041-7.

6.4

Additional Practice Disputation from Basel Discussed in the Article

6.5

Surgical Dissertations from Heidelberg

6.6

Surgical Dissertations from Leipzig

Bauhin Caspar (Pr.) – Höchstätter Philipp (Resp.), Praeludia anatomica (Basel, no printer given: 1601) – See http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-18039.

Hofmann Conrad (Pr.) – Opsopaeus Simon (Resp.), Theses chirurgicae de fractura os­ sium ex Hippocratis et Galeni libris de fracturis (Heidelberg, Johannes Lancellotus: 1601) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:32-1-10024392372. [from a practice disputation] Esthi(n)us, Lubert (Pr.) – Opsopaeus, Simon (Resp.), Theses medicae de apoplexia, quas una cum annexis problem[atis] chirurg[icis] […] pro impetrandis summis honoribus et privilegiis doctoralibus, tam in chirurgia quam in medicina, publice examinandas proponit (Heidelberg, Johannes Lancellotus: 1604) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/ur n:nbn:de:gbv:32-1-10024390833. Opsopaeus Simon (Pr.) – Martini Gregor (Resp.), Theses medicae de epilepsia cum decade problematum chirurgicorum atque anatomicorum (Heidelberg, Johannes Lancellotus: 1614) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:32-1-10024421139. Lossius Wolfgang (Pr.) – Huet Johann (Resp.), Disputatio chirurgica de fracturis (Heidelberg, David Albinus: 1617). – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de: gbv:32-1-10024452996.

Salmuth Georg (Pr.) – Steinmetz Johann (Resp.), Quaesita quaedam chirurgica (Leipzig, Georg Deffner: 1585) [VD16 ZV 16325]. Doerer Andreas (Resp.), De sphacelo themata medica chirurgica pro loco in facultate medica consequendo disputanda (Leipzig, Michael Lanzenberger: 1592). [VD16 ZV 31693] Tancke Johann (Pr.) – Forquer Johann (Resp.), De cheirurgia (Leipzig, Michael Lantzenberger: 1595) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:15-0005-17095.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

283

Siglicius Johann (Pr.) – Hartung Valentin (Resp.), Theses cheirurgicae de fracturis os­ sium in genere (Leipzig, Michael Lantzenberger: 1610). Siglicius Johann (Pr.) – Hartung Valentin (Resp.), Capitum cheirurgicorum decas (Leipzig, Michael Lantzenberger: 1611) – See http://diglib.hab.de/drucke/mx-132-9s/ start.htm.

6.7

Additional Surgical Dissertations

6.8

Additional Dissertations on Shot Wounds during the Thirty Years’ War (Selection)

Dortomanus Laurentius (Pr.) – Salmuth Georg (Resp.), “Disputatio secunda pro baculariatu. Quaestio chirurgica”, in Salmuth Georg, Disputationes tres Mons-Pessuli in Gallia habitae anno LXXVIII. et LXXIX (Leipzig, Johann Rambau: 1580) A4r–B1r. Mögling Daniel (Pr.) – Mögling Israel (Resp.), De chirurgia eiusque praecipuarum par­ tium subiecto ossibus humanis (Tübingen, Georg Gruppenbach: 1596) [VD16 ZV 11053; from a practice disputation]. Leiherer Georg (Pr.) – Weisser Melchior (Resp.), Theses chirurgicae de ulceribus gen­ eratim (Würzburg, Georg Fleischmann: 1598) – See http://nbn-resolving.de/ urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb11070563-1. Romanus Adrianus (Pr.) – Lequius Franciscus (Resp.), Theses chirurgicae de ulcerum simplicium methodica curatione (Würzburg, Georg Fleischmann: 1602) – See http:// resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?PPN792645405. Escalier Jehan (Resp.), Thèses chirurgicales pour estre soustenues publiquement à Montpellier (Nîmes, [Sébastien?] Jaquy: 1607).

N.N. (Pr.) – Schwab Johann (Resp.), De horribilium atque horrisonorum πυροβόλων καὶ σφαιροβόλων tormentorum bellicorum vulnerum essentia et curatione conclusio­ nes [Diss. med. inaug., 14.4.1618], reprint in Decas II. disputationum medicarum select[arum] […] (Basel, Johann Jakob Genath: 1619) no. IV – See http://dx.doi .org/10.3931/e-rara-18773. Simon Balthasar (Pr.) – List Georg Philipp (Resp.), Disputatio medico-chirurgica de sclo­ petorum vulneribus (Tübingen, Dietrich Werlin Jr: 1629).

6.9 6.9.1

Other Sources Hand-written

Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, AN II 21 – Matricula facultatis medicae II, 1570–1814. – Digital image at: https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/list/one/ubb/AN-II-0021. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, AN II 23 – Historia Collegii medicorum 1460–1725. – Digital image at: https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/list/one/ubb/AN-II-0023.

284

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

Frühneuzeitliche Ärztebriefe des deutschsprachigen Raums 1500–1700. Database of letters and their summaries provided by a research group of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften of Munich at Würzburg. – See www.aerztebriefe.de.

6.9.2 Printed

Atti della nazione germanica artista nello Studio di Padova, ed. A. Favaro, 2 vols. (Venice: 1911–1912). Coronae Adami Bruxii, Sprottaviensis Silesii, quarum alteram in tota medicina, alteram vero, propter privatas quasdam, easque gravissimas causas, seorsim in chirurgia, ipsi […] Caspar Bauhinus […] imposuit, celebratae […] (Basel, Conrad Waldkirch: 1604). Horst Jacob, Epistolae philosophicae et medicinales (Leipzig, Valentin Voegelin ‒ Michael Lantzenberger: 1596). In nuptias […] Simonis Bergeri […] fausta precatio […] (Augsburg, Valentin Schönig: 1599). – See http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb11206736-7. Jessen Johannes a, Academiae Witebergensis studiosis s.d. (Wittenberg, Lorenz Säuberlich: 1601). Laurentii Hofmanni Halla-Saxonis laurus docturae philosophicae medicae cheirurgicae […] votivis gratulationibus celebrata (Basel, Johann Schroeter: 1604). Matricula nationis Germanicae artistarum in Gymnasio Patavino (1553–1721), ed. L. Rossetti, Fonti per la storia dell’Università di Padova 10 (Padua: 1986). Rolfinck Werner, Dissertationes anatomicae methodo synthetica exaratae (Nürnberg, Michael Endter: 1656). Solemnia anni secularis sive centesimi sacra, quae dei opt. max. favore serenissimi prin­ cipis electoris Brandenburgici etc. assensu voluntateque academia Francofurti ad Viadrum XXVII. April. anni MDCVI pie publiceque celebrabat […] ([Frankfurt a.d. Oder], Johann Thieme: 1606). Stupanus Johannes Nicolaus: Medicina theorica (Basel: Johann Schroeter, 1614).

References Bertolaso B., “Ricerche d’archivio su alcuni aspetti dell’insegnamento medico presso la Università di Padova nel Cinque- e Seicento”, Acta medicae historiae Patavina 6 (1959/60) 17‒38. Bonjour E., Die Universität Basel von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart 1460–1960 (Basel: 1960). Burckhardt A., Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät zu Basel 1460‒1900 (Basel: 1917). Disselhorst R., “Die medizinische Fakultät der Universität Wittenberg und ihre Vertreter von 1503 bis 1816”, Leopoldina N.F. 5 (1929) 79‒101.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

285

Eulner H.-H., Die Entwicklung der medizinischen Spezialfächer an den Universitäten des deutschen Sprachgebietes, Studien zur Medizingeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: 1970). Friedensburg W., Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg (Halle: 1917). Gurlt E., Geschichte der Chirurgie und ihrer Ausübung, vol. 3 (Berlin: 1898). Haller Albrecht von, Bibliotheca chirurgica, qua scripta ad artem chirurgicam fa­ cientia a rerum initiis recensentur, vol. 1 (Bern, Emanuel Haller ‒ Basel, Johann Schweighauser: 1774). Herbst K.-D., Biobibliographisches Handbuch der Kalendermacher von 1550 bis 1750 (database). – See http://www.presseforschung.uni-bremen.de/dokuwiki/doku.php? id=kalendermacher_a-z. Husner F., “Verzeichnis der Basler medizinischen Universitätsschriften von 1575‒1829”, in Festschrift für Jacques Brodbeck-Sandreuter […] zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Basel: 1942) 137‒269. Kinzelbach A., Gesundbleiben, Krankwerden, Armsein in der frühneuzeitlichen Gesellschaft (Stuttgart: 1995). Kinzelbach A., Chirurgen und Chirurgiepraktiken. Wundärzte als Reichsstadtbürger, 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Mainz: 2016). Klestinec C., “Practical Experience in Anatomy”, in Wolfe C.T. – Gal O. (eds.), The Body as Object and Instrument of Knowledge: Embodied Empiricism in Early Modern Science (Dordrecht: 2010) 33‒57. Klestinec C., Theaters of Anatomy. Students, Teachers, and the Traditions of Dissection in Renaissance Venice (Baltimore: 2011). Klestinec C., “Theater der Anatomie. Visuelle, taktile und konzeptuelle Lernmethoden”, in Schramm H. – Schwarte L. – Lazardzig J. (eds.), Spuren der Avantgarde: Theatrum anatomicum. Frühe Neuzeit und Moderne im Kulturvergleich, Theatrum scientiarum 5 (Berlin – New York: 2011) 75–96. Koch H.Th., “Anatomie als universitäres Lehrfach. Das Beispiel Wittenberg”, in Helm J. – Stukenbrock K. (eds.), Anatomie. Sektionen einer medizinischen Wissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: 2003) 169‒188. Kolb W., Geschichte des anatomischen Unterrichtes an der Universität zu Basel 1460‒1900 (Basel: 1951). Lippich F.W., “Über die öffentlichen Anstalten für ärztliche Realbildung und Wirksamkeit in Padua [2. Teil]”, Medicinische Jahrbücher des kaiserl. königl. öster­ reichischen Staates 29 (1839) 107‒112. Littger K.W., Die neuzeitlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt: Die staatlichen Handschriften, Kataloge der Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt II/1 (Wiesbaden: 2012).

286

Ulrich Schlegelmilch

Lorent C.A.E., Biographische Skizzen verstorbener Bremischer Aerzte und Naturforscher : eine Festgabe für die zwei und zwanzigste Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte zu Bremen (Bremen: 1844). Nutton V., “Humanist Surgery”, in Wear A. – French R.K. – Lonie I.M. (eds.), The Medical Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: 1985) 75–99 Nutton V., “Wittenberg Anatomy”, in Grell O.P. – Cunningham A. (eds.), Medicine and the Reformation (London – New York: 1993) 11‒32. Palmer R., “Physicians and Surgeons in Sixteenth-Century Venice”, Medical History 23 (1979) 451‒460. Palmer R., “Nicolò Massa, his family and his fortune”, Medical History 25 (1981) 385‒410. Pick F., Joh. Jessenius de Magna Jessen, Arzt und Rektor in Wittenberg und Prag, hinge­ richtet am 21. Juni 1621. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit des Dreissigjährigen Krieges, Studien zur Geschichte der Medizin 15 (Leipzig: 1926). Sachs M., Geschichte der operativen Chirurgie, Bd. 4: Vom Handwerk zur Wissenschaft: Die Entwicklung der Chirurgie im deutschen Sprachraum vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg: 2003). Schlegelmilch S., “Promoting a Good Physician: Letters of Application to German Civic Authorities (1500–1700)”, in Mendelsohn A. – Kinzelbach A. – Schilling R. (eds.), Civic Medicine: Physician, Polity and Pen in Early Modern Europe (Abingdon: 2019) 88–109. Schlegelmilch U., “Medizinische Wissenschaft in Würzburg in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in Klein D. – Fuchs F. (eds.), Kulturstadt Würzburg. Kunst, Literatur und Wissenschaft in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Würzburg: 2013) 305–343. Schlegelmilch U., “Andreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationscollegiums zur Physiologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.): Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna 2016) 49‒88. Schütte J.M., Medizin im Konflikt. Fakultäten, Märkte und Experten in deutschen Universitätsstädten des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 53 (Leiden – Boston: 2017). Staehelin A., Geschichte der Universität Basel 1632‒1818 (Basel: 1957). Steiner G., “Ärzte, Wundärzte, Chirurgenzunft und medizinische Fakultät in Basel”, Basler Jahrbuch (1954) 179‒209. Stolberg M., “Examining the Body (1500‒1750)”, in Toulalan S. – Fisher K. (eds.), The Routledge History of Sex and the Body in the West, 1500 to the Present (London – New York: 2013) 91‒105. Stolberg M., “Teaching Anatomy in Post-Vesalian Padua: An Analysis of Student Notes”, The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 48 (2018) 61‒78.

Surgical Disputations in Basel at around 1600

287

Stolberg M., “Post-mortems, anatomical dissections and humoral pathology in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries”, in De Renzi S. – Bresadola M. – Conforti M. (eds.), Pathology in Practice. Diseases and Dissections in Early Modern Europe (London – New York: 2018) 79‒95. Stübler E., Geschichte der medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg 1386‒1925 (Heidelberg: 1926). Thümmel H.-W., Die Tübinger Universitätsverfassung im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Tübingen: 1975). Toellner R., “Der Arzt als Gelehrter. Anmerkungen zu einem späthumanistischen Bildungsideal”, in Folkerts M. – Jahn I. – Müller U. (eds.), Die Bausch-Bibliothek in Schweinfurt. Wissenschaft und Buch in der Frühen Neuzeit, Acta historica Leopoldina 31 (Halle: 2000) 39‒59. Tütken J., Privatdozenten im Schatten der Georgia Augusta: Zur älteren Privatdozentur (1734 bis 1831). Teil 1: Statutenrecht und Alltagspraxis (Göttingen: 2005). Weigle F., “Die deutschen Doktorpromotionen in Philosophie und Medizin an der Universität Padua von 1616‒1663”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 45 (1965) 325‒384. Zaunick R., “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Leipziger chirurgisch-anatomischen Professur vor 1580”, Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 16 (1924) 189‒208.

chapter 11

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg Sabine Schlegelmilch Translated by Ulrike Nichols Summary Johann Jakob Waldschmidt (1644–1689), who held a chair in physics in Marburg, left almost 100 printed dissertation texts. As the article shows, he instrumentalised these texts to establish his idea of a “Cartesian medicine” at Marburg University. He had his students discreetly include names, metaphors and terms related to Cartesianism into the dissertations. At times he also edited their texts in this regard. Particular attention should be paid to Waldschmidt’s resemantisation of central humoral-pathological terms with the aim of new mechanistic interpretations. His approach shows a high level of reflection with regard to conventions and thus also to the possibilities of this genre of text. Against the background of Thomas S. Kuhn’s concept of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the article explores how dissertations as a genre may be understood as a specific output of a science which is still in a process of consolidation.

Johann Jakob Waldschmidt did not live very long. When he died in 1689 at the age of only forty-five, he had been a personal physician of Carl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel and Professor of Medicine at the Philipps University in Marburg for 15 years, seven of which he also held a chair in physics.1 His legacy includes two octavos with dissertation texts that he put together himself,2 four articles in the Ephemerides of the Leopoldina Academy3 and posthumous editions of 1  For the biography cf. lately the slim (medical) dissertation by Kießling A., Über Johann Jacob Waldschmidt (1644–1689), Professor der Medizin und Physik an der Philipps-Universität Marburg im Zeitalter des Chymiatrie und des Cartesianismus (University of Marburg: 2014). 2   Waldschmidt Johann Jakob, Fundamenta medicinae, ad mentem neotericum delineata (Marburg, Johannes Jodocus Kürßner: 1682); Institutiones medicinae rationalis, recentiorum theoriae et praxi accommodatae (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1688). The dedication letter of the Fundamenta and the Praefatio of the Institutiones reveal that the texts emerged from disputations (see below). 3  See Miscellanea curiosa, sive ephemeridum medico-physicarum Germanicarum academiae imperialis Leopoldinae naturae curiosorum, Decuria 2, vol. 6, 1687 (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Moritz Enter: 1688) 314–318.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_012

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

289

his manuscripts;4 in addition there are still 73 dissertations available as individual prints. In total, we know of 94 disputation topics due to the publication of further texts in other formats.5 The manuscripts that were not printed or that found entrance in his Fundamenta and Institutiones might increase this number even more. In contrast, only six dissertations in which Waldschmidt’s colleague in the Marburg Medical Faculty, Johannes Magirus (1615–1697), had served as praeses were printed during his 26 years of teaching, and this despite an identical double professorship (in medicine and physics).6 Magirus did not explicitly invite students to dispute their work in public, whereas such invitations were part of Waldschmidt’s lecture announcements nearly every semester. Why was Johann Jakob Waldschmidt so keen on having his students defend disputations? The title of this article is a conscious reference to Thomas S. Kuhn’s essay on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions from the 1960s. While Kuhn may have been met with some opposition and later was critical himself about some of his arguments, his work remains nonetheless influential and a valuable tool in the history of science. He described, for example, a relationship between the various steps of a paradigm shift and certain text genres signifying the development of a science towards maturity. Thus, he calls ‘textbooks of science together with both the popularizations and the philosophical works modelled on them’ as the ‘stable outcome of past revolutions’ and hence as classical formats of a ‘normal science’, i.e., an established interpretation scheme that evolved through a consensus.7 Elsewhere he illustrates that the existence of such textbooks enables scientists to communicate the further evolving differentiation of a paradigm merely in ‘brief articles addressed only to professional colleagues’.8 Where do the dissertations as a genre fit within this model of development, which stage do they resemble? Arguably, as products of the Early 4  Due to lack of space I will not discuss the publishing history here. Some of the unpublished papers were printed later in different combinations and the prints reveal various levels of editing. The titles are listed in the references under [Waldschmidt Johann Jakob]. 5  The numbers listed here are the result of intensive research on site in Marburg and they extend the number of prints listed by Kießling. On the 21 additional topics that are known cf. the details on the various editions of the Opera medico-practica in the references and the subsequent explanation of the Fundamenta physiologica medicinae (1675) in this article. I would express my particular gratitude to Gesine Brakhage for sharing her expert knowledge with me over a number of weeks. 6  Cf. Schlegelmilch S., Ärztliche Praxis und sozialer Raum im 17. Jahrhundert: Johannes Magirus (1615–1697) (Cologne –Weimar – Vienna: 2018) 335. 7  Kuhn T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. With an introductory essay by Ian Hacking. Fourth edition (Chicago – London: 2012) 136. 8  Ibidem 20.

290

Sabine Schlegelmilch

modern university, they probably are often consistent – not only in terms of content but also in terms of function – with the textbooks form which they derived. Yet, could they also have other functions? Kuhn’s theory of the paradigm shift will serve in this article as a foil to analyse the dissertations written under Waldschmidt as praeses. Because of their considerable frequency and the variety of topics they are valuable sources, as they lend themselves to be used as witnesses of a process. By contrast, textbooks, as e.g. the genres of the Institutiones and Praxeis, can document a development only after changes have already taken place. Research on one of Waldschmidt’s colleagues, Magirus (see below), has already revealed that in addition to established knowledge, dissertations can contain clandestine insights (according to Martin Mulsow ‘precarious knowledge’9). I now want to answer the questions of how these texts were purposefully used to establish a new model of interpretation – in this case Cartesianism – and what role various aspects of a regional framework played in this context, e.g., as the selfunderstanding of a university or publications by colleagues. The focus of my analysis are medical dissertations; hence, I deviate from older approaches on Waldschmidt that mainly focused on topics of Cartesian physics. The double quality of medicine as both ars and scientia resulted in particular difficulties during the creation of a new paradigm: things that might work as a model in pure physics do not simultaneously resolve all problems within medicine. For a transregional comparison I draw on the well-informed volume Descartes in Deutschland by Francesco Trevisani who pursued the establishment of Cartesianism at Duisburg University based on dissertations from there in physics and medicine.10 His study was written at a time when such an investigation could be regarded as pioneer work. Nowadays, thanks to digitalization and OCR, it is possible to analyse a much larger numbers of texts. Moving away from the content of the writings, we instead can now compare the texts to reveal structures and strategies that were used to gradually implement the new paradigm: Cartesianism.

9  M  ulsow M., Prekäres Wissen. Eine andere Ideengeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Berlin: 2012) at 16–17, 53–55. 10  Trevisani F., Descartes in Deutschland. Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft – Philosophie – Geschichte 25 (Zurich – Berlin 2011).

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

1

291

‘Revolutionary’ Waldschmidt?

When we talk of a scientific ‘revolution’ we superficially place Johann Jakob Waldschmidt in the realm of the traditional history of progress, a ‘whiggish history’ of the kind that Kuhn already criticised in the 1960s, but that could still be found decades later in German publications on medical history. Rudolf Schmitz, for instance, wrote in his history of the natural sciences at Marburg University that Waldschmidt pursued the goal to change the Aristotelian-medieval world view that was still taught there and that he used the medium of dissertations to distribute his new ideas.11 The attribute ‘Aristotelian-medieval’ points to the double focus that marked most of the research on Waldschmidt:12 it was about progress (no longer medieval) and theoretical models of interpretation that would illustrate this progress (no longer Aristotelian). One result of this approach was that until now only those texts by Waldschmidt have been analysed more closely where remarks on physics according to the Cartesian model could be detected. Johann Jakob Waldschmidt himself would probably have welcomed this particular interest in his works: a research that did not question the sources very critically, that accounted for his polemics against an oldfashioned Aristotelianism and largely focussed on his Cartesianism. First, we must note that Waldschmidt only in Marburg had the chance to become such a ‘revolutionary’. The fact that he gained particular attention as a Cartesian is largely due to the fact that the Philipps University where he taught was one of the last bastions of Aristotelianism. When it was reopened in 1653, Aristotelian physics was explicitly laid down in the statutes as the desired model of interpretation, and this view was pursued for decades to come. The reason for this rigid measure was the increasing influence of Cartesianism that came in particular from the Netherlands.13 Waldschmidt even caused a brief local conflict – not with his dissertations but with his statements on theology – that 11  Schmitz R., Die Naturwissenschaften an der Philipps-Universität Marburg 1527–1977 (Marburg: 1978) 76. 12  Dieter Hof explicitly excluded the medical dissertations from his study: Hof D., Die Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Marburg/Lahn zum Zeitpunkt des Cartesianismus-Streits bis 1750 (Marburg: 1971) 75; Rudolf Schmitz selected from the corpus of sources 30 dissertations ‘denen das Stichwort ‹ physica › gemein ist’ (‘that shared the keyword ‹ physica ›’): Schmitz, Naturwissenschaften 19. While the latest publication by Kießling, a medical dissertation (cf. note 1), addresses dissertations from both physics and medicine, it remains descriptive. In the appendix we find a new edition of the Medicus Cartesianus – that Kießling calls a ‘key text’ of Cartesianism (53) – with a translation that contains some grave errors. 13  Cf. Schlegelmilch S., “Eine frühneuzeitliche Dissertation aus Marburg (1663) als Spiegel medizinischer Theorie und ärztlicher Praxis”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R.

292

Sabine Schlegelmilch

became known as the ‘Cartesian dispute’ (‘Cartesianismus-Streit’).14 Looking at other universities, it was actually not so unusual in the second half of the 17th century that Waldschmidt was interested in Descartes and had his students dispute on physical and medical topics according to Descartes’ interpretation. In Duisburg, a student already disputed a Cartesian physiological concept at the end of the 1650s.15 In Frankfurt an der Oder, another one discussed the dualism of body and soul according to Descartes in three disputations in the 1670s.16 Thus, Cartesianism had long arrived at the universities in the German speaking areas during Waldschmidt’s active period in the 1670s/1680s. The Medicus Cartesianus, the dissertation from his corpus that has so far received most attention, was written only in 1687, at the same time as its counterpart, the Chirurgus Cartesianus.17 If we compare these to a dissertation such as the Renatus Des-Cartes triumphans from 1655, with which the Professor of Mathematics and Physics in Frankfurt/Oder, Johannes Placentius, advocated his Cartesian views,18 we must regard both, Waldschmidt’s Medicus and Chirurgus, rather as the end of a development than as a ‘revolutionary’ beginning. Moreover, when Johann Jacob Baier disputed about the Medicus Cartesianus in 1687, the majority of dissertations that had been written under Waldschmidt had already been printed and his Fundamenta medicinae also had been published. In addition to a dedication letter by the theologian (!) Reinhold Pauli, they interestingly contain a list of five ‘Nomina Do[mi]n[orum] Studiosorum qui Respondentium officio functi fuere’ (‘five names of students who functioned as respondents’).19 The number of respondents corresponds to the number of five books into which the Fundamenta are structured and suggests that Waldschmidt had his students write dissertation texts under his (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 151–177, at 157. 14  Cf. Trevisani F., “Studi sul cartesianesimo tedesco: Johann Jacob Waldschmidt (1644– 1689)”, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 17 (1991) 187–223, at 187–189; Kießling, Waldschmidt 37–39. 15  Cf. Trevisani, Descartes 99–103. 16  Cf. Omodeo P.D., “Medizinische und dämonologische Abhandlungen über den psycho­ physischen Dualismus im deutschen Cartesianismus des 17. Jahrhunderts”, Paragrana 25/1 (2016) 130–153, at 131–132. 17  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Baier Johann Jakob (Resp.), Medicus Cartesianus detegens aliquot in medicina errores hactenus ex ignorantia philosophiae commissos (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1687); Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Waldschmidt Wilhelm Huldrich (Resp.), Chirurgus Cartesianus detegens aliquot in chirurgia errores hactenus ex ignorantia philosophiae commissos (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1687). 18  Cf. Trevisani, Descartes 32. 19  Waldschmidt, Fundamenta, fol. 8v.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

293

name in view of a later collective publication, which he, as praeses, probably corrected and edited according to his own ideas before the book was printed.20 While the text of the Fundamenta (that had been derived from dissertations) was already in print, Waldschmidt announced them as the basic text for future disputations in the following semester.21 Then, in 1688, the Institutiones medicinae followed, another product of the ‘lecture hall’. Other professors put together their publications in a similar way as statements by Erhard Weigel in the Praefatio of his Idea matheseos (1666) illustrate.22 On the one hand, this method might be the reason for the varying degree of Cartesian physiology in Waldschmidt’s medical dissertations. On the other hand, it would resolve the seeming contradiction that the texts often have been written in the first person and thus point to Waldschmidt as the writer but at the same time refer to him as praeses in the third person – this is the case e.g., in De causa partus monstrosi.23 However, it is essential to note that Waldschmidt was responsible for the final version of the dissertations when we now try to understand how he utilised the texts to establish his own views. 2

Joining the Scientific Community

Waldschmidt was appointed as Professor of Medicine in the first half of the year 1674.24 Already in August of the same year, the first dissertation he chaired was published: De dysenteria maligna. Just as with the other two dissertations 20  On this procedure cf. Trevisani, Descartes 45. 21  University Library Marburg, 095 1 2014 289,1: Indices lectionum in Academia Marburgensi habendarum 1644–1745, at 1683/1. 22  Weigel Erhard, Idea matheseos universae cum speciminibus inventionum mathematicarum (Jena, Johann Jakob Bauhof: 1666), Ad Lectorem (unpag.) Cf. here Iolanda Ventura’s observations on the ‘miscellanea ‹ manualistica ›’: “Le disputationes universitarie: uno strumento per una storia della medicina moderna? Reflessioni a partire dalle miscellanee di scritti universitari”, in De Felice F. – Graziani P. (eds.), Filosofia e scienze nel Rinascimento (Lanciano: 2015) 143–178, at 154–159. 23  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Kursner Christian (Resp.), Disputatio physica de causa partus monstrosi nuperrime nati, huiusque occasione de monstrorum humanorum causis in genere (Marburg, Johannes Jodocus Kürßner: 1684). The dissertation begins with an explanation why the author (here probably Waldschmidt) decided to ‘take on this unusual topic as an examination subject with the chair for physics’ (3). It ends with the words that the author (now probably Kursner) asks the reader to be favourably disposed towards that ‘what he finally wrote about this topic from the mouth of THE LORD PRAESES during the debating college’ (32). On the student transcripts of his lectures cf. also Waldschmidt, Institutiones, fol. A6r–v. 24  Cf. Kießling, Waldschmidt 13.

294

Sabine Schlegelmilch

that appeared in the same year, the text does not reveal that the praeses was a convinced Cartesian. Waldschmidt kept up his guard. He had been hired to teach the standards of established knowledge and that is what he did – at least in the written version of the disputations. The description of a therapy, for instance, that was indicated in case of dysentery and that he had his respondent provide, could have also been easily printed verbatim one and a half centuries earlier: Intemperies maligna indicat sui correctionem per bezoardica et alexipharmaca, habito respectu humoris praedominantis, aetatis, temperamenti et sexus. A malignant mixture required a correction through bezoardica et alexipharmaca while the dominant humour, age, temper and gender must be considered.25 The topics of the three texts from 1674 show that Waldschmidt kept pace with the time but they are hardly surprising. Common medical terminology of the time included the idea of a wrong consistency of the blood (corruptio) that resulted from an incomplete boiling, producing ‘sharp’ particles that damaged the bowels. By the time Daniel Sennert integrated chemical concepts into Galenic medicine at the beginning of the 17th century, a long-lasting discourse on the consistency of blood began that was initially completely independent from the theory of blood circulation (which is not mentioned in the dissertations from 1674 either). Already from the 1650s onwards Waldschmidt’s colleague Johannes Magirus used blood testing as a diagnostic tool: he practised an early form of sedimentation test, determining the parts of blood by weight and then deducing its chemical qualities from the results.26 In Magirus’ notes, taken at the end of the 1640s, we already find long excerpts on Jean-Baptiste van Helmont, on concepts such as fermentation, acrimonies and chemical processes within the body27 as they were discussed in the last dissertation from 1674 – De chylificatione. Waldschmidt had been praeses here.28 This initial brief comparison of the two medical professors from Marburg illustrates: 25  Waldschmidt Johann Jacob (Pr.) – Vogelsang Johann Christopher (Resp.), De dysenteria maligna (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1674) 15. 26  Cf. Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 183–186; 259–262. 27  Cf. Schlegelmilch S., “‘Hier sind Chymica, hier sind Chymica!’ – Die frühe Rezeption von Johann Baptist van Helmonts ‘Ortus medicinae’ (1648) in Berliner Ärztekreisen”, Morgen-Glantz 23 (2013) 185–208. 28  Cf. Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Geilfus Bernhard Wilhelm (Resp.), De chylificatione sive cibi in chylum mutatione (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1674).

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

295

Johann Jakob Waldschmidt’s start in Marburg was everything but revolutionary. Rather, he adapted his teaching to the existing structures and filled his position as requested by lecturing on medicine, while avoiding all elements that could have caused irritation – he just taught ‘normal science’. 3

Naming the Problem

The dissertations of the following year reveal how Waldschmidt slowly expanded the scope of his teachings. His references to Descartes make apparent the strategy he employed. An important quality of Early modern specialised literature was the authorisation of one’s own position through – at times excessively – naming other earlier and contemporary authorities. On the one hand this illustrated one’s rootedness in tradition, on the other hand one’s familiarity with current debates. In the dissertations from 1674 that I discussed before, the name Descartes does not appear. It is important here to remember the public character of both the disputations and the printed dissertations. Again, looking at Johannes Magirus sheds some light. He arrived in Marburg already in 1656 (as Professor of Mathematics and History) and finally received the desired professorship in medicine in 1660. At this time, he had been publishing for more than fourteen years, including his annual calendars, each accompanied by a Prognosticon astrologicum. In the dedication of the Prognosticon from 1655, i.e., shortly before his appointment in Marburg, we read: Und was ist der Mensch wol anders als das köstlichste Mechanische Gebäu und Gerüst das in der Welt zu finden ist: Man findet in demselben den silbernen Strick und die güldene Quelle, den Eymer und das Rad am Brunnen; man findet in demselben die Mühle und das Fenster und unterschiedliche Thüren; man findet in demselben die herrlichsten und kunstreichsten Fontainen, und springende Quellen; man findet in demselben auch unterschiedliche Schleussen und Valvulas, die da auff unterschiedliche Manier und Weise gemacht seyn; man findet in demselben die schönste und künstliche Instrumenta, Hebwercke und Zugwercke; man findet in demselben allerley schöne Figuren und Cörper als da sind Circkel, Oval-Figuren, Triangel, Quadrangel, man findet drinnen Conos und Pyramides, wie solche der hochgelehrte Galenus gar artig beschreibet, also daß Decartes [sic] hierin nicht unrecht geredet Mechanicas regulas easdem esse naturae regulas.29 29  Magirus Johannes: Prognosticon astrologicum […] des MDCLV. Jahres (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Endter sen.: 1654), fol. A2v–3r.

296

Sabine Schlegelmilch

And what else is man but the most delightful mechanical building and structure that can be found in the world. You find in him the silver rope and the golden spring, the pale and the wheel at the well; you find in him the mill and the window and various doors; you find in him the most wonderful and elaborate fountains and springs; you find in him also the biggest variety of locks and valves that have been made in different manners and ways; you also find in him the most beautiful and artful instruments, levers and hoists; you find in him all sorts of pretty figures and bodies as there are circles, oval figure, triangle, rectangle and also cones and pyramids, such as the erudite Galen has so well described, so that Descartes is quite right when he says Mechanicas regulas easdem esse naturae regulas. I am citing this in so much detail here because together with his other publications after Magirus’ appointment in Marburg this can help to explain Waldschmidt’s strategy with the dissertations. In a disputation from 1663, in which Magirus served as praeses, he had the respondent defend theses that declared the Aristotelian teachings of the elements as void and replaced the three Aristotelian Spirits with a single one (as happens in the Cartesian philosophy).30 One cannot deduct this content at all from the title of the dissertation, which rather suggests quite a conservative subject by referring to Jean Fernel’s structuring of medicine into five areas.31 In the same year Magirus dedicated his calendar to the female sovereign Hedwig Sophie of Hesse-Kassel and repeated the dedication from 1654 (as cited above) nearly verbatim, yet at the end the name of Descartes is missing just as it is missing in the provocative theses of the aforementioned dissertation. This illustrates two things: When Waldschmidt was appointed in Marburg in the year 1674 Cartesianism had long since arrived there, its content had already been part of Magirus’ teachings. Yet publicly, a confession to Cartesianism – such as in printing Descartes’ name – did not seem to be a good idea. Hence, everyone was on their guard to include his name into their texts because that way they still could be declared as variants of established philosophies if necessary. This is a fine illustration of what Kuhn called the ‘blurring of a paradigm’:32 the original interpretation received so many amendments and differentiations 30  Cf. Schlegelmilch, Eine frühneuzeitliche Dissertation 154. 31  Magirus Johannes (Pr.) – Sömmeringius Matthaeus (Resp.), Disputatio medica ex physiologiae, signorum, diaetae, conservatricis et curatricis doctrinis desumpta (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1663). 32  Cf. Kuhn, Structure 84.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

297

that there was no clear delineation any more. In the dissertations from 1675 we also find what Kuhn calls a quality of transition periods: the opportunity to explain several existing questions both with old and new paradigms. This resulted in scientific statements being somewhat Janus-faced. In De chylificatione the respondent Bernhard Wilhelm Geilfus, who dedicated his dissertation to Hedwig Sophie of Hesse-Kassel explained certain sensations the way ‘ut notat laborissimus Naturae scrutator, et Philosophus Celeberrimus Aristoteles’, i.e., ‘the busiest observant of nature and the very famous philosopher Aristotle notes’. He continues: Haec sensatio quomodo fiat describi posset etiam ad mente[m], normam et formam Neotericorum, si esset huius loci, itaque haec certis de causis omissa […]. Simultaneously we could describe this sensation also in the sense and according to the conventions and the form of the Neoterics if it was appropriate here, which is why we will refrain from doing so for certain reasons […].33 Then, in February 1675, two months later, Descartes is mentioned for the first time in the dissertation De cura lactis but only in passing and together with another name – not in italics (which would signal an important reference to a reader) but with the function to affirm the truth (veritas) of established authorities.34 In July 1675 the name Cartesius already appears in italics, yet only once in his quality as an anatomist and as a supplement to the ‘most famous anatomists of our time Bartholin, Vesling, Van Horne, Sylvius, Glisson, Diembrock and others’.35 By gradually increasing the frequency of his namedropping, Waldschmidt familiarised his audience to hearing and reading Descartes’ name. At this point one might ask why Magirus who obviously also taught Cartesian thought, always stopped short of using the name (as in the dissertation from 1663), even though he lectured until 1682. The reason probably was that both 33   Waldschmidt – Geilfus, De chylificatione 3. 34  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Jacobi Ludwig Conrad (Resp.), De cura lactis, podagricorum solatio, et certo podagrae remedio (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675) 7: ‘quarum opinionum veritas apodictice ex fundamentis Cartesianis et Willisianis facile demonstrari posset’. 35  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Schunck Johann Christian (Resp.), Disputatio medica exhibens intricatam hodierno tempore quaestionem de sanguificatione quam in hepate fieri (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675) 5.

298

Sabine Schlegelmilch

physicians pursued different interests. Johannes Magirus’ passion was mathematics and in terms of medicine he was mainly interested in its mathematical aspects such as quantifiable measurements and astronomical calculations. In addition, his aim was to improve the practical application of medical teaching by trying to implement a policlinical concept and treat poor patients free of charge for teaching purposes. He got into conflict with the authorities not because of his mechanistic view of the body but because he disturbed the order of the university in teaching non-academic and – even worse – female students.36 By contrast, Waldschmidt was primarily interested in theoretical physics, and the implementation in the practice probably also occurred in researching both physics and physiology. The dissertations repeatedly point to physical experiments, vivisections (in animals), and microscopic findings.37 4

The Power of Words

Francesco Trevisani writes that during the 1650s at Duisburg University ‘in the first disputations in physics the bigger concern was to homogenise antiquity and modernity, Aristotelian physics and Cartesian physics than to point out the differences’.38 Waldschmidt repeated this strategy of balancing thirty years later at Marburg University. In November 1675, the dissertation De phthisi was published that contains a guide of how to discuss topics that had been met with hostility. It was publicly defended by Andreas Erni (who also disputed elsewhere in the same year)39 and indeed, we can read a defence here, namely against ‘such people who do not welcome experimental medicine or those who cannot give up their prejudices when dealing with it’. Erni argued that it would not be helpful to use force to exorcize something out of people, rather one should be balanced: ne majores in Medicina nostra excitentur turbae; Sic[cine] enim regnum nostrum divisum est, ut jam dudum corruisset, nisi viri quidam celeberrimi et pacis amantes eius tranquilitatem in tantum conservassent, quo nomine laudandus venit Celeberrimus D. Straussius, Medicinae Doctor et 36  Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 284. 37  Such items as well as a ‘speaking trumpet’ Waldschmidt also showed to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz when he visited Marburg: cf. Kießling, Waldschmidt 39. 38  Trevisani, Descartes 84. 39  Cf. Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.)., Collegium publicum disputatorium, in quo fundamenta physiologica medicinae […] exponuntur (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675), Disputatio nona.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

299

Professor famigeratissimus, olim Praeceptor, nunc Fautor mihi semper colendus, qui tanta modestia de Neotericorum loquitur principiis, ut nihil veterum authoritati derogare videatur, antiquitatem tamen ita veneretur, ut reconciliationem cum neotericis non solum non recuset, verum etiam illam in suis scriptis quovis studio recommendet. so that we do not cause bigger uproar in our medicine. Our realm [of medicine] is so split that it would have long broken apart were it not for highly famous and peaceful men that have saved it its serenity; among these we must praise the famous Mister Strauss, Doctor and honourable Professor of Medicine and previously my teacher and now my venerable benefactor who always discusses the principles of the Neoterics with great moderation so that he does not seem to question the authority of the old [masters] at all, and but shows respect towards the Ancients in such that he does not only support a reconciliation with the Neoterics but even emphatically gives them a voice also in his own writings.40 Describing medicine as ‘regnum divisum’ captures a situation in science that has shifted from a ‘blurring of the paradigm’ (see above) to an acute crisis. Not counting the dramatization that is part of all contemporary polemics, the cited description reveals a split of science into ‘competing schools’.41 Therefore, it seemed to be promising to link contents in an effort of reconciliation rather than to counter this with forming even another ‘sect’. The strategy of reconciliation had already proven successful within academic discourse as is evident with the Strauss’ example. As I will illustrate now, the dissertations from Marburg document three different approaches that were used to pursue this strategy. 4.1 Content-Related Equalisation ‘Overlap is not identity’, Kuhn specified the quality of the connecting elements between two paradigms.42 Yet, the ‘Neoterics’ thought it was necessary to define this overlap to allow sceptics a transition to their new interpretation. As shown above, Bernhard Wilhelm Geilfus named the possibility in De chylificatione to explain sensations either with Aristotelian or ‘Neoteric’, i.e., Cartesian concepts – we find this approach also elsewhere, embedded in terminology. 40  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Erni Andreas (Resp.), De phthisi, Schwind- oder Lungensucht (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675) 8. 41  Cf. Kuhn, Structure 13. 42  Cf. ibidem 67.

300

Sabine Schlegelmilch

De dysenteria maligna already contains an early example of this with the succinct explanation that the previously described ‘sharper particles of that blood could also be called biliary, coppery, salty, slimy and as being in the highest state of vitiation’.43 With this equalisation solid bodies that were thought to cut into the intestines and rip them apart were transformed back into the familiar chemical findings. The Duisburg professor Johannes Clauberg used a similar method in his subject (Logic) when he equated Cartesian terms with those of traditional syllogistic logic.44 4.2 Authorisation Towards the end of the 17th century, Galen may have had partially lost his status of ancient authority – mainly through new anatomical discoveries –, yet Hippocrates was still ironclad as the progenitor of medicine. The proof that something had already been written down by Hippocrates was such a compelling argument in any medical discourse that it could hardly be contradicted. Using the ‘Hippocrates trick’, in 1619 Daniel Sennert prevented that the discoveries of early chemistry were established as continuous contradiction against established medicine, a situation which could have threatened the young discipline of academic medicine in the long term. He illustrated how Hippocrates had not only used the chemical terms ‘acerbus’, ‘acidus’ and ‘amarus’ in his text De prisca medicina but also put them above the Aristotelian qualities of ‘calidus’, ‘frigidus’, ‘siccus’, and ‘humidus’.45 The same happened in a dissertation in which the student Johann Heinrich Happel repeated an argument similar to that of Sennert, though equating Hippocrates and Descartes in De febre intermittenti tertiana (1677). He claimed that the term ‘aethereus’ in Hippocrates would correspond to ‘subtilis’ in Descartes.46 The Monita medica circa opii et opiatorum usum (1676) pointed out that Hippocrates already called the human body ‘machina’ in various places of his oeuvre.47 With this strategy, core terms of mechanical physiology received absolution through the ancient authority. 4.3 Re-semantization Older publications praise the Collegium Rohaultianum that had been held with Waldschmidt as praeses in 1683. Its Disputatio prima has been preserved 43   Waldschmidt – Vogelsang, De dysenteria 7. 44  Trevisani, Descartes 68. 45  Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 255–256. 46  [Sine praeside] – Happel Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Disputatio inauguralis medica de febre intermittente tertiana (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1677) 3. 47  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Chuno Philipp Heinrich (Resp.), Monita medica circa opii et opiatorum usum vulgo Schlaff=Tränck (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1676) 21.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

301

as an individual print.48 According to Dieter Hof, it marks the beginning of Waldschmidt’s ‘systematic dealings’ with Descartes. Rudolf Schmitz even presents a summary of the content over numerous pages, regarding the demise of the ‘medieval world view’ and the transition to the new theory of the elements to be completed in this dissertation.49 Far more interesting than this text (a 58 pages long version of the Tractatus Physicus by the Cartesian Jacques Rohault – whose name could apparently be mentioned in the 1680s without a problem), is a small leaflet from 1675 with the inconspicuous title Collegium disputatorium publicum, in quo fundamenta medicinae physiologica […] exponuntur.50 It is still available at the university library in Marburg and contains the theses of 14 practice disputations that had taken place between February and July 1675 at the auditorium of the Medical Faculty at the Barfüßerkirche (‘ad Nudipedes’). This is the only text within Waldschmidt’s periphery where the theses were not put together as a running text but as Theses nudae, i.e., statements in individual sentences without any evidence attached. The choice of this format was probably not an accident because this collection of theses contains a reinterpretation of the key terms of humoral pathology in the Cartesian sense. Waldschmidt tried to re-coin central terms such as ‘Qualitates’, ‘Fluida’, ’Solida’, ‘Temperamentum’, ‘Calor’ etc. Thus, we read for instance in the Disputatio secunda that the ‘Machina’ (previously equated with ‘Corpus’) consists of the matter of three elements; and if we wanted to call them by their perceivable form we would name them ‘spiritus, sulphur, sal, aqua et terra’. In this case, introducing the terms of the elements still works through equation. The third disputation reveals how the re-interpretation of an important term such as the Aristotelian qualities works. The following sentence refers to the particles previously discussed (‘particulae’): Quarum diversus motus, situs, magnitudo et figura, varias in corpore nostri producit qualitates. Harum minus potentes sunt, calor, frigus, humiditas et siccitas. Potentiores: oleaginositas, flexibilitas, salsedo, aquositas, fluiditas, volatilitas, amarum, austerum, acidum etc. Their different movement, location, size and appearance causes different qualities in our body. Among these are some that are less influential,

48  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Kürsner Christian (Resp.), Collegii Rohaultiani disputatio prima (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1683). 49  Cf. Hof, Entwicklung 78; Schmitz, Naturwissenschaften 21. 50  Cf. note 39.

302

Sabine Schlegelmilch

[that is] warms, coldness, moisture and dryness. The more influential are: Oiliness, flexibility, saltiness, wateriness, fluidity, mobility, the bitter, the sharp, the sour etc. The four Aristotelian qualities thus remain untouched, but they are degraded from a general principle of order that is likewise expressed in the fourness of the humours to mere qualities (and less important ones). The same happens then (in the same disputatio) with the ‘humores’: there are four, we read, namely the traditional ‘sanguis, bilis, pituita et melancholia’ – but later only the blood is considered. Elsewhere (cf. Disputatio quinta), we read that the calor is – as tradition has it – located in the heart, but due to the Harveianic blood circulation (this is new), it is also in flow and thus determines the four tempers, which are a mixture of fluids (‘liquores’, not ‘humores’!) and evolves from fermentation (for which the calor is required). These linguistic acrobatics, in which the traditional signifiers are maintained but the signified were replaced, had the effect that even today many researchers are confused about the longevity of humoral pathology. Waldschmidt was by no means the only medical expert of his time who employed this complicated way of arguing. 5

Scientia et ars

Earlier, I called the Medicus Cartesianus the endpoint of a process of establishment. A publication with a title like that evokes the idea of a medical practitioner who works in the Cartesian frame of mind, i.e., someone who implements the ‘new’ physics resp. physiology into practice. During the Early modern period, and this differentiation is essential for the German-speaking countries, a ‘medicus’ always referred to a medical practitioner (academically trained or not) while the term ‘physicus’ simply designated an academic who had been trained in physics.51 Waldschmidt himself addressed this difference by repeating a much-quoted proverb: ‘The medicus begins where the physicus ends’.52 Of course, he consciously interpreted it in a wrong way, using the contemporary style of polemics: he implied that until now all practitioners would understand this saying as such that once they started practical therapies they could ignore theory, while usually it was used with the meaning that theory on its own was not enough and that a physician also needed to gain practical experience.53 51  Cf. Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 258. 52  Waldschmidt, Medicus 16: ‘Ubi desinit Physicus, ibi incipit Medicus’. 53  Cf. Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 221.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

303

The proverb is based on the idea that a ‘physicus’ was the personification of ‘ratio’, i.e., rational reasoning that is trained in the principles of a ‘scientia’, namely physics (which in medicine was adapted as physiology). In contrast, a ‘medicus’ personified ‘experientia’, knowledge based on experience that resulted from practising his ars, i.e., treating his patients. There are, of course, always interdependencies between the different areas because treatment always followed ideas stemming from theoretical concepts and vice versa.54 Theory and practice therefore equally defined medicine. So, if Kuhn is correct and new schemes of interpretation can only develop under the condition that they have the potential to answer important and until then unsolvable questions, in medicine this potential should evolve in both, theory and practice. The Medicus Cartesianus is not helpful with regard to medical practice because Waldschmidt only lists the errors of other people – a typical strategy of polemics.55 While he argues ex negativo, he does not provide any instructions for action. But do the 26 dissertations on pathology that were written under Waldschmidt’s supervision tell us something about Cartesian medicine? Part of the medical practice has always been to formulate an initial diagnosis. Yet because medical practitioners of that time could not look inside the body (of a living person), their rationale for their diagnosis and therapy, as we find them in the texts, had to be mere claims, just as it had been the case before in Aristotelian physiology. Nobody could see the particles that allegedly ‘cut’ the intestines during dysentery nor could the concrete effect of an administered medication be observed, i.e., how it changed these particles. One might assume that a new view on physiology would at least result in using new medications and treatment methods. Yet, as the dissertations (and also Waldschmidt’s posthumously published case studies) reveal, this was not the case. The core argument of De pernionibus (1687), for instance, is mechanistic: It says that chillblains were the result of the stagnation of the body fluids due to cold, which in turn would destroy the tissue as expansion occurs. Yet, the suggested therapy is invariably traditional, consisting of various prescriptions whose composition was derived from the medical literature of the entire 17th century.56 The three traditional ways of treatment commonly listed in the dissertations – diet, therapy, and surgery – did not change at all in their application, only in explanation, meaning how they were explained to the patients. The materia medica, i.e., the ingredients of the medication remained the same, 54  Cf. ibidem 234–240. 55  Cf. ibidem 74–75. 56  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Müller, Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio medica de pernionibus Frost Beulen (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1687).

304

Sabine Schlegelmilch

clyster and bloodletting continued to be used. Waldschmidt’s son merely demanded in his dissertation Chirurgus Cartesianus that surgeons should have knowledge of blood circulation.57 This illustrates to what extent the academic self-expectation of medicine as a natural science (a view many physicians today would share) collided with the reality of medicine as a craft based on experience. With each paradigm shift we find residual elements that are remaining parts of the previous paradigm; a whiggish approach would declare them as ‘not yet overcome’. Yet in medicine, these are the canonised experiences that must be preserved, which is why they serve as a strong bracket between the paradigms. ‘Experientia’ must be able to be integrated into the respective new model, otherwise it does not work. In Medicus Cartesianus Waldschmidt delivers a number of verbose explanations to explain the success of earlier healing attempts, such as that many of Hippocrates’ fever patients were cured through ether – but Hippocrates just did not know (yet) that this subtle (light) ether had been the crucial factor. He also argued that it was possible that a medication whose powers and effect was hidden from the treating physician would still have the desired effect even though a precise insight from anatomy and physiology would (still) be missing (and hence one could continue to prescribe the same compositions). And, he continues, many people recovered due to their fine constitution and God’s mercy.58 The dissertation Astrologus medicus (1681) is a particular testimony for the claim that truth was attached to knowledge from experience which is why it had to be preserved.59 To evaluate this text we must know that Waldschmidt’s colleague Johannes Magirus, mentioned repeatedly before, promoted astrology his entire life as a means of medical diagnosis and prognosis. To Magirus, calculating the constellations of the planets and deducing their effects on the human body (and all other bodies) from these ‘aspects’, as Kepler described them, meant applying precise mathematical methods in medicine.60 In his calendars he emphasised the scientific nature of his actions by pointing to his ‘experientia’ that consisted of numerous observations that for him confirmed the connection between the heavenly and the human bodies. Thus, he described in one calendar how he had observed a lunar eclipse to have been 57  Waldschmidt, Chirurgus 5–6. 58  Waldschmidt, Medicus 6–7. 59  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Fabricius Johann Philipp (Resp.), Astrologus medicus, catarrhorum theoria et praxi astrorum vim et influxum in microscosmum […] exhibens (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1681). 60  Cf. Schlegelmilch, Ärztliche Praxis 62–73; 157–161.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

305

the trigger for an epilepsy.61 Observations that occurred at the same time had obviously been causally linked and the interpretation became part of an ‘experientia’ that was not to be questioned. Waldschmidt could not overcome this particular point either, especially as he regarded sensual perceptions as primary source of insight.62 He did not question that planets and disease (in the case of the cited dissertation, a catarrh) were linked. Instead he explained from the perspective of Cartesian physics why this was the case: Ex priori thesi abunde satis patet, vim illam et efficaciam aëris in producendis Catarrhis ab astris potissimum proficisci, cum iuxta varias constellationes luminumque phases eum varie alterari sentiamus, hinc restare adhuc videtur, ut ostendamus, quomodo potiora Catarrhi symptomata per suas causas clare et perspicue explicari possint.63 The previous proposition makes sufficiently clear that the power and effect of air that causes catarrhs results mostly from the stars because we feel that they change due to different constellations and phases of celestial lights, it only remains for us to show how the stronger symptoms of a catarrh can be clearly and distinctly explained in their roots. In a later dissertation, De motu astrorum (1684), that discussed the connection between the moon and the tides he compared the sea surf with intermittent fever.64 Since Descartes himself had not adapted astrology and Cartesians such as Jacques Rohault (see above) explicitly rejected it,65 Waldschmidt’s efforts must be regarded as aiming at a particular medical residual. He actually was not the last one to attempt an adaptation: in the first half of the 18th century the English physician Richard Mead used Newton’s physics to explain the effect of the planets on the human body.66 These findings, I argue, indicate that while the ‘new’ Cartesian physics was reflected in a ‘new’ physiology, the required preservation of knowledge from practical experiences and the lack of new access to the living body meant 61  Cf. ibidem 238–239. 62  Cf. Trevisani, Studi sul cartesianesimo 194–195; 203–208. 63  Waldschmidt, Astrologus 7. 64  Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Wißkemann Wilhelm (Resp.), Exercitatio physica de natura et motu astrorum aliisq[ue] eorundem phoenomenis (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1684) 57. 65  Cf. Rutkin H.D., ‘Astrology’, in Park K. – Daston L. (eds.), Cambridge History of Science, vol. 3: Early Modern Science (Cambridge: 2008) 541–561, at 556. 66  Cf. ibidem 557–558.

306

Sabine Schlegelmilch

that nothing changed in medical practice.67 Physicians conducted treatments using a new language but lacking new methods: ‘Each shopkeeper praises his goods’.68 6

Conclusion

For Johann Jakob Waldschmidt, disputations were more than an academic exercise. Rather, he instrumentalised the printed dissertation texts that appeared continuously with a gap of only a few months not only as a medium to explore Cartesian physics step by step, but mainly to establish his idea of a ‘Cartesian medicine’ as a new model of interpretation at Marburg University. Especially the dissertations from his first years there show a high level of reflection with regard to conventions and thus also the possibilities of this genre of text. Waldschmidt pursued the desired change initially by cautiously approaching ‘normal science’ (e.g., shunning the name of Descartes). Subsequently he ascribed central terms of physiology with a new meaning and only in the end he openly confessed to being a Medicus Cartesianus. In his posthumously published writings, the paradigm he advocated had finally reached the form of a textbook again while the earlier dissertations are testimonies of a slow consolidation process. While Waldschmidt provided the material for the dissertations in his lectures and undertook some final editing, they were probably written by his students. For that reason, they are not always very stringent, both intraand intertextually, yet this is even more evidence that the establishment of a new philosophical concept was a slow process. The medical dissertations reveal the rift between theory and practice. The physiological explanations that were inscribed into diagnostics, implying an assurance of ‘true’ knowledge and thus the promise of healing, largely remained at the level of performative utterances that lacked corresponding actions. At this point one question remains: which unresolved problem in medicine did Cartesian physiology help to resolve? The answer to this was probably inherent in the practice but not that of application. When physicians began to regain the works of antiquity in the first half of the 16th century by producing editions, comments and textbooks on medical writings of that time, they felt

67  Francesco Trevisani commented on the Medicus Cartesianus that there ‘can be no Cartesian medicine’.: “J.J. Waldschmidt: Medicus Cartesianus”, Nouvelles de la république des lettres 2 (1981) 143–164, at 146. 68  Waldschmidt, Monita medica 13: ‘Ein jedweder Krämer lobt seine waar’.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

307

competent in the area of anatomy.69 It is known that Andreas Vesalius was the first to question the reliability of the old texts when he analysed his dissections in the middle of the 16th century. Additional dissections, that were conducted after the model of foreign institutions that the physicians had got to know during their stays abroad, unearthed ever more individual observations that could not be logically explained with Aristotelian philosophy. Simultaneously experimental physics evolved, and William Harvey bridged them to physiology by discovering the fundamentals of blood circulation with a repeatable experimental set-up. Cartesianism finally re-established the connection between the outer world and the interior of the human body but at the same time demanded the application of valid thought patterns from outer physics to the physiology of humans. According to Kuhn, tautology and circular reasoning are at the core of each new paradigm as characteristic patterns of thought: Descartes extrapolated statements about physiological processes in the interior of living humans from the findings of anatomical dissections. Evidence for this new physiology then, of course, was found with every anatomical dissection. I close this article with a look at two further dissertations from Marburg: one is from Waldschmidt, the other from Dorsten, another of his colleagues in Medicine.70 In February 1684, the latter apparently had dissected a ‘monstrous birth’ at the Theatrum anatomicum in Marburg. He had a student defend a disputation on the findings, and the respective dissertation contains a copperplate print that shows Siamese twins connected at the abdomen and two images with organ findings. The accompanying text (71 pages) provides an abundance of quotations from antiquity and modern times on the subject and a precise list of everything that had been observed during the dissection. Nevertheless, Dorsten takes himself back in various places: certain topics, according to him, belonged ‘more in the sphere of physics than anatomy’ – and he pointed to the dissertation that Waldschmidt himself had contributed on the case of the monstrous birth.71 As these complementary dissertations by Waldschmidt and Dorsten illustrate, physics and anatomy had become perfect complimentary partners again through a Cartesian reading.

69  Cf. the article by Ulrich Schlegelmilch in this volume. 70  Waldschmidt, De causa partus monstri; Dorsten Johann Daniel (Pr.) – Lombardi Carl Philipp (Resp.), Exercitatio anatomica de monstro humano nupero (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1684). 71  Ibidem 41; 26; cf. also 50.

308

Sabine Schlegelmilch

Bibliography Sources

Although Waldschmidt’s name also appears in variants like Waldschmied, Waldschmiedt, Waldschmidius, we prefer here the name form which is generally used in the library catalogues, and is the main setting of the name in the catalogue of the German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek), similar to how we treat the other personal names of the time before 1800. Dorsten Johann Daniel (Pr.) – Lombardi Carl Philipp (Resp.), Exercitatio anatomica de monstro humano nupero (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1684). Indices lectionum in Academia Marburgensi habendarum 1644–1745 (University Library Marburg, 095 1 2014 289,1). Magirus Johannes: Prognosticon astrologicum […] des MDCLV. Jahres (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Endter sen.: 1654). Magirus Johannes (Pr.) – Sömmeringius Matthaeus (Resp.), Disputatio medica ex phy­ siologiae, signorum, diaetae, conservatricis et curatricis doctrinis desumpta (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1663). Miscellanea curiosa, sive ephemeridum medico-physicarum Germanicarum academiae imperialis Leopoldinae naturae curiosorum, Decuria 2, vol. 6, 1687 (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Moritz Enter: 1688) 314–318. Waldschmidt Johann Jacob (Pr.) – Vogelsang Johann Christopher (Resp.), De dysenteria maligna (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1674). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Geilfus Bernhard Wilhelm (Resp.), De chylificatione sive cibi in chylum mutatione (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1674). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Jacobi Ludwig Conrad (Resp.), De cura lactis, podagricorum solatio, et certo podagrae remedio (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Schunck Johann Christian (Resp.), Disputatio medica exhibens intricatam hodierno tempore quaestionem de sanguificatione quam in hepate fieri (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.), Collegium publicum disputatorium, in quo fundamenta physiologica medicinae […] exponuntur (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Erni Andreas (Resp.), De phthisi, Schwind- oder Lungensucht (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1675). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Chuno Philipp Heinrich (Resp.), Monita medica circa opii et opiatorum usum vulgo Schlaff=Tränck (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1676). [Sine praeside] – Happel Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Disputatio inauguralis medica de febre intermittente tertiana (Marburg, Salomon Schadewitz: 1677).

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

309

Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Fabricius Johann Philipp (Resp.), Astrologus medicus, catarrhorum theoria et praxi astrorum vim et influxum in microscosmum […] exhibens (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1681). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob, Fundamenta medicinae, ad mentem neotericum delineata (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1682). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Kürsner Christian (Resp.), Collegii Rohaultiani disputatio prima (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1683). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Kursner [sic] Christian (Resp.), Disputatio physica de causa partus monstrosi nuperrime nati, huiusque occasione de monstrorum humanorum causis in genere (Marburg, Johannes Jodocus Kürßner: 1684). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Wißkemann Wilhelm (Resp.), Exercitatio physica de natura et motu astrorum aliisq[ue] eorundem phoenomenis (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1684). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Baier Johann Jakob (Resp.), Medicus Cartesianus detegens aliquot in medicina errores hactenus ex ignorantia philosophiae commissos (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1687). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Waldschmidt Wilhelm Huldrich (Resp.), Chirurgus Cartesianus detegens aliquot in chirurgia errores hactenus ex ignorantia philosophiae commissos (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1687). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Müller Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio medica de pernionibus Frost Beulen (Marburg, Johann Jodocus Kürßner: 1687). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob, Institutiones medicinae rationalis, recentiorum theoriae et praxi accommodatae (Marburg, Johann Heinrich Stock: 1688). Waldschmidt Johann Jakob, Institutiones medicinae rationalis, recentiorum theoriae et praxi accommodatae (Leiden, Friedrich Haaring: 1689). [Waldschmidt Johann Jakob], Praxis medicinae rationalis succincta, per casus tradita et in appendice monitis medico-practicis necessariis illustrata per plurimos morbos; quibus accesserunt notae eiusdem ad praxin chirurgicam Barbettae; nec non ad casus Baldas. Timaei a Güldenklee. Omnia ad mentem Cartesii. Cum praefatione Johannes Dolaei (Frankfurt, Friedrich Knoch: 1690). [Waldschmidt Johann Jakob], Opera medico-practica quibus continentur I. Institutiones medicinae, recentiorum theoriae et praxi accommodatae. II. Praxis medicinae rationalis succincta, per casus tradita. III. Monita medico-practica necessaria, per plurimos morbos illustrata. IV. Notae ad praxin chirurgicam Barbette[!]. V. Notae ad casus Baldas. Timaei a Güldenklee. VI. Disputationes medicae varii argumenti. omnia ad mentem Cartesii (Frankfurt, Friedrich Knoch: 1690). Note: Contains 31 dissertations with names of the respondents and the dates of the disputations that were originally available as individual prints. Today, 25 of these have been preserved. In an additional No. 32, 13 topics (with a brief text) of a Collegium practicum are listed.

310

Sabine Schlegelmilch

[Waldschmidt Johann Jakob], Vademecum Waldschmidianum, hoc est: Institutiones medicinae rationalis Joh. Jac. Waldschmidii per quaestiones ac responsiones sub forma tabellarum ita distincta, ut tyroni medico multo cum fructu prodesse queant, conscriptae ab H.H.S.I.C. (Frankfurt, Friedrich Knoch: 1696). [Waldschmidt Johann Jakob], Opera medico-practica quibus continentur I. Institutiones medicinae, recentiorum theoriae, et praxi accommodatae. II. Praxis medicinae rationalis succincta, per casus tradita. III. Monita medico-practica necessaria per plurimos morbos illustrata. IV. Notae ad praxin chirurgicam Barbette. V. Notae ad casus Baldas. Timaei a Güldenklee. VI. Disputationes medicae varii argumenti. VII. Decas epistolarum de rebus medicis, et philosophicis. Omnia ad mentem Cartesii (Leiden, Bernhard Gessar: 1717). Note: The expanded second edition contains ten additional dissertation texts (no. 33–42) that are all also still available as individual prints. Weigel Erhard, Idea matheseos universae cum speciminibus inventionum mathematicarum (Jena, Johann Jacob Bauhöfer: 1666).

References

Davies A.B., “Some Implications of the Circulation Theory for Disease Theory and Treatment in the Seventeenth Century”, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 26 (1971) 28–39. Hof D., Die Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Marburg/Lahn zum Zeitpunkt des Cartesianismus-Streits bis 1750 (Marburg: 1971). Kießling A., Über Johann Jacob Waldschmidt (1644–1689), Professor der Medizin und Physik an der Philipps-Universität Marburg im Zeitalter des Chymiatrie und des Cartesianismus, MD dissertation (University of Marburg: 2014). Kuhn T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. With an introductory essay by Ian Hacking. Fourth edition (Chicago – London: 2012). Mulsow M., Prekäres Wissen. Eine andere Ideengeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Berlin: 2012). Omodeo P.D., “Medizinische und dämonologische Abhandlungen über den psycho­ physischen Dualismus im deutschen Cartesianismus des 17. Jahrhunderts”, Paragrana 25/1 (2016) 130–153. Rutkin H.D., “Astrology”, in Park K. – Daston L. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 3: Early Modern Science (Cambridge: 2008) 541–561. Schlegelmilch S., “‘Hier sind Chymica, hier sind Chymica!’ – Die frühe Rezeption von Johann Baptist van Helmonts ‘Ortus medicinae’ (1648) in Berliner Ärztekreisen”, Morgen-Glantz 23 (2013) 185–208. Schlegelmilch S., “Eine frühneuzeitliche Dissertation aus Marburg (1663) als Spiegel medizinischer Theorie und ärztlicher Praxis”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 151–177.

The Scientific Revolution in Marburg

311

Schlegelmilch S., Ärztliche Praxis und sozialer Raum im 17. Jahrhundert: Johannes Magirus (1615–1697) (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2018). Schmitz R., Die Naturwissenschaften an der Philipps-Universität Marburg 1527–1977 (Marburg: 1978). Trevisani F., “J.J. Waldschmidt: Medicus Cartesianus”, Nouvelles de la république des lettres 2 (1981) 143–164. Trevisani F., “Studi sul cartesianesimo tedesco: Johann Jacob Waldschmidt (1644– 1689)”, Annali dellʾIstituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 17 (1991) 187–223. Trevisani F., Descartes in Deutschland. Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft ‒ Philosophie ‒ Geschichte 25 (Zurich – Berlin: 2011). Ventura, Iolanda: “Le disputationes universitarie: uno strumento per una storia della medicina moderna? Riflessioni a partire dalle miscellanee di scritti universitari”, in De Felice F. – Graziani P. (eds.), Filosofia e scienze nel Rinascimento (Lanciano: 2015) 143–178.

chapter 12

On the Early Reception of John Brown’s Medical Theory on the Example of Doctoral Dissertations Defended in Jena in 1794–1795 Arvo Tering Summary The article examines three inaugural doctoral dissertations defended at the University of Jena between 1794 and 1795. These dissertations prove to be the earliest original contribution in the German-speaking area to the reception of the ideas of the Scottish medic John Brown (1735–1788). Of these, the dissertation of Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s cousin Johann Georg David Melber is neutral to Brown’s ideas, while the dissertations of Johann Wilhelm Latrobe from London and Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese from Courland are expertly critical: the first is critical of the use of opium in therapy and the latter found many errors and content-distorting differences between Brown’s original English text and the Latin translation. The opponents of Brunonianism considered these dissertations so important that they were published in full in German in 1796 in the review journal Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft.

The French Revolution of the 1790s had a profound impact on German scholars, especially influencing the stance taken by students and doctorands.1, 2 Rock-solid theories of the time were shaken to their core as the emergence of novel views on the medical system was embraced. 1795 saw the development of acute controversies regarding the then prevailing medical principles, providing fertile ground for medical students, including doctoral students as well as lecturers, to question the status quo in an attempt to find theories more

1  The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Joachim Bauer (Jena) and Mr. Assar Järvekülg (Tartu) for their help as well as MSc Lea Riives (Amsterdam) for the translation. 2  Kühn A. – Schweigard J., Freiheit oder Tod! Die deutsche Studentenbewegung zur Zeit der französischen Revolution (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2005).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_013

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

313

efficient in handling the medical phenomenon at hand.3 To that end, they were willing to join the critics of the mainstream view. While medical students and doctorands in the Lutheran regions of Germany were mostly exposed to the current of romantic medicine based on natural philosophy, Catholic regions were especially receptive to Elementa medicinae (1780), a work by the Scottish lecturer John Brown (1735–1788). The early stages of the development of his theory (1778 to 1786) and teachings found resonance only among his students. About a decade later, Brown’s theory was adopted in North Italy and Catholic Germany, both under Austrian reign, where it was developed into a medical system dominating academia as well as mainstream medicine until its subsequent decline in 1806. Although the breakthrough in the accessibility of Brown’s teachings already came in 1795 as the publishing and translation of his essays and related literature picked up, it took time for German scholars to more extensively adopt his theory. The reception of Brown’s teachings in Germany has been thoroughly researched during the last decades of the 20th century, providing not only detailed analysis of his theory but also an overview of his followers.4 Yet how were Brown’s novel ideas received at the grass-root level? In this article, the author investigates three doctoral dissertations defended in Jena in 1794 and 1795, specifically focusing on Brown’s theory.5 Overall, five such dissertations are known the have been defended in German universities over that period – besides Jena, also in Bamberg6 and Altdorf.7 The significance of Andreas Röschlaub’s dissertation, defended in Bamberg, cannot be 3  Broman T.H., The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 1750–1820 (Cambridge, UK: 1996) 146–147. 4  Broman, Transformation of German Academic Medicine 129–130; Henkelmann T., Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens: John Brown (1735–1788) und sein System der Medizin (Berlin – Heidelberg – New York: 1981); Risse G.B., The History of John Brown’s Medical System in Germany During the Years 1790–1806, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago: 1971); Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988); Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine; Michler M., Melchior Adam Weikard (1742–1803) und sein Weg in den Brownianismus. Medizin zwischen Aufklärung und Romantik. Eine medizinhistorische Biographie (Leipzig: 1995). 5  Melber Johann David (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica de febre putrida ex principiis Brunonianis explicata (Jena, Nauk: 1794); Blaese Ulrich Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica de virtutibus opii medicinalibus secundum Brunonis systema dubiis et male fundatis (Jena, Fiedler: 1795); Latrobe Johann Friedrich (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Brunoniani systematis criticen (Jena, Goepferdt: 1795). 6  Döllinger Ignaz (Pr.) – Röschlaub Andreas (Resp.), De febri fragmentum dissertatio medica (Bamberg: 1795). 7  Stütz Wenceslaus Alois (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica exhibens examen systematis Brunoniani physiologici (Altdorf, Meyer: 1795).

314

Tering

underestimated as he contributed to developing Brown’s medical system into a holistic framework by uniting theory with practice. However, the professors in Bamberg distanced themselves from the view taken in his work.8 The author’s analysis in this article of these three dissertations defended in Jena contributes to the already growing sentiment that old dissertations are not meant to gather dust, but rather provide rich content towards a better understanding of the history of ideas.9 Let’s begin with an overview of Brown’s main ideas in the field and their subsequent reception among scholars in Continental Europe. This is followed by general background on the medical faculty of the University of Jena that helped set the stage for disruptive developments in the field. 1

Principles of Brown’s Teaching10

Brown was largely guided by a physiology of irritability and sensibility, terms coined by Albrecht Haller, according to which muscles and nerves respond to environmental influences. Brown generalised the theory to include all living beings. He derived all phenomena of life from one main principle – excitability. It is the ability of living beings to respond to external stimuli that distinguishes them from lifeless matter. Excitability is the ability of an organism to maintain a condition of excitement as a result of exciting power. A healthy state of body and mind can be seen as ranking average on an excitability scale – any deviations, however, would be manifested in illness, the treatment of which would involve either stimulation or tranquilisation. According to Brown, any malady would be caused by disequilibrium between exciting power and an organism’s ability to react to it. This is twofold: either the exciting power is too strong, which causes sthenia, or too weak, which leads to asthenia. He reasoned that exciting power that was too strong would impact the organism by causing excitement, which would waste excitability and indirectly lead to asthenia by its debilitating effect. The other extreme would be lack of excitement, which causes a direct asthenic state. The exciting powers can be divided into those external to the organism, thus stemming from its environment, or internal exciting powers, such as mental state or muscle contractions. Someone suffering 8  Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens. 9  Komorowski M., “Die alten Hochschulschriften: lästige Massenware oder ungehobene Schätze unserer Bibliotheken?”, Informationsblatt für Bibliotheken 5 (1997) 379–400. 10  This review is based on the following: Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiolo­ gischen Denkens; Risse, The History of John Brown’s Medical Systems 101–134; Rothschuh K.E., Konzepte der Medizin in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Stuttgart: 1978) 342–351; Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 143–144.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

315

from illness can be on either side of the spectrum – having too much or too little excitability, leading to further categorisation of illnesses as either asthenic or sthenic. In the Brunonian view, illness and health are not necessarily different conditions since the disparity between them stems from the degree of excitability. It is important for the medical practitioner to judge the degree of deviation from the healthy state in order to restore balance in the organism. To exemplify Brown’s categorisation into sthenic and asthenic: strong inflammations, exanthems, pneumonia, pleurisy, arthritis, measles, smallpox, scarlet fever and angina belong to the former category alongside mania, insomnia and obesity, while restlessness, thinness, scabies, diarrhoea, dyspepsia, dysentery, scurvy, gout, asthma, epilepsy, apoplexy, tetanus, typhus and plague belong to the latter. According to Brown, sthenic diseases were caused by rich and spicy food, mental irritation, excessive heat, anxiety, display of affection and miasma, among others. Asthenic diseases, on the other hand, are caused by malnourishment, loss of blood, sorrow, weak blood vessels and excessive diarrhoea. Asthenic diseases are by far the dominant category. It is important to determine the degree of predominant excitement. Chills, dry skin, strong pulse, thirst, fever, narrowed blood vessels, cough, light urine, vomiting, constipation, rashes, among others, are symptomatic of sthenic diseases, while lack of appetite, sweating, low pulse, pale skin, indigestion, dyspepsia, muscle weakness, gout, somnolence, and lack of energy are representative of asthenic diseases. Brown sees both as general conditions, meaning affecting the organism as a whole, although a health condition itself can start locally. 18th century medical practitioners took interest in specific diseases, their causes and subsequent treatment, in contrast to Brown, who found such an approach useless since specific illnesses don’t have a cure. He saw more holistic treatment as the solution. Treatment has an impact on the whole body’s excitability, thereby influencing sthenia or asthenia. Brown sees variability in the level of excitement as the sole reason for illness, against which the use of stimulants constitutes the only acceptable form of treatment. Sthenic diseases require reduction in excitement. To that end, one would use stimulants that would debilitate irritability by means of, for example, vomiting, sweating, cold compresses, bloodletting, purification, vegetable-based foods, reduction in physical activity and mental relaxation. This contrasts with cures for asthenic diseases, such as a heavy diet including meat and wine, exercise, fresh air and warm weather, and mental exercises combined with a number of stimulating drugs, for instance opium, camphor, musk and ether. While the medical industry would categorise medications according to their pharmacological effect, Brown’s teaching would turn that upside down by stating that the effect is holistic by stimulating the whole organism as opposed to only having local impact. To determine the

316

Tering

relevant cure, one needs to make a choice regarding the speed of stimulation, ranking stimulants in terms of their impact from moderate to rapid. In order to reach a certain level of excitement, measurable dosage, administered in different stages, is of importance. In case of uncertainty pertaining to the precise degree of excitement, it was recommended to commence therapeutic experimentation using more moderate stimulants. 2

Brown’s Predecessors

Brown’s theories did not emerge in a vacuum. Theories categorised under the iatromechanical concept of medicine, which contributed greatly towards developments in understanding physiology, dominated both the 17th century and the first half of the 18th century. It was only in the latter half of the 18th century that the emerging currents of medical theory would oppose the concept of iatromechanics in Germany, France as well as Britain. New scientific achievements in magnetics, gravity and electricity enhanced belief in invisible forces. One of the main concepts would become the term irritability, which was already known in antiquity, but popularised by Robert Whytt in England and Albrecht Haller in Germany.11 Haller was convinced that living beings have properties such as irritability that cannot be found in lifeless matter. Haller found muscle and nerve contraction to be caused by exciting powers, while Brown later posited that excitability is caused by exciting powers. The latter half of the 18th century also saw the emergence of vitalistic concepts, among others irritability as a teaching of the reaction of living beings to exciting powers – a teaching of vital force. Many medical practitioners of the time, such as Robert Whytt, John Hunter, Hieronymus David Gaub, William Cullen and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach12 adopted the concept of vital force.13 By 1795, Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland had further developed the concept.14 Developing physiology and pathogenesis guided from the perspective of vital force did not contribute to medical practice since it promoted a passive approach to treatment.15 11  Rothschuh, Konzepte der Medizin in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 342–343. 12  Ibidem 330. 13  Ibidem 330–335. 14  Hufeland Christoph Wilhelm, Ideen über Pathogenie und Einfluss der Lebenskraft auf Entstehung und Form der Krankheiten. Als Einleitung zu pathologischen Vorlesungen (Jena, Akad. Buchhandlung: 1795). 15  Pfeifer K. – Hufeland C.W., Mensch und Werk: Versuch einer populärwissenschaftlichen Darstellung (Halle/Saale: 1968).

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

317

By the middle of the 18th century, the medical faculty of the University of Edinburgh emerged as the centre of medical developments. The most well known representative of the Scottish school of medicine was the therapist William Cullen (1710–1790), whose treatise was published in 1781. He was known for being eclectic and Hippocratic – his preference was for anticipatory care, with diet taking centre stage in his proposals for treatments. Cullen saw medicinal value in opium, wine and camphor. Although his pathology was based on the neural concept of disease, which he adopted from Albrecht Haller’s experimental physiology and muscular fibres, Haller’s impact on his practical approach to therapy was rather limited.16 Notwithstanding John Brown’s attempt to build up his theory by contrasting it to Cullen’s system, the basis of his theory did in fact draw on it. This to the extent that the terminology inherent to his theory, such as ‘exciting powers’ and ‘excitability’, had already been popularised by Cullen.17 Some of the proponents of Brown’s theory were drawn to it due to its simplicity, inherent logic and generalist approach. Others would praise his approach to base his theory on one main factor only – irritability, which causes all organic activity to take place while creating indivisible power in the body. It would seemingly be impossible to find a medical system that would be simpler than that of Brown. On a different note, the success of his theory can partly be attributed to its abundant use of opium and alcohol, the use of which was not completely new, as opium had been recognised for its medicinal value since antiquity, and advocated by Thomas Sydenham, for example, in 17th century England.18 Also, alcoholic beverages were widespread, especially after the Gin Craze of the 1730s. The use of wine and opium drops for medicinal purposes was commonplace at the Edinburgh university clinic. Brown’s strong preference for opium stemmed from his own experience, as he suffered from gout and to that end carried out related therapeutic experiments. Therefore, Brown’s system was largely based on empirical evidence gained at the bedside as he tried to ease gout attacks using Cullen’s methodology, including dieting, purgation and bloodletting, but to no avail. Opium, on the other hand, did ease the pain as well as alleviating symptoms attributable to gout. He realised that it was weakness, not plethora, that contributed to his illness. When the gout attacks became more severe, Brown developed an addiction to laudanum.19 In his theory, Brown drew upon 16  A  ckerknecht E.H., Therapie von den Primitiven bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: 1970) 80. 17  L awrence C., “Cullen, Brown and the Poverty of Essentialism”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 11. 18  Kreutel M., Die Opiumsucht (Stuttgart: 1988). 19  Risse, The History of John Brown’s Medical System 81.

318

Tering

elements of physiology and pathology from other widespread theories of vitalism, but especially Cullen’s neuropathology.20 3

Early Influence of Brunonianism in Germany

The second half of the 18th century in Germany saw fierce disputes among medical doctors, oftentimes manifesting themselves as wars of words in respective medical periodicals. In 1795, Der Teutsche Merkur, a magazine published by Christoph Martin Wieland in Weimar and gaining in popularity among German scholars, printed a rather critical overview of the state of affairs in all fields of medicine, setting the stage for debates on shortcomings in the field. Two months after this controversial article was published, Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland struck back with counterarguments. He stressed that such questions should be tackled by niche periodicals for professionals in the field as opposed to laying out the facts in front of a broader audience that would clearly misjudge the situation. He stated that such a blunder would divert the attention of medical practitioners from their work to having to deal with patients’ suspicions and objections.21 However, such debates paved the way not only for romantics but also for supporters of the Brunonian concept of medicine. While the author of the controversial article, Johann Benjamin Erhard, only provided a critical angle to the topic, the adopters of Brunonianism provided an alternative to then prevailing medical practices, willing to play a role in the medical revolution. Despite the fact that activities of the latter were predominantly centred in Catholic Germany, medical students and lecturers at Protestant universities did not remain indifferent to the topic. The first overview of the new Brunonian literature was published in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung in October of 1795, triggering wider interest in Brown’s teachings.22 The most enthusiastic followers of the Brunonian system of medicine were the generation born in the 1770s. Brunonianism reached Germany at the right moment – the number of medical students was at an all time high, thereby providing a large audience for Brown’s ideas. The areas most receptive to such ideas included Lombardia in North Italy, at that time under the reign of Austria. People at the forefront of the movement were Pietro Moscati in Milan and the assistant physician Joseph Frank in Pavia, who spread Brunonianism by facilitating the translation and publication of

20  Rothschuh, Konzepte der Medizin in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 346–347. 21  Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 131–136. 22  Ibidem 145–146.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

319

Brown’s work.23 Let us review the new publications, translations and reviews of major importance until 1795, by which time Brown’s teachings had gained such domination in the field that they were unlikely to be dethroned even according to his critics.24 In 1781, one year after Elementa medicinae was published, Brown’s disciple Robert Jones published an introduction to the Brunonian medical system.25 In 1788, Brown also had his teachings published in two volumes in English (London). Compared to the work published in Latin, this was an improved version including supplements and corrections,26 and it was reprinted again in 1795 by Thomas Beddoes.27 What proved critical from the perspective of Continental Europe was Pietro Moscati’s (Milan) reprint of the Latin edition – this was the basis for the version of Brown’s Elementa medicinae published in Germany in 1794.28 Namely, Andreas Röschlaub got his hands on Brown’s work through a friend, who had studied in Pavia, and forwarded it to Melchior Adam Weikard (1742–1803), a physician in Mannheim, Germany. He was the one who published Brown’s work in Germany29 in 1794, and translated it into German a year later.30 Therefore, Melchior Adam Weikard can be seen as one of the first to introduce Brown’s doctrine in Germany. However, let us repeat that Andreas Röschlaub defended his doctoral dissertation at the University of Bamberg on the topic of fever, which can be considered one of the first dissertations written from the Brunonian perspective in Germany.31 Joseph Frank, assistant physician in Pavia and follower of Brown’s teachings, 23  Kondratas R., “The Brunonian Influence on the Medical Thought and Practice of Joseph Frank”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 75–88. 24  Hecker August Friedrich (ed.), Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft (Gotha, Perthes: 1796), Stück 15, Intelligenzblatt No. 11, 86–98. 25  Jones Robert, An Inquiry into the State of Medicine on the Principles of Inductive Philosophy (Edinburgh, Longman – Cadell – Elliot: 1781). 26  Brown John, The Elements of Medicine or Translation of the Elementa Medicinae Brunonis with large notes, illustrations and comments by the author of the original work, in two volumes (London, Johnson: 1788). 27  A critical edition of John Brown’s Elements of Medicine was published by the physician Thomas Beddoes for the benefit of Brown’s widow. The Elements of Medicine, in two volumes (London, Johnson: 1795). 28  Brown John, Ioannis Brunonis M.D., De medicina praelectoris […] Elementa medicinae. Editio prima Italica […] cui praefatus est Petrus Moscati (Milan, Joseph Galeatius: 1792). 29  Brown John, Ioannis Brunonis M.D. de medicina praelectoris […] Elementa medicinae. Cum praefatione Petri Moscati (Hildburghausen, Hanisch: 1794). 30  Tsouyopoulos N., “The Influence of John Brown’s Ideas in Germany”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 63; Weikard Melchior Adam, Entwurf einer einfachern Arzneykunst oder Erlaeuterung und Bestaetigung der Brownischen Arzneylehre (Frankfort on the Main, Andreae: 1795). 31  See note 8 above.

320

Tering

wrote a paper giving credit to the Brunonian approach. He also published the Italian translation of Robert Jones’ book.32 In a nutshell, such was the state of reception of Brown’s work in Catholic Germany in 1795. In the years to come, Brunonians not only participated at the academic level, but also gained merit in applying theory to practice. By 1798, the university and the city hospital of Bamberg had become the centre for Brunonianism. In Bamberg, Andreas Röschlaub and Adalbert Friedrich Marcus further developed Brown’s teachings not only in terms of theoretical foundations but also clinical practice, thereby creating a functioning medical system with academic underpinnings. The prior lack of theoretical reasoning and an adequate practical base was overcome, and both aspects were instead joined into one coherent framework, which, however, was a dead end for the general state of medicine from a broader perspective.33 Brown’s teachings spread in parallel with romantic medicine, a current of natural philosophy motivated by Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and developed by Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, that was popular in Lutheran Germany, especially in Thuringia. As a medical system with an adequate theoretical and practical basis, Brunonianism was thriving at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century.34 However, 1794–1795, the years under observation in this article, only mark the early years in Germany, when Brown’s teachings and related literature were already published and about to become debate-worthy for academics and practitioners alike. August Friedrich Hecker (1763–1811), a professor in Erfurt, published the Journal der Erfindungen in 1792–1804, printed in 11 volumes in Gotha. This publication was, to a large extent, dedicated to the critics of Brown’s medical system, thus showing the evolution of the reception of his ideas.35 4

Medical Faculty of Jena in 1794–1795

The last decade of the 18th century in Jena saw a surge in medical students, including record numbers of doctorands enrolling for medical degrees.36 In 32  Jones Robert, Ricerche sullo stato della medicina secondo i principi della filosofia indutiva, 2 vols. (Pavia, Comini: 1795). 33  Risse, The History of John Brown’s Medical System 210–211, 248–350; Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 149–156; Tsouyopoulos, “The Influence of John Brown’s Ideas in Germany” 63–74. 34  Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 157–159. 35  Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens 40. 36  Zimmermann V.S. – Neuper H., Professoren und Dozenten der Medizinischen Fakultät Jena und ihre Lehrveranstaltungen 1770–1820 (Jena: 2008) 8; Dotzauer V. – Impris A., Zur Biographie Justus Christian von Loders (1753–1832) (Berlin/West: 1987) 54.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

321

1794–1795, the list of doctoral students pursuing the exams and thesis amounted to about 12–17 young men.37 What made the University of Jena attractive to prospective students was its clinical education. Clearly, the faculty members included not only innovative professors such as Justus Christian Loder and Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, but also those attached to traditions, such as Christian Gottfried Grüner and Ernst Anton Nicolai. In the 1790s, Brown’s medical framework was not popular with either group, be it old-fashioned or innovative thinkers of the faculty. Professor Christian Gottfried Grüner (1744–1815),38 and expectedly also Ernst Anton Nicolai (1722–1802),39 stood firmly against Brown’s teachings, while Justus Christian Loder (1753–1832)40 did not indicate fascination with his work either. Grüner stood against everything new that could endanger the state of the medical faculty of the University of Jena. His main channels of influence were the Almanach fur Aerzte und Nichtaerzte published in Jena in 1782–1796, and the Neues Taschenbuch fur Aerzte und Nichtaerzte (1797). In his articles, Grüner took a critical view on the state of German medicine. He laid the blame on English philosophy and medicine, especially the philosophical scepticism of David Hume that spread in the 1750s, when English medical literature was translated into German en masse. Grüner felt that medical doctors had started casting doubt on the prevailing medical concepts and treatments. Also, Grüner was one of the fiercest opponents of the philosopher J.G. Fichte (1762–1814) in Jena. He also went after Brown after his seminal work was published in Germany.41 Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland (1762–1836), professor at the University of Jena from 1793 to 1801, was an authority among medical students in Jena at the time.42 His authority in the field got a boost in 1795, when he was invited by Johann Peter Frank, one of the most powerful medics at the time, to assume the responsibilities of a professor at the University of Pavia.43 Hufeland represented and developed the vitalistic concept, characterised by terms such

37  A  ltes Kandidatenbuch der medizinischen Fakultät 1680–1840, University Archives, Jena, Bestand L. nr. 391/1, fols. 138–147. 38   Zimmermann – Neuper, Professoren und Dozenten 176–178. 39  Ibidem 209–210. 40   Müller-Dietz H.E., “Justus Christian von Loder (1753–1832) als Hochschullehrer”, in Kayser W. – Völker A. (eds.), Johann Christian Reil (1759–1813) und seine Zeit, Hallesches Symposium 1988 (Halle/Saale: 1989) 38. 41  Risse, The History of John Brown’s Medical System 63; Broman, The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 84–85. 42   Zimmermann – Neuper, Professoren und Dozenten 186–189; Pfeifer K., Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland – Mensch und Werk: Versuch einer populärwissenschaftlichen Darstellung (Halle/ Saale: 1968); Goldmann S., Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland im Goethekreis. Eine psychoanaly­ tische Studie zur Autobiographie und ihrer Topik (Stuttgart: 1993). 43  Goldmann, “Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland im Goethekreis” 149–154.

322

Tering

as ‘Lebenskraft’, ‘Reiz’ and ‘Reizbarkeit’. He negated Brunonianism.44 The first edition of his seminal work Pathogenie was published in the spring of 1795, put together from Hufeland’s lecture materials.45 Thus, Hufeland’s work was published prior to Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese and Johann Friedrich Latrobe. His research constitutes 336 pages covering a systematic approach to the onset of illnesses and the perception of causes, together with countermeasures of vital forces. Hufeland sees ‘Lebenskraft’ as fundamental to life. It creates life in all its forms, rejuvenates, cures diseases and prevents living structures from collapsing. It is through ‘Lebenskraft’ that the organism maintains its ability to perceive exciting powers, including ‘Reizbarkeit’, ‘Reizfähigkeit’ or ‘Erregbarkeit’. This does not only apply to Haller’s theory of irritability of muscular fibres and nervous sensibility of fibres, but it creates the foundation for nerves and brain activity. Exciting power by itself is not enough to cause vital phenomena. It activates the inner activity of vital forces, the ability to react to external stimuli. By the end of the 1790s, Hufeland and the Brunonians (especially Weikard and Röschlaub) had become enemies.46 According to Hufeland, the apparent simplicity of Brown’s theory would lead young doctors astray. Already before Brown’s theory, Hufeland had set aside conventional medical knowledge in an attempt to find a simple principle capable of explaining the unity of different parts of vital forces. He tried to connect solid and humoral pathology as well as iatromechanics and vitalism. Eventually, this was completely attributed to Brown, who was consequently seen as medical reformer. Hufeland was not pleased that young medical doctors, initially schooled by himself, would blindly follow Brunonianism, therefore heading to Vienna and Bamberg to complete their studies. On top of that, Röschlaub was a loud critic of pretty much everything written by Hufeland, who in return received support from the dramatist August Kotzebue to ridicule Röschlaub.47 What united the medical professors of Jena in the 1790s was the teaching of the pathology of Hieronymus David Gaub (1705–1780), a student of Herman Boerhaave, professor at the University of Leiden. Gaub’s textbook of pathology

44  Ibidem 176–179. 45  Hufeland, Ideen über Pathogenie und Einfluss der Lebenskraft; Goldmann, “Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland im Goethekreis” 55. 46  Rothschuh, Konzepte der Medizin in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 332; Risse, The History of John Brown’s Medical System 217. 47  Goldmann, “Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland im Goethekreis” 176, 216, 220–221; Wiesing U., “Der Dichter, die Posse und die Erregbarkeit: August v. Kotzebue und der Brownianismus”, Medizinhistorisches Journal 25 (1990) 234–251; Tsouyopoulos, “The Influence of John Brown’s Ideas in Germany” 64–66.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

323

was published by Grüner in Berlin in 1784.48 It was this book that lecturers in Jena – not only Grüner himself, but also Nicolai and a number of others – used as the basis for their lectures.49 Gaub was for pathology what Haller was for physiology. His pathology textbook gained popularity not only in Jena, but across the academic landscape, as it was reprinted many times.50 In the context of the doctoral dissertations on Brown, Gaub’s textbook also deserves attention as the main source of knowledge in the field of pathology for the authors. The aforementioned background information gives some idea of the conceptual basis that Melber, Blaese and Latrobe had in handling Brown’s theory. The dissertations of these three doctorands directly relate to Brown’s theory. Thomas Henkelmann has stated that Jena should be seen as being on equal footing with Göttingen and Bamberg as one of the centres for Brunonianism in Germany.51 Indeed, one can see Jena as worthy of this assessment. At the time, interest in Brown’s theory, one among many new concepts and ideas, was expected to be rather short-lived. This, however, proved to be a miscalculation. In 1795, when Brown’s work was also published in German, it was realised that this theory effectively renders all other studies of medicine useless. Naturally, the curiosity of medical students towards innovative theories in general might also have fuelled interest in Brown, along with the broader availability of his work in print. It is assumed that Brown’s system was also under discussion at gatherings of the Jena scientific societies. The future professor Jakob Friedrich Fries, residing in Jena from the fall of 1796, developed an interest in natural laws, antiphlogistic chemistry and aesthetics, but also found himself fascinated with Brown’s teachings.52 Although interest in Brown’s work was widespread in Jena, this did not mean it was accepted without reservation. A number of medical students mentioned Brown’s work in their dissertations as side topics, for example Christoph Gustav Gerth from Tallinn (1796).53 Besides the doctoral dissertations defended in Jena, Röschlaub’s dissertation defended in Bamberg and Stütz’s dissertation 48  Gaub Hieronymus David, Anfangsgruende der medizinischen Krankheitslehre, trans. Christian G. Grüner (Berlin, Voss: 1784). As Grüner was not satisfied with the quality of Daniel Andreas Diebold’s print (Zurich, 1781), he decided to publish a new version of Gaub’s textbook. 49  Neuper H., Vorlesungsangebot an der Universität Jena von 1749 bis 1854 (Weimar: 2003) 270, 273, 276, 280, 283, 291, 294, 298. 50  Sudhoff K., Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin (Berlin: 1922) 310, 331. 51  Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens 90. 52  Henke E.L.T., J.F. Fries, aus seinem handschriftlichen Nachlaß dargestellt (Leipzig: 1867) 47. 53  Gerth Christoph Gustav (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens febris putridae nervosae historiam cum epicrisi (Jena, Goepferdt: 1796).

324

Tering

defended in Altdorf, no other work handling Brown’s teaching can be reported for 1794–1795.54 Johann Georg David Melber (1773–1824) from Frankfurt am Main, cousin of Johann Wolfgang Goethe, matriculated at the University of Jena on 8 May 1792.55 He defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic of putrid fever on 27 September 1794, guided by Brown’s principles.56 This constitutes one of the first dissertations in Protestant Germany focussing specifically on Brown. Melber handled Brown’s theory impartially and overall took a more approving than critical stance. His dissertation reviews the fundamentals of putrid fever, symptoms, diagnosis and available cures. Typhus was seen as putrefaction of the body, the reasons of which were contradictory at the time. On the one hand, one of the most popular theories was that of Friedrich Hoffmann (1660–1742), already in use for about half a century, that the reason for putrefaction is the corruption of body fluids. To achieve a state of health, one is required to consistently remove corrupted particles by means of medicamenta contraria. On the other hand, according Brown’s theory, body fluids are not corrupted, as corruption always stems from inappropriate blending of bodily fluids, for example debility of vessels. Thus bodily fluids on their own are never the reason for illness. Melber reached a conclusion converging with the latter – he asserted that modern theories are unable to explain the reasons for putrefaction. His work claims that disturbances in the organism stem from the debility of solid body parts, while humoural disturbances are not the cause of putrid fever. Thus, to cure typhus, one should stimulate and strengthen the organism by fighting debility with medications. This was not attributable to Brown alone but more widely recognised. However, Melber does see Brown’s theory as the only one providing satisfactory reasoning for why living beings do not putrefy, referring to the gradient of vital forces. Approaching the issue of putrefaction from a Brunonian perspective, Melber researched the impact of medications on vital forces. Melber himself would not have considered opium among the medications for treating putrid fever, but Brown alongside his followers had given it the status of an important stimulant, building on his theory that the disease is caused by debility. Opinions regarding the use of opium varied widely. Some saw it as diminishing bodily sensitivity and incitability, while other saw it as weakening gastrointestinal activity, while stimulating the heart. 54  See note 6 and 7 above. 55  About Melber, see http://frankfurter-personenlexikon.de/node/486; https://www.geni .com/…/Johann … David-Melber/600000002498557188 [accessed 07.03.2018]. 56  Melber Johann David (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica de febre putrida ex principiis Brunonianis explicata (Jena, Maucke: 1794).

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

325

Melber found support from the work of Balthasar Ludwig Tralles, where both negative and positive effects of the stimulant are analysed. Melber concluded that the effects of opium should be further researched. Brown’s work caused a paradigm shift in dietary norms related to putrid fever. Until then, vegetable-based food was seen as obvious, to be replaced by rich meat-based food according to the Brunonian concept. The general understanding was that nothing putrefies more easily than meat. Although meat can be better digested than vegetable-based food, it was considered dangerous, as it was feared that meat particles would lead to further putrefaction originating from the disease itself. Melber tends towards Brown, seeing no grounds for the fear of meat. He suggested that debility of the body should be ruled out as a reason for illness, which can be achieved not with vegetable-based food, but rather through stimulating meat dishes. In order to ensure that one can properly digest the meat, the portions should be small. In his dissertation, Melber also handled the terms of sensibility and irritability, coined by Albrecht Haller. The 23rd and 24th paragraphs of Melber’s dissertation are of significance. Namely, at the time there was polarization between researchers who saw sensibility versus irritability as primary from the perspective of the functioning of the organism. Melber builds on Brown’s idea, whereby the question at hand is answered by incitability that unites both irritability and sensibility. Later, Novalis and Schelling developed interest in Brown’s term of irritability, adopted by Haller’s physiology that provided a promising perspective for regarding the relationship between illness and health.57 The reasons and essence for putrid fever set forth in his research contradicted the then prevailing understanding of the illness, but conceptually fitted Brown’s system. Melber is not known to have had any problems in defending his dissertation. To put this in perspective – the dissertation was reviewed by Grüner, who saw the decision to make the Brunonian system part of the curriculum as misguided. The fact that this dissertation did not stir up emotions is attributable to strong backing. As a senior official and secret counsellor in Weimar, Goethe also had a say in the affairs of the University of Jena. Therefore, Grüner also had to accept other decisions driven by Goethe, such as the nomination of Johann Gottlieb Fichte as new professor of philosophy, whose views Grüner later attacked. Goethe himself was not yet up to date with Brown’s theory. However, in a conversation with Hufeland in 1795, before departing from Jena to Karlovy Vary, he acknowledged the existence of Weikard’s translation of Brown’s work.58 A few days after defending this thesis, Melber 57  Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens 81. 58  Michler, Melchior Adam Weikard (1742–1803) und sein Weg in den Brownianismus 77.

326

Tering

travelled to Weimar, leaving Goethe a letter dated 30 September regarding his plans to pursue medical practice in Pavia, and asking for local contacts.59 Namely, he planned to supplement his education under Johann Peter Frank, a recognised figure in the field of clinical medicine. In Germany, Pavia had the reputation of being a centre for Brown’s teachings. While Johann Peter Frank did agree with some elements of Brown’s theory, he cannot be seen as a true Brunonian.60 Frank was well known in Jena since Hufeland’s Pathogenie, published in 1795, was dedicated to him. The respect was mutual – when Frank decided to accept the invitation to relocate to Vienna in the role of professor of medical practice, he recommended Hufeland to assume his responsibilities in Pavia. But Hufeland decided to stay in Jena.61 Joseph Frank, an active Brunonian, started giving private lectures introducing Brown’s theory in Pavia.62 In 1795, when Johann Peter Frank assumed his new role in leading the clinic in Vienna, Melber also joined him. In 1796, Melber relocated to Frankfurt, where he worked as a physician. Let’s take a closer look at both doctoral dissertations dealing with Brown’s system that were defended in 1795 in Jena. Firstly, the Courlander Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese defended his dissertation on medicinal properties attributable to opium in Brown’s system.63 Secondly, the Englishman Johann Friedrich Latrobe’s dissertation laid out a critical perspective on Brown’s work.64 5

Blaese’s Critical View on Opium

Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese (1770–1835), the son of the steward of Edole Manor in Courland, was a student at the collegium medico-chirurgicum in Berlin from 1792 to 1794.65 On 12 May 1794 he matriculated to Jena, where on 6 August 1795, 59  Melber Johann Georg David, September 30 1794, Goethe Regestausgabe, Briefe an Goethe, Regestnummer: 1/1070, Weimar, S: 28/7, fol. 302. 60  Kondratas, The Brunonian Influence on the Medical Thought and Practice of Joseph Frank 79–80. 61  See note 43 above. 62  Kondratas, The Brunonian Influence on the Medical Thought and Practice of Joseph Frank 78–81. 63  Blaese Ulrich Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica de virtutibus opii medicinalibus secundum Brunonis systema dubiis et male fundatis (Jena, Fiedler: 1795). 64  Latrobe Johann Friedrich (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Brunoniani systematis criticen (Jena, Goepferdt: 1795). 65  Tering A., Lexikon der Studenten aus Estland, Livland und Kurland an europäischen Universitäten 1561–1800, unter Mitarbeit von J. Beyer (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2018), no. 444.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

figure 12.1

327

Title page of the doctoral dissertation of Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese, De virtutibus opii medicinalibus secundum Brunonis systema dubiis et male fundatis (Diss. 12965, University of Tartu Library)

328

Tering

only about ten days after his exams,66 Blaese defended his dissertation. Blaese was a physician in Courland. His doctoral dissertation was built on a critical stance towards opium as the strongest exciting stimulus able to influence the organism. His introduction places Brown’s theory in the context of the history of ideas, whereby he describes the state of medical sciences at the time. He states that there is an abundance of new theories undermining the mainstream view. However, the lack of respect for the established mainstream view can be traced back to antiquity. Blaese referenced not only Brown’s Elementa medicinae, reprinted initially in 1792 by Pietro Moscati and translated into German by Weikard in 1795, but also Weikard’s own work analysing Brown’s theory, published in 1795. In reviewing the main features of Brown’s system, Blaese exaggerates by comparing stimulation and debility to a mockery from Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire (‘seignare, deinde purgare, iterum reseignare et repurgare’). The second part of Blaese’s dissertation provides analysis of Brown’s teachings regarding the use of opium. Firstly, he presents the properties and main tenets of opium alongside the mechanics by which it impacts the organism. Secondly, he lists the healing properties of opium central to Brown’s medical concept, followed by elaborate criticism of each. Opium produced from the poppy has both stimulating and narcotic properties, thereby impacting sensory receptors and leading to faster pulse, increase in body temperature and restless breathing, among others. The next stage involves weakening of the organism, intense sweating, slower breathing and pulse. Blaese concludes that initially opium stimulates blood circulation and the nervous system, but consequently weakens not only heart activity and blood circulation, but also dazes the nervous system. According to Brown, opium features only stimulating properties, grounded by the following arguments, subsequently refuted by Blaese: a) The Turks make use of opium in order to enhance characteristics such as bravery and confidence. Blaese: The effect of opium as a stimulant is not always positive. While freeing one from the sense of danger, it renders one dull and senseless, lacking conscience. The belief that opium stimulates, as in the example of its popularity with the Turks, is wrong and dangerous. b) Medical practitioners have noticed the general tendency of becoming joyful thanks to opium. Blaese: This is a manifestation of heightened mood in order to alleviate unpleasant sensations. However, opium can make the mood unbalanced. As a narcotic, it suppresses one’s senses, while the accompanying joviality is only momentary. 66  University Archives, Jena, L 405, fol. 27r–27v.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

329

c) Opium causes sleepiness, which constitutes a mere side effect as stimulation of the exciting power reaches such a degree that exhausts excitability, resulting in indirect debility. Blaese: Opium does not always result in sleep, not even in high dosage. Were Brown’s statement grounded, Peruvian bark, guaiac and other stimulants should also induce sleep. This, however, is not the case, showing that excitement by itself is not enough. There are other medications that cause drowsiness without significant stimulation and corresponding increase in pulse, such as henbane. However, one should take into account reasons for disturbed sleep. Weikard would tackle gout, fever, tooth pain as well as disillusioned hypochondriacs with laudanum. While such an approach was common, it would be wrong to assume that opium would act as a stimulant in all cases. Weikard stated that sleep is caused by excitability, but it lacks signs that would enable judging the degree of excitability, thereby differentiating it from death. d) Opium increases or decreases weakness, which is universal to all diseases. Blaese: Looking at the categorisation of diseases according to Brown as asthenic, one can easily agree with him regarding what opium cures or alleviates. While empirically proven, the argumentation does not explain what it sets out to explain. One cannot at the same time stimulate excitement and calmness. e) Opium does not soothe, but excites. Blaese: Opium’s inability to excite and strengthen stems from its elimination of irritability and sensibility from the organism. Using opium externally causes body parts to lose sensibility, while internal use has the same effect on the surfaces of the stomach and intestines. Reasons why opium has weakening and calming powers: (1) Lack of appetite subsequent to intake as the stomach and intestines lose their ability to function. (2) The digestive system is disturbed and weakened, the muscular fibres of the stomach have weaker response than otherwise, and peristaltic movement is weak or ceases altogether. In the case of incomplete defecation prior to taking opium, it would pose a dangerous situation, as the feces would be retained in the body for a longer time. 3) Blaese thinks that the then prevailing idea that the exciting powers of opium would strengthen the heart is misguided. The consequences include the following: Firstly, in the case of small doses of opium, irritability can be noticed, but the impact of opium would not reach such a degree that it would be able to suppress excitability and sensibility in full – its impact on the organism is rather heterogenous. At the other end of the spectrum, in the case of large doses of opium, the effect passes quickly, followed by debility, either direct or indirect.

330

Tering

Secondly, faster blood circulation is partly dependent on the efficiency of the heart and the arteries, partly on smaller blood vessels, which lose some of their power under the influence of opium, leading to higher blood pressure and excitability as the heart has more work to do in order to overcome the resistance of small blood vessels. In this sense, opium can have adverse consequences. One can draw the same conclusion regarding the excitability of the heart from the unity of opposites that Brown saw as out-dated.67 After reaching the gut, the effect of opium on that part of the body fades. According to the unity of opposites, this power that is lost in one organ needs to increase in other organs, such as the brain and heart. Undeniably, Blaese relied on the work of his teacher Hufeland, who researched the heightened irritability of the heart and blood vessels as sensibility decreases in other parts of the body. He sees this as the body’s attempt to find balance.68 Blaese concluded that Brown’s reasoning for opium usage was not grounded and was based only on empirical evidence, while his assumptions were too broad and shaky. Naturally, Blaese’s criticism of opium is not original, but is based on the relevant literature. Over the course of the 18th century, literature both for and against opium was abundant, especially in Great Britain, but also in Germany. In fact, many such arguments were built on pharmacological animal testing.69 Blaese’s dissertation unfortunately lacks references, thus it is not possible to single out the authors he read. It can be assumed that Blaese used Usus opii salubris et noxius in morborum medela written by Balthasar Ludwig Tralles, published in three volumes in 1757–1760 in Breslau and weighing up the pros and cons of opium usage, as well as the German translations of a number of Edinburgh-based authors.70 6

Johann Friedrich Latrobe on Brown’s Theory

Johann Friedrich Latrobe v. Bonneval (1769–1845), a descendant of a French Huguenot family, was from Chelsea, London, where his father Benjamin was the leading minister of the Moravian Church.71 After his father’s death in 67  Henkelmann, Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens 47. 68  Hufeland, Ideen über Pathogenie und Einfluss der Lebenskraft 196–197. 69  Kreutel, Die Opiumsucht; Maehle A.H., Drugs on Trial: Experimental Pharmacology and Therapeutic Innovation in the Eighteenth Century (Amsterdam: 1999). 70  See Kreutel, Die Opiumsucht. 71  Amburger E. – Krusenstjern G. – Lenz W. (eds.), Deutschbaltisches biographisches Lexikon 1710–1960 (Wedemark: 1998) 441; Schiemann F. (ed.), “Johann Friedrich La Trobe, ein baltischer Musiker”, Baltische Monatschrift 58 (1904) 129–157, 216–230, and in

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

331

1782, Latrobe studied in Germany at the Unity of the Brethren, where he also received a musical education. After getting into an argument with his teachers, Latrobe was forced to leave the facilities and start his university studies. A natural choice would have been the University of Göttingen, due to its relations with Great Britain. Latrobe, however, chose the University of Jena as a less costly option, while still facilitating his interest in music and arts. On 23 October 1790, he matriculated at the University of Jena in order to study medicine, while pursuing arts and music on the side.72 Given his interest in the latter, he became acquainted with J.W. Goethe. He made friends mostly in the Baltic German circle, including Aaron Christian Lehrberg. In 1793, Latrobe was ready to graduate, but his income from teaching English and music was not sufficient to support his work on his doctoral dissertation. His brother, a musician and supporter of Joseph Haydn, refused to back Johann Friedrich in his pursuit of education. Aaron Christian Lehrberg helped Latrobe get a job as a home tutor in Livland at Heimtali Manor, owned by the family of Peter von Sivers. Professor Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland was also ready to provide monetary support as well as a position as a physician around the area of Frankfurt am Main. However, Latrobe had already made the commitment to the von Sivers family. In the late spring of 1793, Latrobe departed for Livland, returning to Jena only in the winter of 1794/1795 to defend his doctoral dissertation. He took the examinations on 4 August 1795 and defended his thesis on 21 November of the same year.73 Subsequently, after a brief return to Livland, together with his friend Ludwig Reinhold Stegemann, Latrobe went to Saint Petersburg in order to take an examination in front of the Russian supreme medical college to be able to practice medicine. This coincided with a new ukase imposed on anyone wanting to practice medicine in the Russian Empire, stating that one needs to do voluntary work for a year in the hospitals of Saint Petersburg. Latrobe therefore gave up the idea and instead worked as a home tutor until 1807 at the estate of Karl Magnus von Lilienfeld in Uus-Põltsamaa. As the aristocratic family was keen on music, Latrobe could pursue his passion – music. After a number of various jobs, he headed to Tartu in 1829, where he became a recognised pianist, composer and conductor – his compositions are still performed nowadays. 60 (1905) 160–179; Scheunchen H., “La Trobe, Johann Friedrich de”, Kulturportal WestOst. https://kulturportal-west-ost.eu/biographien/la-trobe-johann-friedrich-de [accessed 20.09.2019]. 72  Die Matrikel der Universität Jena, Bd. 8: 1764–1801, Thuringian University and Regional Library, Jena, Ms. Prov., fol. 116: WS 1764/1765, SS 1801. 73  University Archives, Jena, L 405, fol. 27.

332

figure 12.2

Tering

Title page of the doctoral dissertation of John Fredric Latrobe, Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Brunoniani systematis criticen (Diss. 1795, University Library of Jena)

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

333

Latrobe’s dissertation on Brown, written in 1795 when the Brunonian theory was yet to find its group of supporters, was one of the most adequate criticisms of Brown’s theory. His dissertation still received praise in Haeser’s History of Medicine in 1844.74 Latrobe’s own medical concept is unclear – just like Blaese, he only had some references to sources he had used. Without doubt, his theory was grounded on then accepted vitalistic concepts, driven by theories of vital forces. It is even unclear which lecturers Latrobe followed during his studies in Jena. He attended lectures on physiology, pathology and therapy, but at that time classes were divided into smaller sub-groups between various lecturers. The pathology lectures were given by Professor Grüner and Nicolai, as well as a number of private lecturers, whose preference was to base the classes on the textbook by Hieronymus David Gaub from Leiden. Latrobe had the chance to compare Brown’s teachings published in Latin (1780) and English (1788). Also, he could make use of the Latin version published by Pietro Moscati, where, according to his observation, Moscati had administered changes based on the English version.75 The latter is also the basis for Weikard’s reprint in German.76 Latrobe admitted that the English version of Brown’s work was rather difficult to acquire, as it was a rarity in Germany. The second edition from 1795 was not used – it must have still been in the printing process or just freshly published during the time Latrobe wrote his dissertation.77 Also, Latrobe could not use Robert Jones’ 1781 work. According to the records, Latrobe was the only one of Brown’s early critics who compared the Latin and English versions, facilitated by the fact that his mother tongue was English. In his multi-dimensional analysis, his main criticism was three-fold: a) Driven by the then prevalent vitalistic theories, Brown’s theory lacks a strong foundation. b) Dissonance in the supporting arguments versus theory as a whole. c) Conceptual differences in the Latin and English prints of Brown’s work. Latrobe points out striking differences between the Latin and English versions of Brown’s work. In the first part of his dissertation, Latrobe reviews Brown’s system. As a central concept, Brown distinguishes living beings from lifeless matter by the concept of excitability, influenced by the stimuli of exciting powers. The organism reacts to exciting powers by means of excitability, explaining both the state of health as well as illness. Latrobe, still capitalising on the views 74  Schiemann (ed.), “Johann Friedrich La Trobe, ein baltischer Musiker” 157. Most likely this is in reference to H. Haeser, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medizin und der epidemischen Krankheiten (Jena, 1845). 75  See notes 26 and 28 above. 76  See note 29 above. 77  See note 27 above.

334

Tering

of vitalistic scholars, including those of C.W. Hufeland, sees incitability as on par with ‘vis naturae, calidus innatus, irritabilitas, sensibilitas, Lebenskraft, Nervengeist’, etc. The most important precondition for life is Brown’s excitability, a new term for ‘Lebenskraft’, irritability and sensibility, among others. These terms denote the vital phenomenon, but do not go a step further to explain its essence – the fact that living organisms have excitability. While not disagreeing with Brown over its importance, Latrobe does not believe in such a simplistic approach. According to him, excitability is not the only characteristic distinguishing living from lifeless matter since every body part has its own functionality, and can be attributed forces that are interdependent. This does not fit the narrow scope of Brown’s theory. Apparently, Brown also admitted as much in the English version of his work. Brown illustrated his approach by creating scales for measuring both exciting powers and excitability, where 40 degrees stands for the state of health, while any deviation up or down would denote illness. Complete exhaustion of excitability, followed by death, is denoted by 80 degrees, caused by too strong stimulation. Brown’s approach to curing illness was to try to tune excitability back to the neutral level by means of the appropriate exciting powers. He claimed that all exciting powers have similar effect and differ only according to their strength. Thus, all vital phenomena caused by exciting powers only depend on their own strength and the state of excitability, which can be increased or decreased. This is the basis for the practical considerations of Brown’s system. Latrobe was critical of the main tenets of Brown’s concept – he noted ironically that even a toddler understands from its limited experience that there are hundreds of factors that impact our bodies, while one cannot pinpoint the strength of such influences. On the background of the prevailing medical concepts, Latrobe perceived the whole Brunonian system as useless, and noticed a number of controversies emerging from Brown’s work. Let’s zoom in on some of the aspects that Latrobe pointed out. Exciting powers can impact the body in different ways, and one-dimensional scales are useless as one cannot measure and compare the state of the body as well as the strength of drugs. Brown does not paint a clear picture of the relationship between excitement, excitability and exciting powers. Latrobe stated that one cannot draw conclusions, because excitement does not feature clearly calibrated degrees for measurement. Also, one cannot determine at the bedside where these scales should be pointing, whether the state of health is sthenic or asthenic, whether debility is direct or indirect. Also, the term ‘excitement’ was oftentimes interchangeable with exciting power. Furthermore, Latrobe developed questions regarding the level of potency of various drugs – how would the impact of camphor, opium, stibium or mercury differ. According to

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

335

him, the effect of one drug cannot be stronger than that of another, whereby one increases and another decreases excitability. It would make sense that exciting power and its causes not only differ in terms of degree of strength, but one should bear in mind their specific effect on the body. Based on that, one can reduce or increase excitability. What is of major importance is that these go through changes and cause various vital phenomena. It is the job of the medical professional to evoke positive changes in the body, not only to change the level of excitability. Supporting Brown’s argumentation would be short sighted and ignorant. How should one explain that in the English version of Brown’s work, opium ranks higher than ether in terms of its potency, while in the works published by Moscati and Weikard, the ranking is the other way around? According to Latrobe, it was not possible to claim which of the drugs has stronger or weaker impact as they affect various body parts differently. The potency of drugs cannot be judged by means of their strength, but rather by their mechanism of action, the idea of which is not recognised in the Brunonian system. Latrobe makes a mockery of Brown’s theory by the example of intense thought exercises as sthenic illness – intense thinking can hurt one’s health. Another teased that this avoidance of provoking thought is key to the popularity of the Brunonian system, especially in Catholic Germany. The Brunonians feared that medical doctors, given the current set-up of the system, cannot avoid intense thoughts, which would push them into an asthenic state. Their road to the temples of Asclepius would consider thinking as redundant. One should not forget, however, that it is comfort and lack of action that leads to direct debility. According to Brown, over-thinking can be categorised as an asthenic problem, leading to indirect debility, while lack of thinking would lead to direct debility. As one of the controversies inherent to Brown’s system, Latrobe points out the indeterminacy of which body part is impacted by exciting powers, as each exciting power would cause excitability in the whole body anyway. Regarding general health conditions, especially asthenic diseases, most bodily functions are disturbed. The Brunonian system lacks the foundation to explain why the ability to think, see and hear maintain their functionality almost to their full extent. Why is it that memory, the ability to see and hear, etc. tend to be unaffected by disease until death? How is it possible that a vast number of medications that impact distinct body parts do not have an impact on the functioning of the brain? Why isn’t brain inflammation prevalent among scholars who spend their time on thought problems? Why isn’t there a particular corresponding relationship between the brain and body parts? What would be the reason for the brain to function in a different way than other body parts or

336

Tering

organs? As one of the shortcomings of Brown’s system, Latrobe points out lack of consideration given to the chemical processes taking place in one’s body. Latrobe’s final assessment of Brown’s theory is negative – his teachings do not deserve to be referred to as a system, as its foundations are too shaky to be able to serve as a medical system. As mentioned above, Latrobe was the first to provide critical comparison of Brown’s English and Latin editions, presenting some theoretical inconsistencies. To see how its meaning is distorted, consider the example of the interpretation of ‘materia morbifica’. In Moscati’s Latin edition, the following is noted: ‘In medendi consilio sola materiae morbificae ratio habenda est, ut tempus, quo exeat corpore, detur’, subsequently translated by Weikard to take the meaning of ‘In advising on health matters, one takes into account only morbific matter, in order to give time to leave the body’. In Brown’s English version, one can discern a very different idea: ‘In the indication of a Cure, the only regard to be had to morbific matter is to allow time for its passing out of the body’. Therefore, in determining the proper cure, one would only take into account the time it takes for the morbific matter to leave the body. Latrobe also critically examined Brown’s handling of diseases, such as chills, inflammations, asthma and gout, obesity, pruritus and infant mortality, which was in contradiction to his own medical system. The feeling of cold and chills ought to be caused by dry skin, while fever is a symptom of impeded breathing through the skin. It is the whole state of the body that matters, as one cannot determine the reasons and mechanics behind it only by means of ‘Erregbarkeit’. When it comes to inflammations, Latrobe does not seem to get to the bottom of Brown’s term of general inflammation. According to Latrobe, inflammation can start out in one particular body part, and spread to others under certain conditions. Brain inflammation is sometimes acknowledged, sometimes denied by Brown. Another criticism involved Brown’s categorisation of scabies under asthenic general diseases requiring a holistic approach in terms of medication. However, there was sufficient empirical evidence that scabies were localised and specific, and best treated by applying sulphur to affected areas. Sulphur was seen as having a debilitating effect, used for sthenic diseases – how come it is able to cure asthenic ones? While Brown saw scabies as asthenic, it also affected people with a sthenic way of living. The reception of these three doctoral dissertations among contemporaries was favourable, especially among the medics supporting the mainstream view. While the reviewers of Melber’s dissertation, which approved of Brown’s theory, were critical, then Blaese’s and Latrobe’s doctoral dissertations were seen as competent and knowledgeable on the topic, to the extent that they were published in the Journal der Erfindungen. As a rule, such journals tended

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

337

to only include abstracts of the original dissertation. Blaese and Latrobe were clear exceptions to this rule as their dissertations were published in full in German with only a few accompanying comments.78 The dissertations of Blaese and Latrobe were certainly well received among professors of the University of Jena. However, one can assume that fellow medical students supporting Brown’s theory distanced themselves from Blaese and Latrobe. Blaese, who mainly studied in Berlin, stayed in Jena only for a year in order to defend his thesis. Latrobe, as a poor introverted Englishman, did not get involved in student life, but rather belonged in the community of music and arts. He only returned to Jena to work on his doctoral dissertation and its subsequent defence, and was therefore not disturbed by the potential exclusion. Without doubt, both doctorands received moral support from Professor Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland. 7

Conclusion

1795 was central to the breakthrough and further adoption of Brunonianism among medical students. Melchior Adam Weikard and Andreas Röschlaub contributed to this by spreading the theoretical foundations of Brown’s theory. It reached critical mass at the University of Jena, where three doctoral dissertations examining John Brown’s theory were defended in 1794 to 1795. While the dissertation defended in 1794 by Johann Georg David Melber, a relative of Johann Wolfgang Goethe, remained impartial regarding Brown’s theory, the following year, when Brown’s main work Elementa medicinae was available to both supporters and opponents alike, both Ulrich Wilhelm Blaese from Courland as well as Johann Friedrich Latrobe from London wrote their dissertations from a more critical angle. All three doctoral students used Brown’s Elementa medicinae, published in Milan in 1792 by Pietro Moscati, as their main source. Latrobe also provided comparison of Brown’s work in Latin versus English. It can be argued that all three doctoral students were motivated by the lectures and viewpoints of Professor Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland as well as Pathogenien, published in 1795 based on his lectures. Blaese and Latrobe were seen as experts on the 78  Review of Melber’s work: Hecker (ed.), Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft (1796), Stück 15, 119; German translation of Blaese’s dissertation: Hecker (ed.), Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft (1796), Stück 16, Intelligenzblatt No. 12, 113–119; German translation of Latrobe’s dissertation: Hecker (ed.), Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft (1796) 99–144.

338

Tering

topic. To that end, their work was also published in German in the Journal der Erfindungen. The author of this article hopes that this episode from medical history will encourage further use of dissertations from the early modern period in researching the history of ideas. Selective Bibliography Barfoot M., “Brunonianism under the Bed: an Alternative to University Medicine in Edinburgh in the 1780s”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 22–45. Blaese Ulrich Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis de virtutibus opii medicinalibus secundum Brunonis systema dubiis et male fundatis (Jena, Fiedler: 1795). Broman T.H., The Transformation of German Academic Medicine 1750–1820 (Cambridge, UK: 1996). Brown John, The Elements of Medicine or Translation of the Elementa Medicinae Brunonis, with large notes, illustrations and comments by the author of the original work, in two volumes (London, Johnson: 1788). Brown John, Ioannis Brunonis M. D., De medicina praelectoris […] Elementa medicinae. Editio prima Italica […] cui praefatus est Petrus Moscati (Milan, Joseph Galeatius: 1792). Brown John, Ioannis Brunonis M.D. de medicina praelectoris […] Elementa medicinae. Cum praefatione Petri Moscati (Hildburghausen, Hanisch: 1794). Goldmann S., Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland im Goethekreis. Eine psychoanalytische Studie zur Autobiographie und ihrer Topik (Stuttgart: 1993). Henkelmann T., Zur Geschichte des pathophysiologischen Denkens: John Brown (1735– 1788) und sein System der Medizin (Berlin – Heidelberg – New York: 1981). Hufeland Christoph Wilhelm, Ideen über Pathogenie und Einfluss der Lebenskraft auf Entstehung und Form der Krankheiten. Als Einleitung zu pathologischen Vorlesungen (Jena, Akad. Buchhandlung: 1795). Jones Robert, An Inquiry into the State of Medicine on the Principles of Inductive Philosophy (Edinburgh, Longman – Cadell – Elliot: 1781). Jones Robert, Ricerche sullo stato della medicina secondo i principi della filosofia indutiva, 2 vols. (Pavia, Comini: 1795). Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft, Stück 15. Intelligenzblatt No. 11 (Gotha, Perthes: 1796) 99–144. Journal der Erfindungen, Theorien und Widersprüche in der Natur- und Arzneiwissenschaft, Stück 16. Intelligenzblatt No. 12 (Gotha, Perthes: 1796) 113–119.

ON THE EARLY RECEPTION OF JOHN BROWN ’ S MEDICAL THEORY

339

Komorowski M., “Die alten Hochschulschriften: lästige Massenware oder ungehobene Schätze unserer Bibliotheken?”, Informationsblatt für Bibliotheken 5 (1997) 379–400. Kondratas R., “The Brunonian Influence on the Medical Thought and Practice of Joseph Frank”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 75–88. Kreutel M., Die Opiumsucht (Stuttgart: 1988). Latrobe Johannes Fridericus (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica sistens Brunoniani systematis criticen (Jena, Goepferdt: 1795). Lawrence C., “Cullen, Brown and the Poverty of Essentialism”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 1–22. Melber Johannes David (Resp.), Dissertatio inauguralis medica de febre putrida ex principiis Brunonianis explicata (Jena, Nauk: 1794). Michler M., Melchior Adam Weikard (1742–1803) und sein Weg in den Brownianismus. Medizin zwischen Aufklärung und Romantik. Eine medizinhistorische Biographie (Leipzig: 1995). Pfeifer K., Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland – Mensch und Werk: Versuch einer populärwissenschaftlichen Darstellung (Halle/Saale: 1968). Risse G.B., The History of John Brown’s Medical System in Germany During the Years 1790–1806, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Chicago: 1971). Risse G.B., “Brunonian Therapeutics: New Wine in Old Bottles?”, in Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 46–62. Rothschuh K.E., Konzepte der Medizin in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Stuttgart: 1978). Tsouyopoulos N., “The Influence of John Brown’s Ideas in Germany”, Bynum W.F. – Porter R. (eds.), Brunonianism in Britain and Europe (London: 1988) 63–74. Weikard Melchior Adam, Entwurf einer einfachern Arzneykunst oder Erlaeuterung und Bestaetigung der Brownischen Arzneylehre (Frankfort on the Main, Andreae: 1795). Wiesing U., “Der Dichter, die Posse und die Erregbarkeit. August v. Kotzebue und der Brownianismus”, Medizinhistorisches Journal 25 (1990) 234–251. Zimmermann S. – Neuper H., Professoren und Dozenten der Medizinischen Fakultät Jena und ihre Lehrveranstaltungen 1770–1820 (Jena: 2008).

chapter 13

Learned Artisans and Merchants in Early Eighteenth-Century Latin Dissertations Sari Kivistö Summary This article examines the cultural revaluation of knowledge that was taking place in Germany in early eighteenth-century dissertations. Although the intellectual life remained closely tied to the universities, the world of learning was broadening to include social classes other than the university-based professions. Especially in the commercial city of Lübeck several dissertations and pamphlets were produced on scholars who also distinguished themselves in commercial or other practical activities. Georg Heinrich Götze, a Lutheran theologian and superintendent of the Church of Lübeck, was a pioneering writer of literary history and especially active in writing dissertations on learned artisans and their cultures of knowledge. This article examines a handful of Latin dissertations printed in Germany (and also in Sweden and Finland) that participated in the rewriting of the traditional moralising stereotype of tradesmen and lauded the merchant as a useful distributor of goods who could place a high value on philosophy, good literature and books in Latin, and combine thinking with practice.

The period between 1670 and 1730 was notable for the diversification of knowledge in Europe. Although the intellectual life remained closely tied to the universities, the world of learning was broadening to include social groups other than the university-based professions. These new groups included merchants, peasants, artisans and, in literary elaborations, even soldiers and gardeners, who possessed skills and knowledge that could also meet the criteria of erudition and even in its traditional and theoretical sense, engaging both the mind and the hands. Early eighteenth-century critics often claimed that more instruction should be offered on practical and useful matters and for this purpose the universities as institutions were out of date, unless they served civil society and its values.1 In my previous studies, I have looked more broadly at 1  See Hammerstein N., “Relations with Authority”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe vol. 2, Universities in Early Modern Europe, 1500–1800 (Cambridge: 1996) 113–153. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_014

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

341

the tensions between different scholarly ideals and changing notions about knowledge in early modern universities.2 In this article, I will focus on learned artisans and on the figure of the merchant in particular, since from the seventeenth century onwards and with the rise of mercantilism the merchant was thought to have such experience-based knowledge of real things and exceptional insight into the practical life that was beneficial to the state and the wider society. Usefulness that was one of the key sensibilities informing ideas about the value of knowledge was increasingly understood in commercial terms.3 I will approach the refiguring of knowledge by investigating how the critical discourses on the erudition of different social groups and the socio-political commercial category in particular were formulated in a handful of early eighteenth-century Neo-Latin dissertations and pamphlets in which craft and merchandise appeared as literary subjects. These discussions arose in response to the changing ideal of the literate man, as happened whenever the social composition of the learned world was at the centre of controversy. The rapidly proliferating print culture also complicated distinctions between manual and literary work. I will mainly focus on selected dissertations published in Germany, but I will also briefly refer to similar topics on mercantile expertise in the dissertations defended at the universities of Sweden and Finland. Many university dissertations in Sweden and Finland imitated very closely their German predecessors, focusing on similar topics and using identical examples and images. The conventional material familiar from German dissertations was sometimes embellished with local examples.4 My approach on learned 2  Kivistö S., The Vices of Learning. Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities. Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 48 (Leiden: 2014). I have briefly discussed learned artisans and merchants in ibidem 256–258. 3  Kivistö, Vices of Learning 9–10; Leng T., “Epistemology: Expertise and Knowledge in the World of Commerce”, in Stern P.J. – Wennerlind C. (eds.), Mercantilism Reimagined. Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire (Oxford: 2013) 109. The sources studied here would allow me to discuss such emerging concepts as ‘interest’ (or the private interest, studied by Leng) or ‘usefulness’, but I am more interested in exploring the changing practices and ideals of knowledge making. 4  The collection of dissertations published between 1642–1828 at the Royal Academy of Turku (Åbo) in Finland has recently been digitised with the funding from the Ilkka and Ulla Paatero Foundation. The digitised collection includes 4173 dissertations and the database is publicly available on the website of the National Library of Finland. This collection testifies to the importance of the printed dissertation as the predominant form of academic publication in this period, although new scientific journals also emerged along with other successful means of disseminating knowledge. For example, the ornithological dissertations cover several contested issues of their time (including the debate about the hibernation of swallows at the bottom of ponds, as was suggested even by Linné), whereas medical dissertations tell about the persistence of humoral pathology in early modern medicine. See, e.g., Kivistö S.,

342

Kivistö

artisans partly overlaps with historical epistemology that studies the preconditions and historical ways of making sense of the world and what counts as knowledge.5 I will contribute to this discussion by exploring early eighteenthcentury dissertations that specifically commented on changing knowledge practices and the emergence of merchandise as a cultural value. 1

Learned Artisans, Gardeners and Shoemakers

Latin dissertations in Germany paid attention to the growing social heterogeneity and social modernization by focusing on literate men from different social classes, whose practical expertise challenged the conventional views of what constitutes learning. Texts were also produced on prominent intellectuals who were seriously involved, for example, in mining or chemistry. In polemical contexts, vociferous claims for practical usefulness placed solitary and old-fashioned university scholars in conflict with the bourgeois class, artisans and tradesmen, whose work was often socially connective and who joined thinking to practice.6 The making of knowledge did not take place in lecture halls alone. Outside the universities scientific associations, literary salons and scientific journals were founded, and the university was no longer the only centre for intellectual investigation. Some early modern dissertations reminded their readers that even purpose-trained soldiers were sometimes literate men. To give one preliminary example, the historical dissertation by the philosopher Christoph Wilhelm Löber and the respondent Heinrich Matthias von Broke on learned soldiers (De eruditis militibus, Jena, 1708)7 identified a number of famous educated men throughout history who had made careers as soldiers or who frequently participated in military activities. These included the Biblical figures of Abraham and Moses, who, according to the legends, was well versed in arithmetic and geometrics. Löber’s catalogue of learned Lucubrationes Neolatinae. Readings of Neo-Latin Dissertations and Satires. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 134 (Helsinki: 2018). 5  The term historical epistemology was coined by Lorraine Daston; see her “Historical Epistemology”, in Chandler J.K. – Davidson A.I. – Harootunian H.D. (eds.), Questions of Evidence. Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines (Chicago: 1994) 282–289. 6  On artisans and the craft’s sociability, see, e.g., Betjemann P., Talking Shop. The Language of Craft in an Age of Consumption (Charlottesville: 2011). 7  Löber Christoph Wilhelm (Pr.) – Broke Heinrich Matthias von (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de eruditis militibus (Jena, Werther: 1708). See also Wagner Gottfried (Pr.) – Muchlavius Johann G. (Resp.), De viris arte et marte claris (Wittenberg, Horn: 1714); Löber Christoph Wilhelm (Pr.) – Broke Heinrich Matthias von (Resp.), De eruditis militibus (Wittenberg, Horn: 1715). On Löber’s dissertation, see also Kivistö, Vices of Learning 256–257.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

343

soldiers also included ancient historians (Thucydides, Xenophon) and other writers who combined military and literary activities, as well as the philosophers Socrates and Plato, who – at least according to their biographers – were each in the military service three times. Even the Carthaginian military commander Hannibal was mentioned here as a cultured man. Löber’s epideictic praise opposed the two leading stereotypes of soldiers – the brutal fighter and the ludicrous boaster – but the dissertation also reflects the increasing urge to combine traditional learning with contemporary and practical needs.8 These critical discussions were often attuned to certain places and populations. Especially in the Hanseatic city of Lübeck several pamphlets were produced on scholars who also distinguished themselves in commercial or other practical activities. One major reason for this critical fashion was the emerging interest in literary history that had become popular in the first two decades of the eighteenth century and raised curiosity about scholarly lives and customs.9 Georg Heinrich Götze (1667–1728), a Lutheran theologian and superintendent of the Church of Lübeck, was a pioneering writer of literary history and especially active in writing dissertations on learned artisans and merchants. His dissertations and diatribes on this topic include works on learned merchants (De mercatoribus eruditis, 1705), peasants (De rusticis eruditis, 1707), tailors (De sartoribus eruditis, 1706), shoemakers (De sutoribus eruditis, 1708), and gardeners (De eruditis hortorum cultoribus, 1726).10 Other major literary historians who composed biographies of learned men included Melchior 8  On these two stereotypes, see Wichert H.E., Johann Balthasar Schupp and the Baroque Satire in Germany (New York: 1952) 85. 9  For the tradition of the so-called micrologia literaria, literary histories and biographies that recorded scholarly habits and curiosities and documented the history of books, scholars and institutions, see: Heumann Christoph August, Conspectus reipublicae literariae (Hanover, Förster: 1718); Nelles P., “Historia litteraria at Helmstedt: Books, Professors and Students in the Early Enlightenment University,” in Zedelmaier H. – Mulsow M. (eds.), Die Praktiken der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: 2001) 147–176; Nelles P., “Historia litteraria and Morhof: Private Teaching and Professorial Libraries at the University of Kiel,” in Waquet F. (ed.), Mapping the World of Learning. The Polyhistor of Daniel Georg Morhof (Wiesbaden: 2000) 31–58. 10   Götze Georg Heinrich, De mercatoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Kauffleuten, diatribe (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1705); Spicilegium post messem, seu additamenta ad diatriben, de mercatoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Kauffleuten (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1706); De sartoribus eruditis (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1706), Analecta litteraria, de rusticis eruditis, vel Gelehrten Bauern (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1707); Auctarium, analectis litterariis, de rusticis eruditis, vel Gelehrten Bauern (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1708); De sutoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Schustern, observationes miscellaneae (Lübeck, Schmalbertzianum: 1708); Kêpophilos, seu de eruditis hortorum cultoribus, von Gelehrten Gärtnern (Lübeck – Leipzig, Johann Philipp Haasius: 1726, orig. 1706 praemissa).

344

Kivistö

Adam (1575–1622), who wrote no less than 546 lives of German philosophers, physicians and other learned men (see Vitae eruditorum ab anno 1500–1618),11 and Heinrich Pipping (1670–1722), who composed lives of famous theologians (Memoriae theologorum nostra aetate clarissimorum). Götze’s dissertations differ from this tradition by focusing exclusively on the biographies of lower social groups and their learning. Götze’s dissertations explored a vast variety of historical figures who combined theoretical and practical approaches. His diatribe on learned peasants begins with several examples of learned merchants (such as Jacobus Du Fay from Frankfurt, the English Quaker merchant Benjamin Furly, and others), but then proceeds to discuss figures who had engaged in both writing and agriculture.12 These figures included Roman writers, such as Columella, Varro, Cato and Cornelius Celsus, as well as later learned farmers and peasants who had gained high status despite their humble origins or written books without academic education. Their exceptional skills were greatly admired and considered almost supernatural. One miraculous case was reported from early modern Sweden: in Stockholm, an uneducated peasant called Lars Bengtson was able to memorize and solve most difficult arithmetic calculations.13 Likewise, some Quaker peasants seemed to be able to understand the Bible without actually being able to read it. In Götze’s view, however, divine revelations could not be grasped immediately and without the mediation of the written word.14 In his dissertation De eruditis hortorum cultoribus (Lübeck and Leipzig, 1726), Götze presented a history of academics who combined meditation with gardening. Götze started his overview with Biblical examples (Adam lived in Eden, Jesus spent time on the Mount of Olives) and proceeded then to Augustine and to early modern names, such as Martin Luther and Justus Lipsius, who meditated, prayed or wrote poetry in the secrecy of gardens. Lipsius set his second book of De constantia in a Stoic garden that represented a place of retreat and 11  On Melchior Adam and his biographical writings, see Seidel R., “Melchior Adam’s Vitae (1615–1620) und die Tradition frühneuzeitlicher Gelehrtenbiographik: Fortschritte und Grenzen eines wissenschaftlichen Paradigmas um 1600”, in Koselleck G. (ed.), Oberschlesische Dichter und Gelehrte vom Humanismus bis zum Barock (Bielefeld: 2000) 179–204. 12  Götze, De rusticis eruditis. On learned peasants, see also Schröder Christoph J. (Pr.) – Hausmann Johann E. (Resp.), Diatribe de rusticis eruditione claris (Jena, Johann Philipp Lindner: 1707). The dissertation by Schröder first focuses on the learned peasants of the Bible, starting from Adam, and then proceeds to people of lower social status, including several shoemakers. 13  Götze, De rusticis eruditis, § 11. 14  Ibidem, § 13.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

345

a refuge from cities.15 Götze noted that although the making of knowledge was increasingly understood to be profoundly social, solitude and disengaged contemplation were still needed for the developing the intellect. The setting of intellectual work affected crucially the outcomes of this activity and influenced knowledge formation. Götze promoted the old ideal of contemplation rather than action by describing how the garden was praised by intellectuals as a private place where they could concentrate on their own thoughts or prayers in peace, without any disturbance from outside. Fruitful solitude, silence and recreation were among the advantages and pleasures of the garden. Physicians were active in growing plants and herbs needed in medicine, but in addition to medical utility they also enjoyed the aesthetic pleasures of gardens. The purpose of these biographical sketches was to provide historical models to the readers for recognising the most efficient ways of acquiring learning and also for avoiding errors made by predecessors. Another notable group of learned artisans was that of shoemakers. Christian Thomasius (1655–1728) dealt with shoemakers as a profession that was not represented in any of the university faculties, although according to Thomasius true wisdom should be understandable and accessible to everyone without privileged positions.16 Thomasius argued that the philosophy of shoemakers should be preferred to obscure academic thinking, since by using a simple and lucid language shoemakers were able to communicate with everyone, including other (uneducated) artisans and ordinary workers.17 Thomasius’s primary example here was the ancient Socratic philosopher Simon the Shoemaker (Simon Atheniensis Coriarius), who was credited for being the first to record Socratic dialogues and even before Plato.18 Alison Burford has argued that in fifth-century Athens there were exceptionally good contacts between philosophers, politicians and manual workers. Socrates was curious to learn the virtue of each craft, and his particular liking for shoemakers was noticeable in his association with Simon and in Plato’s frequent use of the cobbler as an 15  Cook H.J., Matters of Exchange. Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven: 2007) 111. See also Shapin S., “The Mind is Its Own Place. Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-century England”, Science in Context 4, 2 (1991) 191–218; and Morford M., “The Stoic Garden”, Journal of Garden History 7 (1987) 151–175. 16  Thomasius Christian, An sutor possit esse philosophus (Halle, Salfeld: 1693). Thomasius’s juridico-political dissertation is printed in his volume entitled De ratione status, dissertationes V et VI (Halle, Salfeld: 1693). 17  Thomasius, An sutor possit esse philosophus, § V–VIII. 18  Simon’s life was narrated by Diogenes Laertius in his Vitae philosophorum. Simon was also discussed in Götze (De sutoribus eruditis), who notes that people applied the word ‘leathern’ to Simon’s dialogues (Dialogos coriaceos).

346

Kivistö

illustration of his arguments.19 For Thomasius, Simon radiated the true spirit of Socratic philosophy that was not taught from the pulpit in the classroom by lecturing or commenting on texts. He noted that Socrates frequented Simon’s workshop while he was making shoes. Conversing with Socrates, Simon memorized these discussions, made notes and afterwards wrote them down in the form of dialogues. The loss of Simon’s dialogues was even more deplorable, says Thomasius, than if all of Aristotle’s oeuvre had been lost. Götze also devoted one of his dissertations on learned shoemakers and their religious and political activities.20 Götze observed that sometimes shoemakers of obscure family background dedicated their lives to the Republic of Letters with the help of their own industry and divine providence. Although shoemakers and other craftsmen were traditionally distinguished from the rest of society through their occupation and denied all possibility of learning or even virtue, Götze did not consider their work degrading. Götze described different types of wise shoemakers who, despite their former rank, participated in intellectual work and shared the values of traditionally learned men. According to Götze, sons usually learned their craft from their fathers, but there were also literate men whose parents (the father) had been shoemakers.21 Their sons had then by their own effort and with the help of God (and some rich patrons) been able to leave their former humble position, making considerable progress in book learning. It was thus in the hands of God to change the established social hierarchy and raise the craftsman to the level of his superiors. These positive examples of successful social change included several later theologians, such as Ambrosius Moibanus (1494–1554), a Lutheran theologian from Breslau, whose father Georg Moibanus was a shoemaker (‘calcearius’). According to Götze’s historical sources, Moibanus was completely uneducated and considered slow-minded, but he worked hard in order to learn to write poetry. He became familiar with Luther, Melanchthon, Camerarius and other Lutheran theologians, thereby representing an exemplary descendant of a manual worker who gained a good standing in the history of the Lutheran Church. Johann Georg Dorsche (1597–1659) was another orthodox Lutheran theologian from Strasbourg, whose father Lorenz Dorsche was ‘crepidarius’. The son was mentioned among famous orthodox theologians in the Lutheran polemicist Gottlieb Spitzel’s Templum honoris (1673) which described the lives 19  Burford A., Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca: 1972) 129–130. 20  Götze, De sutoribus eruditis. On the shoemakers of Lübeck, their activities, individual shoemakers and the locations of their workshops, see Jaschkowitz T., “Das Lübecker Schuhmacheramt vom 14. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 79 (1999). 21  Götze, De sutoribus eruditis, § 1.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

347

of illustrious theologians. Again, by working hard Dorsche was able to leave his low social position. Likewise, Georg Kirstenius, who later became a superintendent in Silesia, had a father who was a court shoemaker (‘Hofe-schuster’). The son had many skills, such as good memory; he was admired for being able to memorize Virgil’s Aeneid, although this skill was also criticised by his contemporaries, especially if men were fooled into thinking that to memorize whole books represented the highest scholarship and disdained others who had weaker memory abilities. Many early Enlightenment critics asserted that the soul of learning did not consist of extensive memory training, since the most important task of a learned person was to cultivate beauty and an ability to judge. Götze’s second group of learned shoemakers consisted of men who had changed their shoemaking careers at some point and dedicated themselves to literary studies in a more mature age.22 This group included, for example, the shoe historian Benedictus Balduinus (Benoît Baudouin, d. 1632) whose treatise Calceus antiquus et mysticus (Paris, 1615) on the material and symbolic history of shoes and shoemaking was very popular. Further names were Valerius Herberger (1562–1627), a Lutheran theologian (called ‘the little Luther’) and a prolific writer from Fraustadt (Poland), whose father was a leather worker and member of the Meistersinger,23 and Joachim Westphal, another Lutheran theologian from Rostock who was born in the countryside to a humble but honest family. They all exercised arts and sciences in their later lives despite their low origins. Götze’s account included long quotations from German and Latin biographical sources that testified to the intellectual merits and virtues of these figures. Thirdly, there were also men who were educated in traditional humanistic studies, but who were also able to make shoes and exercised that handicraft.24 The early representatives of this group included Hippias of Elis, a Sophist contemporary of Socrates, who, according to Cicero and Quintilian, possessed knowledge of almost every art. Hippias ‘not only boasted his knowledge of the liberal arts, but wore a robe, a ring and shoes, all of which he had made with his own hands, and had trained himself to be independent of external assistance’.25 Further historical examples were Johannes Baptista Gellius 22  Ibidem, § 2. 23  For Herberger, see Samuel Friedrich Lauterbach’s biography Vita, fama et fata Valerii Herbergeri (Leipzig, Gleditsch: 1708). 24  Götze, De sutoribus eruditis, § 3–4. 25  Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 12.11.21, trans. H.E. Butler. See also Cicero, De oratore 3.127. The caricature of the vain and arrogant sophist Hippias is also found in Plato’s Hippias minor and Hippias major. Götze also referred to the Roman lawyer Alfenus Varus, who was also mentioned in Horace’s satires (1.3.130): ‘that smart fellow Alfenus, even after

348

Kivistö

from Florence, who came from a poor family but entered the Academy of Florence, and the famous Meistersinger Hans Sachs.26 Götze seemed to suggest that the traditional bias towards manual workers was incorrect, since there was much common ground between the skilled worker and the intellectual. Götze’s main argument in his dissertation was that it was unfair to vilify learned men on the basis of their humble origins. Many learned men had actually risen from among the shoemakers, whereas noble origin did not necessarily mean great learning. Götze stressed that men should always hold their parents in high esteem and never deny their origin irrespective of their rank; Christ was used here as a primary example of low standing. In what follows, the focus is on the rewriting of the traditional moralising stereotype of merchants in Latin dissertations. I will look at the change in the symbolic meaning of tradesmen and how early eighteenth-century writers opposed the common suspicious stereotype of merchants as men who were interested only in acquiring material advantages and income. Instead, commerce was increasingly understood to be virtuous activity dealing with the mastery of knowledge. As Harold J. Cook has shown, commerce influenced the methods of different sciences and drew attention to knowledge grasped by the senses and passed on by experience rather than by abstract speculation.27 Moral discourses on merchants have a long tradition, but the mercantile cultures of knowledge are less studied. In particular, the Latin material delineating the humanist educational ideal of the merchants is not very well known. 2

Reframing the Stereotype of Self-Interested Merchants

As Richard Newhauser has noted in his early history of greed, merchants traditionally typified self-interest and economic advantage in medieval and Renaissance moralising narratives.28 The equation of merchants with throwing all the tools of his trade away and shutting his shop, was still a cobbler’, trans. N. Rudd. 26  For other dissertations on the habit of combining working with literary studies, see, e.g., Loescherus Christian Wilhelm (Pr.) – Sehm Johann David (Resp.), Diss. in veterum consuetudinem literarum studio opificia jungendi (Wittemberg, Schroedter: 1696), and Bechmann Johann Volkmar (Pr.) – Granz Tobias (Resp.), Opifices et literatos clancularios, vulgo Pfuscher (Jena, Nisius: 1683). 27  Cook H.J., Matters of Exchange. 28  Newhauser R., The Early History of Greed. The Sin of Avarice in Early Medieval Thought and Literature (Cambridge: 2000). On the traditional stock image of merchants, see also, e.g., Brennig H.B., Der Kaufmann im Mittelalter. Literatur – Wirtschaft – Gesellschaft (Pfaffenweiler: 1993); Stevenson L.C., Praise and Paradox. Merchants and Craftsmen in

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

349

avaricious behaviour and sinful acquisition of wealth was common already in ancient times, when merchants were typically considered to be prone to the temptations of excessive profit and desire without limit (see Plato, Laws 918a– 920a). According to this stereotype, business knew no boundaries and was directed at an infinite appetite for wealth and riches; therefore, for example, in Aristotle’s thinking doing business was not considered respectable.29 One early name to build this view was Tertullian, for whom greed seemed to be implicated in all the acts of commerce and the only cause of acquisition (De idolatria 11.1).30 Other objections presented in the ancient and medieval periods against merchants included the common view that acquiring riches and performing trading always required immoral actions, such as lying and cheating.31 In his De officiis ministrorum, Ambrose maintained that business cannot exist without fraud and commercial activities were unsuitable to churchmen: ‘Nothing is more odious than for a man to have no love for a virtuous life, but instead to be kept excited by an unworthy business in following out a low line of trade, or to be inflamed by an avaricious heart […]’.32 The attitude towards greed as the basis of mercantile activity and the criticism against the dishonest means of fulfilling the human desires were transmitted through patristic literature to the medieval period. The view about commerce as trading for pure profit remained dominant at least until the early thirteenth century. Only then was mercantile activity finally becoming more acceptable – and not only as a lawful and useful business but also in

Elizabethan Popular Literature (Cambridge: 1984); Baldwin J.W., “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price. Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 49, 4 (1959) esp. 12–15; Bloomfield M.W., The Seven Deadly Sins. An Introduction to the History of a Religious Concept, with a Special Reference to Medieval English Literature (Michigan: 1952) esp. 191, 197; Shapin S., A Social History of Truth. Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England (Chicago: 1994) esp. 93–95, who notes that the deceit and lying of merchants was frequently deplored in Renaissance literature. For the ideal of the merchant in Christian Thomasius’s thinking, see Grimm G.E., Literatur und Gelehrtentum. Untersuchungen zum Wandel ihres Verhältnisses vom Humanismus bis zur Frühaufklärung (Tübingen: 1983) esp. 353–355. On the usefulness of merchants in medieval economy, also see the works by Petrus Olivi. 29  See Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 12–13. 30  See Newhauser, The Early History of Greed 5; Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 14. 31  Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 14. More specifically, merchants could harmfully control the market through their power of monopoly and set the prices high if they so wished. 32  Ambrose III.9.57, trans. P. Schaff.

350

Kivistö

moral terms.33 Although in Ambrose’s or Aristotle’s view the merchant had hard times in trying to resist the temptations of greed, there were some medieval literary mediators for the justification of the merchant’s operations. As John W. Baldwin has claimed, thirteenth-century commentators to the Sentences of Peter Lombard began to write treatises that justified those merchants who showed correct moral intentions and chose honest means to exercise their trade. Other thirteenth-century writers of Summae theologiae in a scholastic manner refuted arguments about mercantile activities as being unworthy of a Christian or based on sinful fraud.34 Merchants had acquired positions of power in society, and pragmatic arguments in favour of their social utility became more common. They conducted exchange that was fundamental to society and thus they performed a service to society by transporting and providing necessary goods to customers. If they made some personal gain, this was a legitimate compensation for their labour and for the high risks of sea transportation.35 Despite such apologies of medieval theologians, the persistent suspicion of fraud associated with the trade did not disappear. One notable example of the Lutheran condemnation of commerce in seventeenth-century Germany was the pastor Ahasver Fritsch’s Mercator peccans (Leipzig, 1685), a tractate on the sins of merchants.36 The tractate opened with an argument on cheating, claiming that merchants sin because they sell corrupted goods as if they were blameless. They deliberately conceal the defects of the wares by selling them in dark places that are not naturally well lit or by placing in the show windows obstacles to vision that hide the defects of the displayed items. They also insist on a higher price for the deliveries and buy them at less than their true value, thereby sinning against the seventh commandment (‘Thou shalt not steal’) and the principle of charity. One of the accusations made against merchants by Fritsch suggested that they also sold weapons to Turks, Saracens and other barbarians who then used these weapons for military purposes against the Christians. Dishonest dealers used false weights and measures, exercised forbidden monopoly power, wrongly blamed the goods sold by other traders, and refused to show charity towards poor widows and orphans. The traditional reproaches of importing luxurious goods and boasting about one’s riches were also mentioned. In making his objections against selling goods in unethical 33  Newhauser, The Early History of Greed 121. 34  Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 63–64. 35  Ibidem 67–68. 36  Fritsch Ahasver, Mercator peccans, sive tractatus de peccatis mercatorum et negotiatorum (Leipzig, Lanckisius: 1685).

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

351

ways, Fritsch relied on biblical authorities and such writings as Luther’s Vom Kauffleuten that should, in Fritsch’s opinion, be read by every merchant. The idea about the merchant as doing something beneficial by transporting goods from distant areas was not entirely alien to such ancient thinkers as Augustine either, but this view became more common in the early modern period.37 The old stereotype of the greedy merchant was gradually replaced by more nuanced and positive understandings of commerce that did not stress personal advantage as the core of the trade, but could understand commerce as a kind of virtue. In addition to their technical content, Renaissance merchants’ handbooks developed a special moral discourse and professional ethics that closely related the language of morals and profession. Describing the virtues of a good merchant the handbooks gave advice on the moral qualities and behaviour that every merchant should try to achieve. These virtues included frankness, honesty, loyalty, and religiosity.38 The handbooks thus attempted to negotiate the world of commerce with Christian morality and its values.39 Early modern discussions also started to recognise specific professional and mercantile virtues that every merchant should exercise in their art, such as accuracy, diligence and transparency. Gradually there emerged an idea that such mercantile instruments of writing as bookkeeping or numerical representation reflected the honesty of the merchant. As Mary Poovey has shown in her studies on the history of the modern fact, in the seventeenth century merchants deliberately used this emerging association between honesty and bookkeeping as a vehicle that helped them to demonstrate their (often still suspicious) trustworthiness and authority as a social group.40 The formal precision and meticulousness in the double-entry bookkeeping, the public 37  Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 15. 38  On moral and Christian discourses in merchants’ handbooks, see Aurell J., “Reading Renaissance Merchants’ Handbooks: Confronting Professional Ethics and Social Identity”, in Ehmer J. – Lis C. (eds.), The Idea of Work in Europe from Antiquity to Modern Times (Farnham: 2009) 71–90, esp. 75–80. On the emerging tradition of honourable merchants, see, e.g., Lütge C. – Strosetzki C. (eds.), Zwischen Bescheidenheit und Risiko. Der ehrbare Kaufmann im Fokus der Kulturen (Wiesbaden: 2017), and on virtuous commerce, see Lindemann M., The Merchant Republics. Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, 1648–1790 (Cambridge: 2015). 39  One early modern text to promulgate the ideal of the Christian merchant was Johann Justus Winckelmann’s Christlicher Kaufmans-Spiegel (1652); see Rauschenbach S., “Elzevirian Republics, Wise Merchants, and New Perspectives on Spain and Portugal in the Seventeenth-century Dutch Republic”, Jaarboek de zeventiende eeuw 29 (2013) 85 n. 16. 40  On mercantile writing and the virtues of accuracy and transparency, see Poovey M., A History of the Modern Fact. Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society (Chicago: 1998).

352

Kivistö

visibility of the accounts and their rule-based practices of inscribing the daily transactions into the books created the impression that merchants were not merely interested in economic profit. Rather, their activities relied on transparent language, objective and trustworthy measures, balanced order and rational economic practices – and thus reflected the honesty, responsibility and disinterest of individual merchants.41 In this new spirit, early modern dissertations lauded the merchant as a useful distributor of goods, who was not only seeking prosperity through trade, but whose main purpose was to supply necessary goods of life to the whole community.42 This view was supported by the ideas of mercantilism that recognised the role of commerce in enriching the state.43 Commerce was honest work that preserved the welfare of the state by providing men with the satisfaction of their needs. The usefulness of merchants as a social group was discussed, for example, in the theologian Arnold Heinrich Sahme’s (1676–1734) political dissertation entitled De mercatorum necessitate ac utilitate in civitatibus (Königsberg, 1700).44 Sahme’s political work was based on the Aristotelian concept of virtue that provided a basis both for the condemnation and defence of commerce. Sahme’s dissertation first opened with quotations from Aristotle’s Politics (1327a) and its views on the ordered and economically independent society in which it was necessary to import useful goods of life and 41  See also Leng, “Epistemology” 102. For an economy-historical discussion on the economic man and his functions, see Engel A., “Homo oeconomicus trifft ehrbaren Kaufmann. Theoretische Dimensionen und historische Spezifität kaufmännischen Handelns”, in Häberlein M. – Jeggle C. (eds.), Praktiken des Handels. Geschäfte und soziale Beziehungen europäischer Kaufleute in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Konstanz: 2010) 145–172. 42  On the difference between negatively rated business and profitable commerce in this sense, see Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price” 12. 43  Mercantilism has, of course, been widely studied; for an overview, see, e.g., Magnusson L., Mercantilism. The Shaping of an Economic Language (London: 1994). 44  Sahme Arnold Heinrich (Pr.) – Gensichen Wladislaus Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio politica, de mercatorum necessitate ac utilitate in civitatibus (Königsberg, Reusner: 1700). In addition to dissertations, the virtuous merchant was frequently praised in the early modern occasional poetry of this period by appealing to Aristotelian virtue ethics and the Lutheran virtues of charity and vocation. For the concept of virtue in Swedish occasional poetry addressed to merchants before 1780, see Lindqvist J., Dygdens förvandlingar. Begreppet dygd i tillfällestryck till handelsmän före 1780. [Transformations of Virtue. The Concept of Virtue in Printed Occasional Poetry Addressed to Merchants Before 1780], Skrifter utgivna av Litteraturvetenskapliga institutionen vid Uppsala universitet, nr 38 (Uppsala: 2002). Lindqvist’s dissertation shows us how merchants were discussed in terms of Aristotelian and Christian virtue ethics in Swedish occasional poetry of this period. While Lindqvist examines how traditional Aristotelian and Lutheran virtues were attached to merchants in occasional poetry, I am more interested in the reframing of mercantile knowledge in dissertations. I thank Peter Sjökvist for this very useful reference.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

353

export things that were abundantly available. Sahme then quoted numerous historical objections presented against merchants, including Plato’s suggestion to expel merchants from his ideal republic as a harmful group and Aristotle’s description of an ideal society in which there was no need for manual work or commerce; these were base and immoral activities unsuitable for a free man (Politics 1328b). It seems that merchants in this sense sacrificed themselves to the benefit of the state in Aristotle’s thinking, since their trade could never make them happy or virtuous, although the trade itself was doing services to society.45 In any case, Sahme cautioned against many common biases attached to merchants, such as that they seduced men to luxury and pleasures with their merchandise, and instead proclaimed their good intentions and the usefulness of their products. Sahme maintained that merchants were an essential social group in ‘modern’ societies, whereas the utopian states imagined by Plato and Aristotle would never come into an existence. Likewise, in the year 1742, Johan Browallius (1707–1755), a professor of physics (and later of theology) at the Royal Academy of Turku who has been called the father of the natural sciences in Finland and who supervised 49 dissertations in this position, published an academic exercise on learned merchants whose skills included navigation, mathematics, geography and various languages.46 Browallius described his Aristotelian ideal of the good merchant who was not only interested in buying and selling, but whose art of trading was directly beneficial to society by providing citizens with necessary goods and commodities, presumably also in contrast to mere book learning (‘Mercatorem bonum talem esse debere qualem requirit Reipublicae salus et utilitas’, § IV). Among the paratexts of the dissertation was a Swedish dedicatory poem addressed to certain merchants in the towns of Turku and Hamina, lauding the general usefulness of their trade. Instead of considering business as fraud, Browallius explained how the trade could be justly performed and how the merchants’ services of transporting goods and distributing them to others were profitable to everyone (‘mutuum adjutorium in societate humana egregie promovetur per mercaturam’, § I). These justifications were again based on the Aristotelian idea (presented in his Politics 1328b) about an interdependent society in which the mutual exchange of goods was necessary. Browallius openly disagreed with 45  The effects of commercial society on individual morality were famously discussed, for example, by Adam Smith and Bernard Mandeville. See, e.g., Burtt S., Virtue Transformed. Political Argument in England, 1688–1740 (Cambridge: 1992); Hanley R.P., “Commerce and Corruption. Rousseau’s Diagnosis and Adam Smith’s Cure”, European Journal of Political Theory 7, 2 (2008) 137–158. 46  Browallius Johan (Pr.) – Backman Jonas (Resp.), Exercitium academicum mercatorem eruditum leviter delineans (Åbo, Joh. Kiämpe: 1742).

354

Kivistö

Cicero (see De officiis 1.150–151) on the value of small-scale business and retail trade, which Browallius did not condemn as sordid; nor did he praise largescale maritime trade (Cicero’s ‘mercatura magna’), since in his (also traditional) view importing large quantities from all parts of the world was conducive to luxury. In addition, Browallius praised the characteristic virtues of merchants: they were industrious and preserved a rational order in their business. Order, industry and resourcefulness were presented here as typical mercantile virtues (‘mercatorius ordo, industria et sollertia’, § IV). Another interesting development was the recognition that merchants had a good command of different types of knowledge based on their trading practices. Browallius observed that merchants knew geography, local history, economy, various measures and weights, foreign currencies in different regions, characteristics of different people, and practical mathematics so that all this knowledge resulted in a systematic branch of science called architectonic mercantile science (‘scientia, commerciorum architectonica’, § XII). Browallius used here verbs of knowing, underlining the expertise of the merchant who understands (‘intelligere’), examines (‘examinare’), explores (‘explorare’), knows how to determine (‘determinare scire’) and has thoroughly comprised (‘callere’, ‘perspectam habere’) all areas of business. All useful information was derived from their personal experience as the main source of knowledge. As Thomas Leng has argued in his article on expertise and knowledge in the world of commerce, the detailed type of knowledge of objects deployed by merchants and gained through physical experience was represented as a form of expertise and may even have affected the scientific revolution by providing a model for natural philosophers in their inductive method. According to Leng, Francis Bacon actively borrowed mercantile epistemological strategies for his own scientific reform that drew on the direct experience of things.47 As Leng further argues, double-entry book keeping and Bacon’s inductive method both reduced the importance of the individual person and made the writer disappear from the discussion, thereby proclaiming the objectivity of the practical experience-based method.48

47  Leng, “Epistemology” 100–101, 106. In the early modern advancement of science, the individual person behind the observations was stripped away from the scientific method. 48  Leng, “Epistemology” 106; see also Rauschenbach, “Elzevirian Republics” 96, who notes that for Bacon it was precisely merchants who first realised that in order to succeed professionally they should distance themselves of their own interests, and this notion laid the basis for scientific objectivity. See also Cook, Matters of Exchange 17, who argues that objectivity meant “a knowledge appertaining to a detailed acquaintance with objects”.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

3

355

Commerce and Humanistic Learning

However, in the dissertations on learned merchants the objectivity of knowledge or the public importance of commerce were not always the main issues. In addition to lauding productivity or objectivity as mercantile virtues, some dissertations also distanced merchants from their commercial practices and instead linked them with traditional humanistic learning, thus building a bridge between these diverse fields of human activity. Gottfried Hoffmann (1658–1712), a conrector of the Lauban lyceum, delivered in 1699 a speech with the title De mercatore literato, in which he lauded the mutual benefits of commerce and traditional erudition.49 He claimed that by offering wisdom to merchants literature paves the way to successful business; this also brings happiness, since when a man is well prepared for his work he is not only more successful in his business but also happier in his whole life. On the other hand, good commercial skills brought common wealth that could be used for advancing the literary life of the society; for example, rich merchants and material progress supported the flourishing of arts and kept printing houses alive. Although traditionally merchants were not considered to be social equals of university men, Browallius and Hoffmann, among others, described how a good merchant could become a thinking subject who understood the value of literary studies and was aware of history and ethics. Likewise, Johann Balthasar Schupp (1610–1661), a pastor and professor of eloquence at the University of Marburg, maintained in his De arte ditescendi (‘The art of becoming wealthy’) that trade, business and banking were activities that should be encouraged. He praised merchants for making cities prosperous and argued that he had learned more from tradesmen and artisans than from university professors.50 Throughout his works, Schupp treated the artisans with an almost sentimental tenderness and for him they were like the apostles, who also were simple labourers and craftsmen. This view reflected the rising interest in practical and secular skills in society. In addition to his trade-specific skills and commercial knowledge needed in the trade, the ideal merchant had a good command of various traditional humanistic disciplines. This idea was more thoroughly elaborated on by Götze who stressed in his diatribe on learned merchants (De mercatoribus eruditis,

49  Hoffmann Gottfried, De mercatore literato, h.e., de mutuo literarum et mercaturae adju­ torio (Lauban, Michael Hartmann: 1699). 50  Schupp Johann Balthasar, De arte ditescendi dissertatio prior (Marburg: 1648).

356

Kivistö

Lübeck, 1705; Additamenta ad diatriben de mercatoribus eruditis, 1706)51 that not all dealers were exclusively focused on accumulating money nor were all driven by greed. Quoting Horace, who had praised the indefatigable trader who keeps ahead of poverty by running through rocks and flame (Epistulae 1.45–46), Götze briefly touched upon industry as a characteristic mercantile virtue. However, his main focus was to approvingly examine a number of individual merchants who placed a high value on good literature and books in Latin and who enjoyed reading and writing. Götze did not concentrate on the value of commerce in the formation of the state or on the moral conduct of the merchants; instead, his literary history promoted a positive view about the educational status of individual merchants and highlighted the importance of literary learning to what cultural historians might now call their professional identities and symbolic capital.52 Going beyond the traditional argument of political usefulness Götze stressed the humanistic orientation of some learned representatives of the social group. He claimed that merchants were often highly fluent in several vernacular languages needed in their commercial activities, but in addition to their command of exotic languages some erudite merchants were also fluent in Latin and therefore deserved to be called truly learned men. Götze noted that some men had given up their mercantile careers as young boys and started a humanistic school. For example, Gerard Tuning (1566–1610) from Leiden was on his way to Spain to study the art of trading, when a sea storm forced the ship to turn back to the home port and Tuning returned to his homeland, changed his career and started to study literature. Götze also mentioned Lawrence Saunders (1519–1555), an English Protestant martyr, who abandoned his mercantile pursuits when captured by the beauty of sacred literature. He obtained a doctoral degree in theology but was convicted of heresy and burned at the stake in 1555. In his history of learned merchants, Götze mentioned such early edifying examples as the ancient philosophers Solon, Thales, Hippocrates and even Plato, none of whom treated philosophy and business as mutually exclusive activities and thus testified to the honesty of the trade. Götze based this view on Plutarch, who in his Life of Solon claimed that Solon was an admirer of wisdom and in the early days ‘the calling of a merchant was actually held in 51  Götze, De mercatoribus eruditis. On merchants and trade in Lübeck, see Meyer-Stoll C., Die lübeckische Kaufmannschaft des 17. Jahrhunderts unter wirtschafts- und sozialgeschicht­ lichen Aspekten (Frankfurt: 1989). 52  On the membership of an individual in a specific social and professional group, expressed with the concepts of identity and symbolic capital, see Aurell, “Reading Renaissance Merchants’ Handbooks” 83.

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

357

honour, since it gave him familiarity with foreign parts, friendships with foreign kings, and a large experience in affairs’.53 Even Plato defrayed the expenses of his travels by selling olive oil. Thales, for his part, had practised trading and acquired considerable sums of money by hiring olive presses or, as another version of the anecdote goes, by buying olive crops in the winter before anyone noticed that the expected harvest was exceptionally plentiful. Thus, Thales was not simply ridiculed as a laughable representative of mental abstraction, but he was also presented as a wise economic man.54 Many later noble individuals and families in Europe also exercised business. Hoffmann mentioned, for example, Adrian Steger (1623–1700) as an exemplary tradesman who was elected six times as the mayor of Leipzig and who was an active translator of philosophical and religious texts. Götze described how many of his contemporaries – while doing business – also wrote and studied (Latin) literature and thus represented a perfect merchant. One of them was Friedrich Benedict Carpzov (1649–1699) from Leipzig, who advanced the study of literature in his public activities. Although Carpzov did not author any remarkable volumes, he published a great number of German and French books and thus brought together the arts of Mercury and Minerva. For Götze, Carpzov became distinguished by his love of literature (‘literarum amor’, § 8). Philippe-Sylvestre Dufour (1622–1687) was a French tradesman who wrote several curious books related to new transported goods (e.g., on the manner of using of coffee, tea and chocolate; 1st ed. 1671) and these were translated into Latin. Another name was the tradesman Adam Brand from Lübeck, who made trips to Moscow and China and whose Beschreibung der Chinesischen Reise (1698) was based on his travel experiences that were one essential way of broadening knowledge. The idea about the joining of Mercury, the god of commerce, and Minerva, the goddess of erudition, had earlier been expressed by the Dutch humanist Caspar Barlaeus in his famous inaugural lecture Mercator sapiens held at the opening of the Amsterdam Athenaeum in 1632.55 Götze seems to share Barlaeus’s key educational ideal of the perfect

53  Plutarch, Solon (2.3), trans. Bernadotte Perrin. 54  The famous anecdote about Thales was retold in Aristotle’s Politics (1259a), Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers (1.1.26) and Cicero’s De divinatione (1.111). 55  This speech and its idea of the wise merchant has been studied in Rauschenbach S., “Elzevirian Republics” 84–87; and Keblusek M. “Mercator sapiens: Merchants as Cultural Entrepreneurs”, in Keblusek M. – Badeloch V.N. (eds.), Double Agents. Cultural and Political Brokerage in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2011) 95–109. On Barlaeus’s oration, see also Cook, Matters of Exchange 69 (with reference to Martianus Capella’s Marriage of Mercury and Philology as its subtext).

358

Kivistö

merchant who should acquire both mercantile knowledge and philosophical learning in order to successfully practice his trade.56 In Götze’s view, humanistic learning was salutary and delightful to everyone. Booksellers in Amsterdam and Leipzig formed yet another profession closely engaged with literature and business. They sold erudite books and were often well-versed in literary history and several languages. For example, in Leipzig Johann Thomas Fritsch (1666–1726) published typographically elegant volumes to the learned world and was fluent both in exotic languages and in Latin. While tracing the connections between business and scholarship in early modern Amsterdam, Marika Keblusek has stressed that merchants did not merely sell material items, but they also transferred ideas, art products and literature by using their versatile networks and established trade routes.57 They distributed intellectual capital, traded books and paintings, and were often avid collectors themselves. Their houses became venues for cultural affairs. One example mentioned by Keblusek was Joachim de Wicquefort (1596–1670), who belonged to the Amsterdam merchant dynasty and was known for his cultivated taste and precious art collections that were always kept open to visitors. One traditional and almost unanimously supported argument in the dissertations was that preachers and theologians should not do business to avoid all associations with avarice. This issue was prominent, for example, in Götze’s dissertation and in the first corollary to Sahme’s dissertation, with reference to the Bible (2 Tim. 2:4; 1 Tim. 3:8) and various passages in patristic literature condemning clerical business. Sahme noted that there were only some minor exceptions to this rule; for example, if a pastor had purchased wood, cement and other construction material in order to build a house for himself, but his plans had changed, then it was not condemnable to sell the construction material forward on a higher price. Götze appealed to the Christian idea of charity, since some exemplary tradesmen were active in donating funds to the poor. Petrus Bufler (1475–1551), a city councilman from Isny, for example, opened 56  Barlaeus even suggested that the younger generation of merchant families should not so much partake in business, but observe it; see Rauschenbach, “Elzevirian Republics” 86. Rauschenbach (99) further notes with reference to Barlaeus’s speech that with the opening of the new university in Amsterdam the image of the merchant also changed. He was expected to pursue scholarly studies and, ennobled through his erudition, the new Amsterdam merchant was distinguished from those of other countries and of the preceding times. 57  See Keblusek, “Mercator sapiens” 95–109. On cultural transfer, see also Gassert M., Kulturtransfer durch Fernhandelskaufleute. Stadt, Region und Fernhandel in der europä­ ischen Geschichte. Eine wirtschaftshistorische Untersuchung der Beziehungen zwischen wirtschaftlichen Vorgängen und kulturellen Entwicklungen anhand von Karten. 12. bis 16. Jahrhundert (Frankfort on the Main: 2001).

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

359

his house to the poor and established schools for children.58 The places that successfully combined learning and bargaining included the associations of merchants, ‘Collegia mercurialia’, in Hamburg and Lübeck that were the meetings places of the learned bourgeoisie. Götze stressed that merchants should not neglect reading trading books, Handelsbücher, that belonged to their own field. However, books to be avoided by all learned men included numerous eristic publications of the period that created controversies in the church, such as the publications by Baruch Spinoza, Jakob Böhme, Balthasar Bekker, Gottfried Arnold and others who were considered either atheists, mystics, radical Pietists or representatives of other counter-reformation movements. Shoemakers in particular were often counted among religious fanatics (or ‘Schwermers’), owing to their connections with radical Pietists, mystics and other dissident thinkers.59 Götze’s notorious examples included the Christian mystic Böhme, an initially honest man who abandoned his shoemaker’s career while he became interested in religion through the contamination of some evil and heterodox books. Often these publications were read aloud in artisans’ meetings.60 For his followers, Böhme was the greatest German philosopher of all times, whereas his opponents ridiculed him with ironic titles such as ‘sutor philosophus’ and called his pursuit ‘Philosophia sutoria’. Another notorious name was the English dissenter George Fox, who founded the Quaker movement. Their followers were criticised for denigrating the importance of traditional curricula and attributing all of their inventions to divine illumination.61 According to Friedrich Ernst Meisius’s tractate Kurtzer Entwurff von Quäckern (‘A Short Sketch on the Quakers’), most of the Quakers in London had their background in the shoemakers’ shops.62 In their dissertation, Jeremias and Bürger, for example, described in detail the mentality and character of Fox: as a child Fox was very shy and secluded, and also as an adult he frequently retired into solitude and contemplated in the second floor of his shoemaker’s shop, where, Fox believed, 58  In the second disputation published a year later in 1706, Götze mentioned (after having collected the main harvest, as he put it) more historical figures who were prominent both in commerce and literature. 59  See also Friedrich Jeremias (Pr.) – Bürger Adam Sigismund (Resp.), De sutoribus fanaticis (Leipzig, Schede: 1730), which mentioned the radical theologian Thomas Münzer (1489– 1525), the weaver Nicholas Storch (d. 1536) and other radical lay-preachers as ‘fanatics’ and trouble-makers who resisted ecclesiastical authorities, condemned marriage (allowing men to take more than one wife) and broke against social conventions. 60  Götze, De sutoribus eruditis, § 7; Jeremias – Bürger, De sutoribus fanaticis, § XXIII and § XI. On evil books, see also Kivistö, S. “The Eight Criteria of Evil Books”, Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Vindobonensis (Leiden: 2018). 61  Thomasius, An sutor possit esse philosophus. 62  Quoted in Jeremias – Bürger, De sutoribus fanaticis, § VII.

360

Kivistö

he was visited by angels. Fox used to wear leather clothes, as he wanted to commemorate his origins, and therefore he was also called ‘vir coriaceus’ (‘the leather man’).63 Fox was in general praised for his unusual skills (he could recite and memorize the whole Bible), but according to Götze and other critics he did not use his skills to the common good. Fox boasted to have illumination from God and that he could perform miracles, and this was condemned as an indication of arrogance and pride.64 Götze also noted that men should not fall to the madness of Solomon Eccles, an enthusiastic Quaker activist and composer, who burned all his books when he adopted the new religion.65 Götze thus explored both radical craftsmen and learned Church theologians who had their background in manual work.66 In sum, early modern dissertations are valuable sources for the development of scientific ideals and they testify to the continuous reframing of the ideals of knowledge. Dissertations and diatribes highlighted the merchants’ abilities to participate in the Republic of Letters at the same time when the society was increasingly concerned with the advancement of practical knowledge. The dissertations on merchants also illuminate local academic traditions in such commercial towns as Lübeck in which the issue of mercantilism was especially palpable. In his dissertations, Götze promulgated fruitful and peaceful coexistence between different social groups in Lübeck. The dissertations on learned artisans and merchants shape the cultural revaluation of knowledge that was taking place in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries by reminding their readers of the lasting value of books and traditional intellectual qualities even in modern commercial societies. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Barlaeus Caspar, Mercator sapiens, sive oratio de conjungendis mercaturae et philosophiae studiis (Amsterdam, Guilielmus Blaeu: 1632). Bechmann Johann Volkmar (Pr.) – Granz Tobias (Resp.), Opifices et literatos clancularios, vulgo Pfuscher (Jena, Nisius: 1683). Browallius Johan (Pr.) – Backman Jonas (Resp.), Exercitium academicum mercatorem eruditum leviter delineans (Abo, Joh. Kiämpe: 1742). 63   Jeremias – Bürger, De sutoribus fanaticis, § XII. 64  Götze, De sutoribus eruditis, § 8. 65  Ibidem, § 16; Jeremias – Bürger, De sutoribus fanaticis, § XIII. 66  On the active roles of dissident shoemakers in the history of literature, religion and science, see Kivistö S. – Mehtonen P.M., “Literary Shoemakers” (forthcoming).

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

361

Fritsch Ahasver, Mercator peccans, sive tractatus de peccatis mercatorum et negotiatorum (Leipzig, Lanckisius: 1685). Götze Georg Heinrich, De mercatoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Kauffleuten, diatribe (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1705). Götze Georg Heinrich, Spicilegium post messem, seu additamenta ad diatriben, de mercatoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Kauffleuten (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1706). Götze Georg Heinrich, De sartoribus eruditis (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1706). Götze Georg Heinrich, Analecta litteraria, de rusticis eruditis, vel Gelehrten Bauern (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1707). Götze Georg Heinrich, Auctarium, analectis litterariis, de rusticis eruditis, vel Gelehrten Bauern (Lübeck, Jaeger: 1708). Götze Georg Heinrich, De sutoribus eruditis, vel Gelehrten Schustern, observationes miscellaneae (Lübeck, Schmalhertzianus: 1708). Götze Georg Heinrich, Kêpophilos, seu de eruditis hortorum cultoribus, von Gelehrten Gärtnern (Lübeck – Leipzig, Haasius: 1726, orig. 1706 praemissa). Heumann C.A., Conspectus reipublicae literariae (Hanover, Förster: 1718). Hoffmann Gottfried, De mercatore literato, h.e., de mutuo literarum et mercaturae adjutorio (Lauban, Michael Hartmann: 1699). Jeremias Friedrich (Pr.) – Bürger Adam Sigismund (Resp.), De sutoribus fanaticis (Leipzig, Schede: 1730). Löber Christoph Wilhelm (Pr.) – Broke Heinrich Matthias von (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de eruditis militibus (Jena, Werther: 1708). Loescher Christian Wilhelm (Pr.) – Sehm Johann David (Resp.), In veterum consuetudinem literarum studio opificia jungendi (Wittemberg, Schroedter: 1696). Sahme Arnold Heinrich (Pr.) – Gensichen Wladislaus Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio politica, de mercatorum necessitate ac utilitate in civitatibus (Königsberg, Reusner: 1700). Schröder Christoph J. (Pr.) – Hausmann Johann E. (Resp.), Diatribe de rusticis eruditione claris (Jena, Johann Philipp Lindner: 1707). Schupp Johann Balthasar, De arte ditescendi dissertatio prior (Marburg: 1648). Thomasius Christian, An sutor possit esse philosophus (Halle, Salfeld: 1693). Wagner Gottfried (Pr.) – Muchlavius Johann G. (Resp.), De viris arte et marte claris (Wittenberg, Horn: 1714).



Secondary Sources

Aurell J., “Reading Renaissance Merchants’ Handbooks: Confronting Professional Ethics and Social Identity”, in Ehmer J. – Lis C. (eds.), The Idea of Work in Europe from Antiquity to Modern Times (Farnham: 2009) 71–90. Baldwin J.W., “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price. Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 49, 4 (1959).

362

Kivistö

Betjemann P., Talking Shop. The Language of Craft in an Age of Consumption (Charlottesville: 2011). Bloomfield M.W., The Seven Deadly Sins. An Introduction to the History of a Religious Concept, with a Special Reference to Medieval English Literature (Michigan: 1952). Brennig H.B., Der Kaufmann im Mittelalter. Literatur – Wirtschaft – Gesellschaft (Pfaffenweiler: 1993). Burford A., Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca: 1972). Burtt S., Virtue Transformed. Political Argument in England, 1688–1740 (Cambridge: 1992). Cook H.J., Matters of Exchange. Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven: 2007). Daston L., “Historical Epistemology”, in Chandler J.K. – Davidson A.I. – Harootunian H.D. (eds.), Questions of Evidence. Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines (Chicago: 1994) 282–289. Engel A., “Homo oeconomicus trifft ehrbaren Kaufmann. Theoretische Dimensionen und historische Spezifität kaufmännischen Handelns”, in Häberlein M. – Jeggle C. (eds.), Praktiken des Handels. Geschäfte und soziale Beziehungen europäischer Kaufleute in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Konstanz: 2010) 145–172. Gassert M., Kulturtransfer durch Fernhandelskaufleute. Stadt, Region und Fernhandel in der europäischen Geschichte. Eine wirtschaftshistorische Untersuchung der Beziehungen zwischen wirtschaftlichen Vorgängen und kulturellen Entwicklungen anhand von Karten. 12. bis 16. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: 2001). Grimm G.E., Literatur und Gelehrtentum. Untersuchungen zum Wandel ihres Verhältnisses vom Humanismus bis zur Frühaufklärung (Tübingen: 1983). Hammerstein N., “Relations with Authority”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe vol. 2, Universities in Early Modern Europe, 1500–1800 (Cambridge: 1996) 113–153. Hanley R.P., “Commerce and Corruption. Rousseau’s Diagnosis and Adam Smith’s Cure”, European Journal of Political Theory 7, 2 (2008) 137–158. Jaschkowitz T., “Das Lübecker Schuhmacheramt vom 14. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 79 (1999). Keblusek M., “Mercator sapiens: Merchants as Cultural Entrepreneurs”, in Keblusek M. – Badeloch V.N. (eds.), Double Agents. Cultural and Political Brokerage in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2011) 95–109. Kivistö S., The Vices of Learning. Morality and Knowledge at Early Modern Universities, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 48 (Leiden: 2014). Kivistö S., Lucubrationes Neolatinae. Readings of Neo-Latin Dissertations and Satires, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 134 (Helsinki: 2018). Kivistö, S. “The Eight Criteria of Evil Books”, Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Vindobonensis (Leiden: 2018).

LEARNED ARTISANS AND MERCHANTS IN LATIN DISSERTATIONS

363

Leng T., “Epistemology: Expertise and Knowledge in the World of Commerce”, in Stern P.J. – Wennerlind C. (eds.), Mercantilism Reimagined. Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire (Oxford: 2013). Lindemann M., The Merchant Republics. Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, 1648–1790 (Cambridge: 2015). Lindqvist J., Dygdens förvandlingar. Begreppet dygd i tillfällestryck till handelsmän före 1780. [Transformations of Virtue. The Concept of Virtue in Printed Occasional Poetry Addressed to Merchants Before 1780], Skrifter utgivna av Litteraturvetenskapliga institutionen vid Uppsala universitet, nr 38 (Uppsala: 2002). Lütge C. – Strosetzki C. (eds.), Zwischen Bescheidenheit und Risiko. Der ehrbare Kaufmann im Fokus der Kulturen (Wiesbade: 2017). Magnusson L., Mercantilism. The Shaping of an Economic Language (London: 1994). Meyer-Stoll C., Die lübeckische Kaufmannschaft des 17. Jahrhunderts unter wirtschaftsund sozialgeschichtlichen Aspekten (Frankfurt: 1989). Morford M., “The Stoic Garden”,  Journal of Garden History 7 (1987) 151–175. Nelles P., “Historia litteraria and Morhof: Private Teaching and Professorial Libraries at the University of Kiel”, in Waquet F. (ed.), Mapping the World of Learning. The Polyhistor of Daniel Georg Morhof (Wiesbaden: 2000) 31–58. Nelles P., “Historia litteraria at Helmstedt: Books, Professors and Students in the Early Enlightenment University”, in Zedelmaier H. – Mulsow M. (eds.), Die Praktiken der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: 2001) 147–176. Newhauser R., The Early History of Greed. The Sin of Avarice in Early Medieval Thought and Literature (Cambridge: 2000). Poovey M., A History of the Modern Fact. Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society (Chicago: 1998). Rauschenbach S., “Elzevirian Republics, Wise Merchants, and New Perspectives on Spain and Portugal in the Seventeenth-century Dutch Republic”, Jaarboek de zeventiende eeuw 29 (2013) 1, 81–100. Seidel R., “Melchior Adam’s Vitae (1615–1620) und die Tradition frühneuzeitlicher Gelehrtenbiographik: Fortschritte und Grenzen eines wissenschaftlichen Paradigmas um 1600”, in Koselleck G. (ed.), Oberschlesische Dichter und Gelehrte vom Humanismus bis zum Barock (Bielefeld: 2000) 179–204. Shapin S., “The Mind is Its Own Place. Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-century England”, Science in Context 4:1 (1991) 191–218. Shapin S., A Social History of Truth. Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England (Chicago: 1994). Stevenson L.C., Praise and Paradox. Merchants and Craftsmen in Elizabethan Popular Literature (Cambridge: 1984). Wichert H.E., Johann Balthasar Schupp and the Baroque Satire in Germany (New York: 1952).

chapter 14

David Pareus’s Collected Disputations as a Theological Commonplace Book: Disputation as a Medium of Basic Dogmatics and Religious Controversy Gábor Förköli Summary In the early modern period printing university disputations had a mainly representative goal: to stress the candidate’s erudition and to praise the generosity of the patron who financed his studies. On the other hand, many professors published the theses of their students in a collective form, exceeding their original representative aims, and these theses were in turn probably used in education. This paper explores the two volumes of Collegia theologica (published in 1611 and 1620) of the famous irenic theologian from Heidelberg, David Pareus (1548–1622). Defended by Pareus’s German, Swiss, French, Polish and Hungarian students, these disputations are the documents of a seminary organised by Pareus to systematically refute the controversies that the Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino directed against Protestants. The volumes contain an index of theological commonplaces whose organisation is based on the model of a typical protestant commonplace book fashioned by Melanchthon or Wolfgang Musculus. Reconstructing the context of irenic reconciliation among Protestant denominations in the Holy Roman Empire and of the Jesuit menace in East-Central Europe, this paper argues that the commonplace structure allows us to read Pareus’s disputations as media for introducing students to general theology and to anti-Jesuit controversy, rather than as documents of individual university studies.

1

Introduction

Martin Rausch, born in the Saxon community of Levoča, Upper Hungary (Slovakia), a pupil of the grammar school of Stettin (Szczecin, Poland) in 1620, made a harsh remark against the practice of printing disputations in a letter

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_015

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

365

of his: according to him, these texts were anything but original and brilliant.1 Another German author simply wrote in 1719 that some dissertations should be used as tobacco paper.2 A disputation, indeed, could be but a merely representative way to crown one’s studies abroad and its printed version could serve this purpose with greeting poems; a dedication glorifying the patron of the student; and with other paratextual elements which aimed to point out the presumed erudition of the examinee. Nevertheless, some other printed dissertations or disputations, like the two volumes of the Collegia theologica (1611–1620), collected by the Heidelberg professor David Pareus, reduce the amount of representative paratexts and shape their content into the form of a textbook. This paper will argue that this type of collected disputations goes beyond the perspectives of individual studies because it can be used as a commonplace book, i.e., a theological manual covering almost every field of systematic and controversial theology. The example of Pareus enables us to connect the enquiry about university disputations with previous research on commonplace books, which have been subject to various discussions, presenting them as tools of rhetorical invention, reading, excerpting and analysing texts; as a method to organise knowledge; and as a medium which transformed the dynamics between memory and forgetting in the first three hundred years of printing.3 Pareus’s books have another advantage for researchers: they contain the materials of entire courses in chronological order, facilitating the reconstruction of an important part of a curriculum.

1  Katona T. – Latzkovits M. (eds.), Lőcsei stipendiánsok és literátusok I: Külföldi tanulmányutak dokumentumai 1550–1699, Fontes Rerum Scholasticarum II/1 (Szeged: 1990) 238, quoted by Kecskeméti G., “A böcsületre kihaladott ékes és mesterséges szóllás, írás”. A magyarországi retorikai hagyomány a 16–17. század fordulóján (Budapest: 2007) 145. 2   Apin Siegmund Jakob, Unvorgreiffliche Gedancken wie man so wohl Alte als Neue Dissertationes academicas mit Nutzen sammlen und einen guten Indicem darüber halten soll (Nuremberg – Altdorf, heir of Johann Daniel Tauber: 1719) 26, quoted by Marti H., “Dissertationen”, in Rasche U. (ed.), Quellen zur frühneuzeitlichen Universitätsgeschichte. Typen, Bestände, Forschungsperspektiven (Wiesbaden: 2011) 293–312, at 301. 3   A short selection from the voluminous literature of the topic: Moss A., Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: 1996); Goyet F., Le sublime du ‘lieu commun’. L’invention rhétorique dans l’antiquité et à la renaissance (Paris: 1996); Décultot É. (ed.), Lire, copier, écrire. Les bibliothèques manuscrites au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: 2003); Cevolini A., De arte excerpendi. Imparare a dimenticare nella modernità (Florence: 2006); Cevolini A. (ed.), Forgetting machines. Knowledge Management Evolution in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2016); MacPhail E.M., Dancing around the Well. The Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism (Leiden: 2014); Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der Frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin: 2015).

366

Förköli

David Pareus (1548–1622), although originally meant to be the apprentice of a simple apothecary and later that of a shoemaker in his native town Frankenstein (Silesia), was able to build a career as a brilliant scholar, and as a pupil of Zacharias Ursinus, he entered the Collegium Sapientiae in Heidelberg where, after years of service as pastor in different towns and villages, he was appointed to be a teacher in 1584 by Palsgrave Casimir. In 1598, he started working at the faculty of theology as professor of the Old Testament, and from 1602, he taught the New Testament until he died, afflicted by sickness and in a temporary exile, which he underwent because of the Spanish troops approaching the Palatinate.4 He is best known for his Irenicum (1614–1615), in which he sought the possibilities of bringing closer the Lutheran and the Calvinist doctrine to one another, and he expressed this very idea in other works as well, especially in the domain of the interpretation of the Lord’s Supper.5 Researchers illustrated how this kind of reconciliation between the two Protestant confessions had prepared a better Protestant cooperation during the years preceding the Thirty Years’ War.6 Other works focused on Pareus’s influential theory which had prescribed a rigorous separation of the secular magistrate from the ecclesiastical

4  About his life, see the following article based on the biography written by Johann Philipp, son of David Pareus, and on Pierre Bayle’s Dictionary Historical and Critical: Ney J., “Pareus, David”, in Jackson S.M. (ed.), The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1953) 353. Cf. Pareus Philippus, Narratio historica de curricolo vitae et obitu reverendissimi patris Davidis Parei (Frankfort on the Main, Fitzer: 1633; VD17 14:072195R); Hautz J.F., Die erste Gelehrtenschule reformierten Bekenntnisses in Deutschland oder Geschichte des Pädagogiums zu Heidelberg unter Kurfürst Friedrich III. von der Pfalz in den Jahren 1565–1577 (Heidelberg: 1855) 10. 5  Brinkmann G., Die Irenik des David Pareus. Frieden und Einheit in ihrer Relevanz zur Wahrheitsfrage (Hildesheim: 1972); cf. Hotson H., “Irenicism and Dogmatics in the Confessional Age. Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46, 3 (1995) 432–453; idem, “Irenicism in the Confessional Age. The Holy Roman Empire, 1563–1648”, in Louthan H.P. – Zachman R.C. (eds.), Conciliation and Confession. Struggling for Unity in the Age of Reform. 1415–1648 (Notre Dame: 2004) 228–285; Schmidt A., “Irenic Patriotism in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century German Political Discourse”, The Historical Journal 53, 2 (2010) 243–269. On the influence of the Irenicum on the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631, which gathered German Lutherans and Calvinists in an attempt to act in unity against the Catholic forces approaching Lower Saxony, see Nischan B., “Reformed Irenicism and the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631”, Central European History 9, 1 (1976) 3–26. 6  Nischan B., “John Bergius. Irenicism and the Beginning of Official Religious Toleration in Brandenburg-Prussia”, Church History 51, 4 (1982) 389–404; idem, “Calvinism, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Beginning of Absolutism in Brandenburg. The Political Thought of John Bergius”, Central European History 15, 3 (1982) 203–223 (about one of Pareus’s important Irenic pupils).

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

367

authority.7 This political teaching reserved an important place for the right of resistance, provoking vigorous criticism even in Protestant England where a royal decree commanded to burn his works in 1622.8 In the same kingdom, Pareus’s resistance theory had, of course, followers as well, including John Milton in his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649), which argued against the Stuarts’ divine right doctrine.9 The impact of Pareus’s biblical exegesis has been noted by several researchers too, especially the influence of his Genesis commentary on John Donne and Milton.10 On the other hand, his important Eastern European contacts drew less attention from Western scholars than his political and ecclesiological views, although Pareus’s reputation attracted students to Heidelberg from many countries inside and outside the Holy Roman Empire. His Hungarian contacts are attested by a large number of disputations written for Hungarian students and published either as short prints or in one of his collective volumes.11 The first volume of his Collegia theologica contains the disputations of fortythree Hungarian, twelve Polish and Lithuanian students, as well as one from the Czech lands; thirty-six students from different lands of the Holy Roman Empire (a number inferior to the number of Hungarian students!), fifteen students from the Low Countries, seven from Switzerland and thirteen from 7  Strohm Ch., “Kompetenz weltlicher Obrigkeit in Religionsangelegenheiten. Entstehung und Wirkung von David Pareus’ Überlegungen zum Ius circa sacra”, in Friedeburg R. – Schmoeckel M. (eds.), Recht, Konfession und Verfassung im 17. Jahrhundert. West- und mitteleuropäische Entwicklungen, Historische Forschungen 105 (Berlin: 2015) 67–83. 8  Asch R.G., “Von der ‘Monarchischen Republik’ zum Gottesgnadentum? Monarchie und politische Theologie in England von Elisabeth I. bis zu Karl I”, Historische Zeitschrift New Series 39, Aspekte der politischen Kommunikation im Europa des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Politische Theologie – Res Publica-Verständnis – konsensgestützte Herrschaft (2004) 123– 148, at 136–137. 9  Whiting G.W., “Pareus, the Stuarts, Laud, and Milton”, Studies in Philology 50, 2 (1953) 215–229. 10  Williams A., “Commentaries on Genesis as a Basis for Hexaemeral Material in the Literature of the Late Renaissance”, Studies in Philology 34, 2 (1937) 191–208, at 197 and 199; idem, “Politics and Economics in Renaissance Commentaries on Genesis”, Huntington Library Quarterly 7, 3 (1944) 207–222. Milton also read Pareus’s commentary on the Apocalypse, published in 1644 in English: Reeves M., “Joachimist Influences on the Idea of a Last World-Emperor”, Traditio 17 (1961) 323–370, at 369–370 (this article erroneously identifies Pareus as a theologian from Amsterdam because the translation in question was published there); cf. Whiting, “Pareus, the Stuarts, Laud, and Milton” 228. 11  For some examples of the autonomously published disputations, see the catalogue of count Sándor Apponyi’s collection which is one of the largest collections of antique prints in the National Széchény Library of Budapest today: Apponyi S., Hungarica. Ungarn betreffende im Auslande gedruckte Bücher und Flugschriften, 3 vols., ed. J. Vekerdi (Budapest: 2004), nr 713, 718, 723, 729, 730, 732, 735, 745.

368

Förköli

France.12 The figures are very similar in the case of the second volume, but the proportion of Hungarian and Transylvanian students is even higher: seventyone Hungarians, five Poles and Lithuanians, twenty-nine Germans and four Frenchmen.13 Although the Collegia theologica is only Pareus’s most monumental collection of disputations, it is not the only one. In 1621, he published his Thesaurus biblicus, a book of exegetical dissertations on both Testaments, which is somewhat less voluminous than the Collegia (533 pages compared to the more than 900 pages of the first volume). It contains the dissertations of thirty-three Hungarians, seven Poles and twenty-six students from the Empire or the Low Countries, listed together in the volume.14 These disputations follow the order of the biblical loci, while the principle of organisation in the Collegia is even more interesting. The disputations of these two volumes form a sort of commonplace book, targeting the Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino as the key figure of the anti-Protestant controversies. While Pareus argues against Bellarmino and also Thomas Stapleton in his Ius circa sacra, defending the separation of the lay magistrate from the church,15 this time, he composes a systematic theology against Catholics. In the two following subchapters, I intend to discuss Pareus’s Hungarian contacts in order to reconstruct the context of his anti-Bellarmino controversies and to understand his reason for choosing a commonplace structure for his two volumes. 2

Hungarian Contacts

David Pareus’s Hungarian contacts constitute a field thoroughly explored by Hungarian scholars, however, in order to understand his engagement with the education of young Eastern European pastors, it is essential to present here an overview of it. Due to the lack of institutions of higher education, Hungarian students in the late Middle Ages attended the universities of Padua and Cracow. With the beginning of the Reformation, a new target emerged: Wittenberg, where Melanchthon taught the Hungarian students with a 12  Both volumes contain a list of names categorised in function of nationalities: Pareus David, Collegiorum theologicorum […] decuria una [vol. 1] (Heidelberg, Jonas Rhodius: 1611; VD17 23:637970E) **6v–***1r. 13  Pareus David, Collegiorum theologicorum […] pars altera [vol. 2] (Heidelberg, widow of Jonas Rosa: 1620; VD17 12:110738F) ):():():(1v–):():():(3v. 14  Pareus David, Thesaurus biblicus. Hoc est themata textualia ex s. bibliis veteris et novi testamenti et s. theologiae candidatis ad disserendum proposita (Heidelberg, Geyder: 1621; VD17 12:131883S) )()()(4r–v. 15  Cf. Strohm, “Kompetenz weltlicher Obrigkeit”.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

369

distinguished attention. However, Orthodox Lutheranism and Philippism soon ceded their place to the Helvetian confession amongst the Hungarian-speaking Protestants, especially in Transylvania. By the end of the 16th and during the 17th centuries, the peregrination of the Hungarian students was aimed mainly at the Low Countries and the Palatinate. According to the calculations of János Heltai, Pareus’s courses in Heidelberg were attended by more than 170 students from Hungary and Transylvania between 1595 and 1621: the professor even bought a house in the outskirts of the town in September 1607, where he was granted with immunity of taxes by the elector, and where he hosted his favourite students, including Hungarians.16 Pareus even wrote a dedication letter for a posthumous edition of a work written by his former student Imre Újfalvi Katona (1572?–1610) about the superiority of the Holy Scripture over Church Fathers, councils and traditions. This dedication, signed on March 8th, 1611, was addressed to Péter Alvinci (1570–1634), preacher of Košice, who played a major role in the anti-Catholic controversy in Hungary, himself preaching Irenic views. Pareus praises him especially for having supported Stephen Bocskai’s cause: this prince of Transylvania led a campaign against the Habsbourgs in Upper Hungary, representing the interest of the Protestants against the violent counter-reformation, and was even elected prince of Hungary in 1605. Furthermore, Pareus wrote a eulogical biography of Újfalvi Katona for this book.17 During these decades, Pareus presided over numerous disputations delivered by Hungarian students. The most notable of these are: István Milotai Nyilas (1571?–1623), a student who discussed the eternal predestination on December 30th, 1602, and the future superintendent of the Reformed Church in Debrecen, later preacher in the court of Gabriel Bethlen, prince of Transylvania;18 János Pataki Füsüs, who later dedicated a mirror for princes to Gabriel Bethlen (1626), in which, likely under the influence of Pareus, he underlined the importance of a pious magistrate at the side of the prince;19 András Prágai (1588/92–1636), a friend of János Pataki Füsüs, who later 16  Heltai J., “David Pareus magyar kapcsolatai”, in Herner J. (ed.), Tudóslevelek művelődésünk külföldi kapcsolataihoz (1577–1797), Adattár 23 (Szeged: 1989) 13–76, at 17. (This article also contains an edition of Pareus’s correspondence with Hungarian ministers and officeholders.) Cf. Heltai J., Alvinczi Péter és a heidelbergi peregrinusok, Humanizmus és reformáció 21 (Budapest: 1994). 17  Újfalvi Katona Imre, Tractatus de patrum, conciliorum, traditionum authoritate circa fidei dogmata (Frankfort on the Main, Jonas Rhodius: 1611; VD17 12:110878N). 18  Pareus David (Pr.) – Milotai Nyilas István (Resp.), “De aeterna praedestinatione”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 440–441. 19  Pataki Füsüs János, Királyoknak tüköre (Bardejov, Klöss: 1626); about his political thought, see Vincze H.O., The Politics of Translation and Transmission: Basilikon Doron in Hungarian

370

Förköli

translated Antonio Guevara’s Relox into Hungarian (1628) and dedicated it to George I Rákóczi, diplomat of Bethlen and later prince of Transylvania, and who delivered five disputations in Heidelberg, under the presidency of Pareus and Heinrich Alting;20 István Velechinus, who disputed three times under the presidency of Pareus, and who delivered a funeral speech about Zsuzsanna Károlyi, first spouse to Gabriel Bethlen, which was later published in print as well.21 The frequent occurrence of Bethlen’s name is not by chance. In Eastern Europe, he played an eminent role in the Thirty Years’ War as a Protestant ruler and major supporter of the Helvetian reformation. Having occupied the Kingdom of Hungary as an ally of the Bohemian orders in 1619, he was elected king on August 25th, 1620 by the diet of Banská Bystrica, but he abdicated his title in the treaty of Nikolsburg of December 31st, 1621. In addition, Bethlen sent his nephew and heir István to Heidelberg to pursue his university studies there. In conclusion, Pareus paid particular attention first to Bocskai, then to Bethlen, both princes fighting for the rights of Protestants in Hungary and leading wars against the Catholic Vienna. His Hungarian students became scholars gravitating around Bethlen, and some of them demonstrated interest for the theory of state, sharing Pareus’s commitment for a strong magistrate and for a pious, Protestant ruler. Their professor’s Irenicism presumably encouraged them to believe in an alliance between Calvinists and Lutherans on the threshold of the Thirty Years’ War. Pareus’s special care for this region Political Thought (Newcastle upon Tyne: 2012) 131–188. His disputation, defended on May 16th, 1618, was published in Pareus, Thesaurus biblicus, 86–90. 20  Guevara Antonio – Prágai András, Fejedelmeknek serkentő órája (Bardejov, Klöss jr.: 1628); his disputations: Pareus David (Pr.) – Prágai András (Resp.), “De providentia Dei et causa peccati”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 342–444; Pareus David (Pr.) – Prágai András (Resp.), Thema seculare (Heidelberg, Lancellotus Johannes: 1617, VD17 1:081193Z); Alting Heinrich (Pr.) – Prágai András (Resp.), Problema theologicum: An Calviniani, quos vocant, fundamentum fidei sartum, tectum retineant? (Heidelberg, Lancellotus Johannes: 1617); Pareus David (Pr.) – Prágai András (Resp.), [without title], in Pareus, Thesaurus biblicus 66–69; Pareus David (Pr.) – Prágai András (Resp.), “Assertiones”, in Pareus David, Miscellanea catechetica (Hanau, Aubrius David: 1634): because of the rarity of this edition, I could not specify the page numbers nor verify Jenő Zoványi’s statement, who was the last person to describe this document: Zoványi J., “Adatok Prágai András életéhez és működéséhez”, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 45 (1941) 180–182, at 181. 21  Pareus David (Pr.) – Velechinus István (Resp.), “De persona Christi mediatoris”, “De satisfactione Christi mediatoris pro nostris peccatis” and “De sacra coena Domini”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2., 200–201, 237–239, 326–330; his funeral speech on the princess: Velechinus István, Halálról való emlékezet (Košice, Mollerus: 1622), modern edition in Magyar nyelvű halotti beszédek a XVII. századból, ed. G. Kecskeméti (Budapest: 1988) 113–125.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

371

also appears in the dedications of his Collegia theologica: while the first volume addresses the pastors of Upper and Lower Hungary (Slovakia and the Western part of Hungary, respectively), the second one is dedicated to János Keserűi Dajka (1580–1633), a former student of Heidelberg, a priest in the court of Bethlen and superintendent of the Reformed Church in Transylvania, who supported many Transylvanian students of Heidelberg.22 On the other hand, Pareus’s Irenicism was not appreciated by all Hungarian Protestants. Imre Thurzó (1598–1621), son of the Palatine György Thurzó (viceroy of Hungary), studied in Wittenberg at the age of 17, and due to his high birth, he was elected rector of the university for a short time.23 He was recorded to have delivered a disputation about religious syncretism, presided by Leonhard Hutter,24 who dedicated his Irenicum vere Christianum to him. Thurzó was also the dedicatee of the Vindiciae Lyserianae, written by Polycarp Leyser II, theologian of Jena. Both Hutter’s and Leyser’s work harshly criticised Pareus’s Irenicum, moreover, Leyser as an orthodox Lutheran, claimed that Calvinists and Jesuits were very similar insofar as they were equally enemies of the evangelical faith.25 However, Thurzó seems to have been reconciled with the idea of the alliance of the two Protestant confessions later, for he asked the Irenic Calvinist Péter Alvinci to lead his wedding ceremony. In the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War, Thurzó even joined the Calvinist Gabriel Bethlen, leading an army in Moravia and representing the prince of Transylvania at the negotiations of the Peace of Nikolsburg, during which he suddenly died.26 Pareus’s correspondence with Hungarian clergymen and politicians reflects his deep insight into Hungarian affairs: for instance, Keserűi Dajka made a habit of informing him about Transylvanian news as of 1611. In return, he helped his fellow Hungarian and Transylvanian Calvinists with advice and by sending his works to them. For instance, he sent a copy of his Irenicum to Gabriel Bethlen, longer parts of which János Samarjai (1585–1652) translated into Hungarian 22  About him in English, see: Murdock G., Calvinism on the Frontier 1600–1660. International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania (Oxford: 2000) 121–122. 23  Documents about his studies and rectorship have been collected in Dományházi E. – Font Zs. – Keserű G. – Latzkovits M. (eds.), A Thurzó család és a wittenbergi egyetem. Dokumentumok és a rektor Thurzó Imre írásai 1602–1624, Fontes Rerum Scholasticarum 1 (Szeged: 1989). 24  Kubinyi M., Bethlenfalvi gr. Thurzó Imre, Magyar Történeti Életrajzok (Budapest: 1888) 17. 25  Hutter Leonhard, Irenicum vere Christianum. Sive de synodo et unione evangelicorum non-fucata concilianda, tractatus theologicus (Wittenberg, Helwig: 1616; VD17 3:307980V); Leyser Polycarp, Vindiciae Lyserianae an syncretismus in rebus fidei cum Calvinianis coli possit, et in politica conversatione pontificii illis praeferendi sint? (Leipzig, Lamberg: 1616; VD17 12:111479C). 26  Kubinyi, Bethlenfalvi gr. Thurzó Imre 42–61 and 133–135.

372

Förköli

(1628).27 Furthermore, István Geleji Katona (1589–1649), former student of Heidelberg28 and colleague of Keserűi Dajka, asked Pareus for the manuscript of his De certitudine fidei. Pareus exchanged letters with eminent Protestant poets as well: one of them was Albert Szenci Molnár (1574–1634), a friend of Martin Opitz and translator of the entire Geneva Psaltery, as well as a key figure in the Hungarian peregrination to Heidelberg. Pareus also knew a friend of Szenci Molnár, István Miskolczi Csulyak (1575–1645), author of Reformed church songs and translations of psalms.29 An important part of this large correspondence discussed two main topics. The first one was the case of Imre Szilvásújfalvi Anderkó (before 1570–1616; also known as Imre Újfalvi), a pastor of the Reformed Church in Eastern Hungary, who radically criticised ecclesiastical hierarchy and the institution of superintendency. His violent conflict with his superintendent, Lukács Hodászi (1555–1613), bishop of Debrecen, led to his imprisonment in 1610. About his lawsuit, both Hodászi and his successor, Milotai Nyilas consulted the opinion of Pareus, who admonished them, saying that the use of violence or imprisonment must be the monopoly of the secular magistrate.30 The other important topic was Mihály Veresmarti’s (1572–1645, also spelled as Vörösmarti), a Protestant minister’s reconversion to Catholicism. Born in Southern Hungary (Baranya county), he studied and worked in the central region of Hungary dominated by the Turks. After working as a school rector in Cegléd and Kecskemét, and later as a pastor in Nagykőrös, he had to flee with his parishioners from Tartar invaders to Mojmírovce (today in the county of Nitriansky kraj, Slovakia) in 1599. Because of his anti-Catholic speeches, the Catholic bishop, Ferenc Forgách (1566?–1615) imprisoned him in 1604 and made him read the Controversies of Roberto Bellarmino. During the rebellion, Bocskai’s armies set him free, and he continued working as a preacher, however, under the influence of the great Jesuit, he continuously disputed about religious matters with his fellow ministers who could not ease his growing doubts. Presumably, it was the Jesuit Péter Pázmány (1570–1637), one of the leaders of 27  In the annex of Samarjai János, Magyar harmónia, az az Augustana és az Helvetica Confessio articulusinak egyező értelme (Pápa, Bernárd: 1628). 28  Geleji Katona kept the manuscript of the disputation Pareus had himself written for him. It has survived in the Teleki-Bolyai Library of Târgu Mureș (Bo-22675). Oláh R., “Geleji Katona István disputációjának fogalmazványa David Pareus autográfi kéziratában”, Egyháztörténeti Szemle 16, 3 (2015) 103–105. 29  Heltai, “David Pareus magyar kapcsolatai” 18–23. 30  Keserű B., “Der Fall Imre Újfalvi. Die reformierte Opposition in Ostungarn und die Melanchthon-Anhänger in Sachsen”, in Kühlmann W. – Schindling A. (eds.), Deutschland und Ungarn in ihren Bildungs- und Wissenschaftsbeziehungen während der Renaissance, Contubernium 62 (Stuttgart: 2004) 185–197.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

373

the Hungarian Catholic reform, and later primate of Hungary, who gave him the final push to convert to Catholicism. This conversion was an event which had broad publicity: Veresmarti even translated and published Leonhardus Lessius’s Consultatio (1609) several times, in which the author explains how to choose wisely among Christian confessions, concluding that the perfect choice is Catholicism.31 He also wrote a memoire about his conversion, and he tried to convince some of his former fellow preachers to follow suit, including a student of Pareus’s, István Velechinus. Veresmarti had two discussions with him about the Catholic doctrine: once in 1612 in Trnava, when Velechinus was close to reconverting to Catholicism; and once in 1616 in Šaľa (also in Slovakia), when Velechinus had already returned from Heidelberg, much stronger in his Helvetian conviction. Veresmarti knew about his disputations delivered in Heidelberg.32 During these debates, Hungarian Calvinists sought once again the guidance of Pareus. In 1609, Imre Pécseli Király (cc. 1590–cc. 1641), author of a manual of rhetorics and an Irenic treatise, brought a copy of a manuscript with him to Heidelberg, containing Veresmarti’s doubts. As Pécseli Király was also the one who took with him the manuscript of Újfalvi Katona’s treatise about the authority of the Fathers and the councils, János Heltai suggests that it was meant to be an answer to Veresmarti’s questions. Furthermore, the Catholic author that Pareus attacks in the preface for preferring Church fathers, councils and traditions to the Holy Scripture is Bellarmino himself.33 Anti-Jesuit controversy seems to have been a major concern for Pareus in the 1610s, especially regarding his Hungarian relationships. András Prágai’s disputation, delivered on the 100th anniversary of Reformation, for instance, was criticised by a Jesuit named Maximilianus Sandaeus. In 1618, Prágai responded with another disputation, also presided over by Pareus.34 Meanwhile in Hungary, the Catholic reform and Counter-Reformation were being intellectually strengthened. The reconversion to Catholicism in the Kingdom of Hungary was due in major part to the Society of Jesus, which contributed to the conversion of many magnates, hence a large number of their serfs as well. Their most eminent figure, Péter Pázmány, disciple of Bellarmino himself, published 31  Lessius Leonhardus, Tanacskozas, mellyiket kellyen az külömbözö vallások közeül választani, transl. Mihály Veresmarti (Bratislava, typ. archiepiscopalis: 1611). 32  Vörösmarti Mihály, Vörösmarti Mihály kálvinista prédikátor megtérése históriája, ed. J. Jankovics – J. Nyerges (Budapest: 1992), 219–222; for his life and works, see Baricz Á., “A konverzióelbeszélés mint élettörténet Veresmarti Mihály Megtérése históriájában”, in Balázs M. – Gábor C. (eds.), Emlékezet és devóció a régi magyar irodalomban, Egyetemi Füzetek 3 (Cluj-Napoca: 2007) 223–232. 33  Heltai, “David Pareus magyar kapcsolatai” 22–23. 34  Zoványi, “Adatok Prágai András életéhez és működéséhez” 181.

374

Förköli

the masterpiece of systematic Hungarian apologetics in 1613, with the title Hodoegus or guide to the divine truth. Protestant pastors of Western Hungary translated it and sent it to Wittenberg in order to have a proper response,35 and even in the Eastern part of the country and in the predominantly Protestant Transylvania, there were theologians preoccupied by the challenge presented to them by Pázmány, although they did not publish a direct answer to his work at the beginning. As Bethlen pursued a politics of religious peace and tolerance, he tried to reconcile with the Catholic Church and he allowed the Jesuits to reopen a convent in Cluj-Mănăștur in 1615, after a few decades during which the Society was repeatedly banned from Transylvania.36 The anxiety of the Calvinists was in the very least comprehensible. Even much later, on June 17th 1629, a synod was convoked in Oradea (today in Romania) by Péter Margitai Láni (approx. 1575–1629), successor to Milotai Nyilas as the Calvinist bishop of Debrecen, in order to answer the Hodoegus.37 Pareus’s choice to organise a course against Bellarmino and to dedicate his disputations to Protestant ministers living in the Kingdom of Hungary and in Transylvania fits into the atmosphere of fear nourished by the menacing advances of the Jesuits. 3

Commonplace Structure in Pareus’s Two Volumes of Disputations

The two volumes of Pareus’s disputations embrace not only every possible field of controversy but also show the outline of general theology. As it is indicated in the table of contents and in the index of both volumes, each disputation discusses a locus of theology. Considering the list of these loci, the encyclopaedic ambition becomes very clear, as in the case of his collection published in 1621, bearing the ambitious title Thesaurus. The objective to compose a universal theological handbook and the use of the term locus can be interpreted in the framework of the enormous tradition of commonplace books in the early modern era, in which digesting different subjects into commonplaces was a generalised method. After antique and medieval forerunners, humanist theories emerged to show the rhetorical and pedagogical potential of collecting commonplaces. Rudolphus Agricola suggested in his De inventione dialectica libri tres (1479) and, in a more detailed way, in his De formando studio, a letter to 35  Barta L., “Adalékok a Kalauzra adott wittenbergi válasz készítéséhez”, in Hargittay E. (ed.), Pázmány Péter és kora (Piliscsaba: 2001) 268–273. 36  Molnár A., Lehetetlen küldetés? Jezsuiták Erdélyben és Felső-Magyarországon a 16–17. században (Budapest: 2009) 172–174. 37  Zoványi J., A tiszántúli református egyházkerület története (Debrecen: 1939) 28–29.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

375

Jacobus Barbirianus (1484), that examples and sentences should be collected by students into copybooks or boxes of cards, categorising them with keywords or lemmas.38 Erasmus discussed the methods of reading, re-reading, analysing and imitating classics in his De ratione studii (1511) and in his De duplici copia verborum ac rerum (1512), where he proposed to the pupils to keep two different copybooks: one for the abundance of words, i.e., tropes and figures, locutions and proverbs, and another one for the abundance of things, i.e., examples, sentences, apophthegms, etc. The popularity of this method of organising and classifying knowledge and linguistic material is demonstrated by a vogue of encyclopaedic collections of commonplaces in printed media: Erasmus’s Adagia and Apophthegmata were followed by even more sophisticated and even more voluminous collections, such as Theodor Zwinger’s Theatrum vitae humanae. Melanchthon, whose De locis communibus ratio borrowed important sections from Erasmus’s De copia, considered, as the pertinent analysis of Ann Moss has shown, loci not as literary topoi but rather as ‘heads’ which can be matched with the natural reality of things and which can be used to divide the different scientific terms of a given discipline.39 A locus is thus a basic notion of a discipline, as can be observed in the case of Melanchthon’s innovative theological commonplace book, Loci communes rerum theologicarum (1521). The work of the Wittenberg professor was imitated even by Helvetian theologians, including Wolfgang Musculus in his Loci communes sacrae theologiae (1560), as well as Petrus Martyr Vermigli, whose Loci communes (1576) summarised the chapters of Calvin’s Institutes, initially conceived themselves as collections of commonplaces by the Reformer of Geneva, and were later augmented with chapter headings or additional commonplaces by many editors, including Nicolas Colladon, Edmund Bunnie, Thomas Vautrollier, Caspar Olevianus and Johannes Piscator.40

38  This article has shown how Agricola’s methods of organising arguments influences Sebastian Brant’s Narrenschiff: Wels V., “Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff als Sammlung von Argumenten (loci communes) im Sinne von Rudolf Agricolas De formando studio”, in Bergdolt K. – Knape J. – Schindling A. – Walther G. (eds.), Sebastian Brant und die Kommunikationskultur um 1500, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung 26 (Wiesbaden: 2010) 273–292. 39  Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books 119–133. 40  McLelland J.C., “A Literary History of the Loci Communes”, in Kirby T. – Campi E. – James III F.A. (eds.), A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, Brill Companions to the Christian Tradition 16 (Leiden: 2009) 479–494; Backus I., “Loci communes, and the Role of Ramism in the European Diffusion of Calvin’s Reformation”, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica 22, 2 (2010) 233–247; Strohm Ch., “Petrus Martyr Vermiglis Loci Communes und Calvins Institutio Christianae Religionis”, in Campi E. – James III F.A. – Opitz P. (eds.),

376

Förköli

Pareus’s Hungarian students and scholars were also presumably proficient in this method. They composed commonplace handbooks to be used both in rhetorical invention and in Protestant theology.41 Valentin Eck (1494–after 1547), humanist of the Saxon town of Bardejov (Slovakia), was in close contact with Agricola in Cracow, as well as a disciple of his, Leonard Stöckel (1510– 1560), initiator of the Lutheran reformation in his town, and was taught by the itinerant humanist Leonard Coxe, who gave two lectures on Erasmus’s De copia in Košice. Stöckel published several manuals for the Protestant school he directed, including an annotated edition of Melanchthon’s Loci communes and a selection of Erasmus’s Apophthegmata.42 Later, at the Protestant academy of Strasbourg, a similar view on the copia verborum inspired János Baranyai Decsi (after 1560– 1601), who published a selection of Erasmus’s Adagia (1598), as well as Albert Szenci Molnár, who was the author of a major Hungarian dictionary in which he used the methods of the paroemiology taught by Johannes Sturm and his disciples (Joseph Lang, Johann Bentz and Ludwig Hawenreuter) at the academy of Strasbourg.43 In theology, Stöckel’s version of Commonplaces was followed by other compilations. Tamás Félegyházi (approx. 1540–1586), Calvinist preacher of Debrecen, published a Hungarian Catechism in 1579, which was later re-edited with the title Commonplaces; István Milotai Nyilas published his theological handbook in 1617 in the same town.44 Meanwhile, certain Hungarian scholars expected an international public for their Latin works. István Szegedi Kis (1505–1572) published his book Theologiae sincerae loci communes in 1585 Peter Martyr Vermigli. Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. = Petrus Martyr Vermigli. Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation (Geneva: 2002) 77–104. 41  A short and useful summary can be found here about the commonplace method as a rhetorical and theological tool used in Hungarian schools: Bernhard J.-A., Konsolidierung des reformierten Bekenntnisses im Reich der Stephanskrone. Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte zwischen Ungarn und der Schweiz in der frühen Neuzeit (1500–1700), Refo 500 Academic Studies 19 (Göttingen: 2015) 151–153. 42  Zoványi J., “Adatok Stöckel Lénárd irodalmi működéséhez”, Theologiai Szemle 1 (1925) 168–169; Mészáros I., 16. századi városi iskoláink és a ‘studia humanitatis’, Humanizmus és Reformáció 11 (Budapest: 1981) 51–54; Stöckel’s works: Stöckel Leonhard, Apophthegmata illustrium virorum (Wrocław, Crispin Scharffenberg: 1570; VD16 ZV 31431); Melanchthon Philipp – Stöckel Leonhard, Loci communes theologici (Basel, Johannes Oporinus: 1561; VD16 M 3664). 43  Imre M., ‘Úton jarasnak megirasa’. Kulturális emlékezet, retorikai-poétikai elvek érvényesülése Szenci Molnár Albert műveiben, Humanizmus és Reformáció 31 (Budapest: 2009), 13–179. 44  Félegyházi Tamás, Az keresztieni igaz hitnek reszeiröl valo tanitas kerdesekkel és feleletekkel (Debrecen, Rudolph Hoffhalter: 1579); István Milotai Nyilas, Az mennyei tudomány szerint valo irtovany (Debrecen, Pál Rheda: 1617).

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

377

in Basel, while his friend, Izsák Fegyverneki L. (?–1589) wrote a dictionary of biblical loci with the title Enchiridion, published by Johann Jakob Grynaeus in 1586, also in Basel.45 Composing a textbook out of the disputations of a one’s own students, like Pareus did, is, of course, not a unique case. For instance, Peter Piscator (1571–1611), professor of Jena published a collection of dissertations about the Formula Concordiae and the Augsburg Confession in 1609. Its copy in the State Library of Bavaria contains underlined words, handwritten marginal notes, thus, someone must have used it as a textbook to study the discipline of theology.46 A posthumous edition of the disputations held about physics and presided over by Cornelius Martini (1568–1621), philosopher of Antwerpen, contains texts that are not linked to the names of the respondents, nevertheless, it is evident that the book served pedagogical purposes for it ends with a speech which can be read as an exhortation addressed to the students of physics.47 Johann Michael Dilherr (1604–1669), professor of Jena and later preacher in Nuremberg, published his disputations about the philology of the Holy Scripture with the name of the respondents on the margin and with an abundant index of biblical loci, authors and ‘rerum’.48 Sometimes, professors published collected disputations in very specific fields as well, like Gottfried Müller, teacher at the academy of Jena, who composed a book of dissertations about the laws concerning the fief with very detailed texts presented by the respondents (1601).49 Jacob Le Bleu (1610–1668), professor of law in Gießen, collected political dissertations which uncommonly used quotations from French theorists of reason of state, like Jean de Silhon, pamphlet writer of Richelieu and Mazarin (1660).50 However, structuring the disputations with commonplaces in order to compose a rudimental encyclopaedia of an entire discipline – in the way Pareus did 45  Szegedi Kis István, Theologiae sincerae loci communes de Deo et homine (Basel: Konrad Waldkirch, 1585; VD16 S 10449); Fegyverneki L. Izsák, Enchiridion locorum communium theologicorum, rerum, exemplorum atque phraseon sacrarum (Basel, Konrad Waldkirch: 1586; VD16 M 1035). 46  Piscator Peter, Disputationes XIV. in formulam concordiae. Librum symbolicum omnium ecclesiarum Augustanam confessionem invariatam amplectentium (Jena, Steinmann: 1609, VD17 1:081094B), Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Munich, shelf mark: 12708405 4 Diss. 4558. 47  Martini Cornelius, Disputationes physicae ab interitu vindicatae (Helmstedt, Richter: 1647, VD17 39:113601R). 48  Amongst the two volumes of Dilherr’s disputations, the consulted one was the second: Dilherr Johann Michael, Disputationum academicarum praecipue philologicarum tomus novus (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Endter: 1652, VD17 1:044212V). 49  Müller Gottfried, Disputationes feudales (Jena, Steinmann: 1601, VD17 23:273350W). 50  Le Bleu Jacob, Dissertationes rerum politicarum (Gießen, Gaspar Vulpius: 1660).

378

Förköli

in his books published even earlier than some of the examples quoted above – is more exceptional, even if there are examples for the opposite procedure, i.e., extracting potential topics of disputationes from a commonplace book. As Irene Backus points out, the title page of the Ramist Johannes Piscator’s Aphorismi (1588) reveals that the compiler’s goal was to excerpt subjects for disputations of the students of the Herborn theological academy: ‘Aphorismi de sacramentis: ex institutione Calvini excerpti, et ad disputandum propositi in schola Herbornensi’.51 Each of Pareus’s two volumes embraces about one decade of disputations: volume 1 contains disputations held between 1599 and 1609, whereas the first disputation of volume 2 took place in 1609 and the last one in 1617. Somehow, this latter volume does not respect the chronological order, starting with year 1612, and returning in its last third to the disputations of the year 1609. Maybe, Pareus was unable to put them into the first volume, and he remembered to amend this lack after the composition of the second one. The books are divided into collegia, and each collegium is composed of disputations, each discussing a specific locus of universal theology or controversy. Pareus’s collections suggest that his work with his students was very regular, and so was the documentation of the disputations. The first collegium of the second volume, for instance, starts with a disputation held on November 7th, 1612 and ends on March 20th. Between these two dates, Pareus gathered his students almost every week to discuss a new topic. The next semester started on April 24th, after a vacation of more than one month and it ended with the 17th disputation of this course, delivered on September 4th. The disputations are concise but detailed enough to introduce their reader to the very basis of Helvetian theology. The first volume opens with disputations of 3–4 pages, but they gradually become longer and longer (8 pages or more). Volume 2 contains somewhat longer disputations from the beginning. The structure of each collegium and the order of their disputations resemble the organisation of classical Protestant commonplace books. This similitude is even amplified by the index of the loci at the end of the volumes: a single collegium can be considered as a sort of mise en abyme of the great structure which appears in the index. The list of loci starts with the definition of theology and continues with loci concerning the authority of the Bible. It is followed by God, Trinitology, the Creation, the fall of man, predestination, free will, grace, salvation and Christology. The sacred history is followed by the loci 51  Backus, “Loci communes, and the Role of Ramism” 238; the quoted edition is Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi de sacramentis: ex institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1588).

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

379

of the ways to salvation: justification, sacrament, ecclesiology and the lay magistrate. This final part is especially rich in the loci of the anti-Catholic controversy: the number of the sacraments, the mass, the merits of the deeds, alms, fast, Purgatory and indulgences. This order essentially matches the archetype of all Protestant commonplace books, compiled by Melanchthon. Amongst the many more and less significant differences, there is one which can be found in a pivotal place of the structure. The praeceptor Germaniae starts with the loci about God, whereas Pareus, after the definition of theology itself, starts with a locus about the Holy Scripture, and he only discusses the nature of God and the further loci once he states that the Bible has the absolute authority in theological questions.52 The same structure can be observed in other Calvinist commonplace books as well, for instance, in the aphorisms of Piscator, theologian of Herborn, and it is also imitated by the Hungarian followers of the Helvetian reformation, namely by Tamás Félegyházi and István Milotai Nyilas. Of course, this organisation of the loci is due to a strong emphasis on the principle sola Scriptura. As the Hungarian Mihály Vizsolyi, Pareus’s first respondent in volume I states in the disputation concerning the definition of theology: ‘Theologia est verbo Dei revelata scientia’ (‘Theology is a science revealed by the Word of God’).53 The disputation explains that the Word of God was not always scriptural. From Adam until Moses, it persisted via the tradition of the Patriarchs; then, in the time of Moses, it was written on the Tablets of Stone, and later, it was preached by Prophets in the times of the Old Testament, and by the Apostles in the era of the New Testament. Meanwhile, oral tradition and direct inspiration ceded their place to the Holy Scripture, which has become the absolute authority in religious matters, containing a doctrine which is comprehensible and evident.54 The priority of the Bible over other possible sources of the Christian doctrine was, as we have seen, a central question in the anti-Bellarmino controversies of Hungarian and Transylvanian Calvinists. This strict biblicism, underlined by the structure of the book, also has its foundation in the religious anthropology of the Institutes of Calvin. The Reformer of Geneva devotes a whole argumentation to the ways of knowing God. He claims that there is a natural knowledge of God, which, originally, was meant to be innate and universal in every 52  Kallweit H., Kulturelle Konfigurationen. Studien zum Verhältnis von Wissensordnungen und Erzählformen (Paderborn: 2015); cf. Maurer W., “Melanchthons Loci communes von 1521 als wissenschaftliche Programmschrift. Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik der Reformationszeit”, Lutherjahrbuch 27 (1960) 1–50. 53  Pareus David (Pr.) – Vizsolyi Mihály (Resp.), “De theologia et verbo Dei”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 3. 54  Pareus (Pr.) – Vizsolyi (Resp.), “De theologia et verbo Dei” 3–5.

380

Förköli

human being. Obscured by original sin, it became weak and unreliable, and grew into the source of pagan beliefs, idolatry and false philosophical concepts on God. Instead of natural theology, all knowledge about God must be founded in the Scripture (Institutes, 1, 3–6).55 A common feature of many Calvinist commonplace books consists in the pivotal role they confer to the anthropology of human weakness. For instance, the work of István Szegedi Kis, Theologiae sincerae loci communes, is a monumental synthesis of theology and anthropology, discussing God in the first part, and man in the second. Like Calvin and his other followers, Pareus also emphasises the biblical account of the fall of Adam and the corrupted human nature by placing the relevant disputations at the beginning of his list of loci (see Appendix). 4

Controversial Points

On the previous few pages, the Collegia theologica was presented as a handbook of systematic theology. Now, it will be analysed as a textbook for controversial theology. I will test Pareus’s disputations on the presence of two topics: the Irenic spirit in the matter of Lutheran-Calvinist polemics and the Anti-Jesuit controversy. 4.1 Irenic Spirit in Pareus’s Disputations about the Lord’s Supper The Lord’s Supper is a locus of theology frequently treated on the pages of the Collegia. In the first volume, there are as many as ten disputations about this topic. The index of the second one lists eight of them but there are three further relevant disputations on this matter. As it can be easily predicted, the disputations discuss the main components of the Helvetian doctrine, addressing them both against the Catholics and the Lutherans: the texts argue that the Lord’s Supper is an act of commemoration referring to Christ’s passion and death; that the Saviour’s body and blood are consumed only in a spiritual and not in a corporal sense, for their presence is only symbolic and not real. The semiotic framework of the interpretation is particularly emphasised in the disputations: the bread and the wine only denote the crucified body and the effused blood but are not identical with them. Thus, the locus of the Lord’s Supper seems to be a good example to show how far Pareus’s books can be considered as textbooks for controversial matters.

55  About Calvin’s religious anthropology, see Preus J.S., “Zwingli, Calvin and the Origin of Religion”, Church History 46, 2 (1977) 186–202.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

381

Generally, these disputations refute both explanations for the doctrine of the real presence: while Catholics explained the presence of Christ’s body and blood with the complete transubstantiation of the bread and the wine, Lutherans claimed that they are present consubstantialiter in the two species. Luther also believed in the ubiquitas of Christ’s body, i.e., its presence everywhere. Pareus’s counterarguments are based on the logical and moral absurdity of trans- and consubstantiation, while he contrasts the ubiquitas with the simple biblical fact that Jesus ascended to heaven in his body, thus, he can be everywhere only in a spiritual way as a person of the Trinity.56 One of the debated points, often mentioned in the disputations, is the practice of the fractio panis, the breaking of the bread. Reformed pastors, like Pareus, used this practice to divide the bread, unlike Lutherans who preferred to consecrate several smaller pieces of bread before distributing them to the parishioners. As a disputation explains, this practice conformed to the words hoc facite (Luke 22,19) because it was Christ himself who broke the bread at the Last Supper. Moreover, Bodo Nischan argues that the act of breaking not only symbolised the passion of Christ for the Calvinists, but by multiplying the pieces of bread, it also demonstrated the absurdity of the real presence of Christ’s body in the bread.57 As a disputation of Pareus’s declares, without the breaking, the communion is not the same because an essential element is lacking: ‘Thus, without the breaking the Supper is still a supper, but it is deprived of its rite: like a man deprived of his foot or hand is still a man but useless’ (‘Absque fractione igitur Coena est quidem coena, sed ritu mutila: ut homo pede vel manu mutilus est quidem homo, sed inutilis’).58 To avoid any mistake, another disputation clarifies that the breaking, contrary to some other aspects of the communion, is not indifferent from a doctrinal point of view either. Or, in other words, breaking or not breaking the bread is not an adiaphoron: ‘The matter and the quality of the bread are adiaphora: but breaking the bread is not at all’ (‘Panis materia et qualitas adiaphora est: fractio vero panis nequaquam’).59 In another disputation, Pareus observes that even Catholics, who are in this respect in continuity 56  Pareus David (Pr.) – Bölöni Mihály (Resp.), “De coena Domini et missa papistica”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 592–593. 57  Nischan B., “The ‘Fractio Panis’. A Reformed Communion Practice in Late Reformation Germany”, Church History 53, 1 (1984) 17–19. 58  Pareus David (Pr.) – Namsler David (Resp.), “De coena Domini” in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 83. 59  Pareus David (Pr.) – Privat Jakob (Resp.), “De coena Domini et de missa papistica”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 726. In another disputation, he considers mixing the wine with water or avoiding it as adiaphoron, arguing again that breaking the bread is mandatory (Pareus David [Pr.] – Hurter Melchior [Resp.], “De coena Domini”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 526).

382

Förköli

with the apostolic tradition, practise breaking the bread.60 One can also risk the assertion that it is Pareus’s Irenic spirit that manifests in this very reference to the Catholic rite: if he finds a valid argument in the non-Protestant tradition, he does not reject to use it. The approval of the common tradition is, of course, more apparent when the disputations refer to the Lutheran doctrine. Even if the disputations frequently refute the consubstantialiter interpretation of the communion, the main target remains the Papist Eucharist and the mass. Once, the book refers to the Apologia Augustanae Confessionis because the author approves its very basic conceptual division of the sacrament: ‘This sacrament, like all others, consists, as the apology of the Augsburg Confession rightfully claims, of an element and words’ (‘Sacramentum hoc, reliquorum instar, constare elemento et verbo, recte dicitur in Apologia Augustanae Confessionis’).61 In one place, interestingly, the disputation attributes the invention of the consubstantialiter theory not to Luther but to Pierre d’Ailly (Petrus de Alliaco, 1350/1–1420), a wellknown participant of the councils of Pisa and Constance, the author of the astronomical work Imago mundi, and a nominalist following Ockham. Luther’s culpability is thus somewhat marginalised by this uncommon reference.62 The disputation written for the Hungarian István Velechinus, who was later involved in the famous case of Mihály Veresmarti’s conversion to Catholicism, is a par excellence Irenic text regarding the Lord’s Supper. In the text, the author imputes the dogma of the real presence to the sophism of the Papists (i.e., the scholastic theology) and explains that the different interpretation of the communion must not trouble the peace between Protestants. To do this, he quotes Luther’s own words from the Marburg Colloquy, which expressed the incertitude of the reformer in this question, concluding that the right interpretation of the sacrament depended on God’s enlightening grace: The position of the controversy about this matter has been maculated by many individuals up to the present day; it is impossible to form a 60  Pareus David (Pr.) – Nivan Jan Amos (Resp.), “De Domini coena sive eucharistia”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 168. 61  Pareus (Pr.) – Hurter (Resp.), “De coena Domini” 523. 62  ‘This thing [Christ’s body or blood], as can be observed in the use of the sacraments, is not necessarily present either in the species of bread and wine through the Papist transsubstantiation or in the bread and wine through Ailly’s consubstantiation’ (‘Quae res, ut percipiatur in usu Sacramenti, non necesse habet corporaliter adesse sub speciebus panis et vini, per Transsubstantiationem Papisticam, vel in pane et vino, per Consubstantiationem Alliacam’) (Pareus David [Pr.] – Bakai György [Resp.], “De sacramento coenae Domini et missa pontificia”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 361).

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

383

better conclusion than the one Luther himself articulated at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, at which article 14 stated that after the opposing parties had come to a concord in every other matter, they remained in controversy only about the Holy Communion: If Christ’s body and blood are really and bodily present in the bread and the wine: this question must not trouble the peace between the Evangelical Churches, which is expressed in these terms which I transcribe here in German: ‘Although we have not come to an agreement this time about whether Christ’s real body and blood are bodily present in the bread and the wine, the different parties should demonstrate to each other as much Christian love as their conscience allows them to, and both parties should eagerly beg God the Almighty to grant us the right understanding through his Spirit. Amen’. Huius controversiae status varie hactenus ab aliis atque aliis incrustatus quidem fuit: Non potest vero magis rotunde formari, quam a Luthero ipso, in colloquio Marpurgensi anno 1529 formatus fuit: ubi Artic[ulus] XIV post omnia alia, inter partes concordata, de S[acra] Coena dicit hoc solum restare in controversia: An verum corpus et sanguis Christi, corporaliter sit in pane et in vino: Propter hanc vero non debere turbari Evangelicarum Ecclesiarum pacem, verba ista ostendunt, quae germanice adscribam: Und wie wol aber wir uns (Ob der wahre Leib und Blut Christi leiblich im Brodt und Wein sei) diese Zeit nicht verglichen haben, so soll doch ein theyl gegen dem andern Christliche Liebe, so ferne jedes Gewissen immermehr leiden kan, erzeygen, unnd beyde theyl Gott den Allmächtigen fleissig bitten, daß er uns durch seinen Geist, in dem rechten verstand bestätigen wolle, Amen.63 Although Pareus remains inside Orthodox Calvinism when he discusses the Lord’s Supper, his alliance with the Lutherans can be observed in his rhetorics: he not only avoids blaming them for the doctrine of the real presence, openly recommending religious peace, he does not even mention that certain Lutherans do not practice the fractio panis, which is essential for him. In the matter of the Lord’s Supper, his real target is Bellarmino. 4.2 Controversies with Bellarmino Pareus was obviously determined to prepare his students for potential Anti-Jesuit controversies through his series of disputations. Unfortunately, the 63  Pareus David (Pr.) – Velechinus István (Resp.), “De sacra coena Domini”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 328 (italics of the original).

384

Förköli

edition of these texts does not indicate the names of the opponents – if there were any –, and as usually, no records were made during the disputations, nor were the counter-arguments the respondents had to deal with reproduced.64 It is thus unknown if there was anyone who argued for the Jesuit position in the debate, although some disputations have an annexe with the title Problemata, written in a quasi-dialogical form. However, they only contain yes and no questions and the affirmative or negative answers without any argumentation. Roberto Bellarmino’s Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus hujus temporis hereticos, first published in 1586 and followed by two further volumes, is a recurring reference in Pareus’s disputations. To some extent, Bellarmino’s work helped Pareus organise and structure the disputations and their arguments. On the other hand, a Hungarian Jesuit, István Szántó (or Arator, with his erudite name; approx. 1540–1612) was right to criticise his Italian fellow. Szántó, in his Censura primi tomi Controversiarum patris Bellarmini, published in 1591, argued that Bellarmino resumed the Protestants’ arguments in his book in a more systematic way than the Protestants themselves, providing a strong intellectual armour for the reformers.65 Even if this criticism had a somewhat twisted logic, the structure of Bellarmino’s work seems to constitute a sort of superstructure above the order of Pareus’s commonplaces. Yet, the Protestant structure remains predominant: although Bellarmino begins with the Holy Scripture too, which he discusses together with tradition or the unwritten words of God, he continues with his ecclesiology, a topic discussed by Pareus in the second half of his commonplaces, similarly to many other Protestants.66 In the second volume of the Collegia, the fact that certain disputations are directed against Bellarmino is explicitly indicated on the title page. Bellarmino’s name is also omnipresent in the first volume and in the first collegium, held in the spring and the summer of 1599, the mentions of the Jesuit are systematic rather than sporadic. The topics – the alleged Pelagianism of the Jesuits, the justification, the sacraments in general, the baptism, the Lord’s 64  Cf. Marti, “Dissertationen” 303. 65  Szántó István, Censura primi tomi controversiarum patris Bellarmino. Rome, ARSI, Fondo Ges. 652, fol. 153r–157r. In a modern edition: Le Bachelet X.-M. (ed.), Auctarium Bellarminianum (Paris: 1913) 403–15. See also Bitskey I., “Bellarmino-Rezeption und AntiBellarminismus in Ungarn 1590–1625”, in Breuer D., Religion und Religiosität im Zeitalter des Barock, Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 25 (Wiesbaden: 1995), vol. 2, 809–815, at 812. 66  For the structure of Bellarmino’s work, I used the first edition of Ingolstadt: Bellarminus Robertus, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, 3 vols. (Ingolstadt, David Sartorius: 1586–1593). However, some later editions divided the work into four volumes, rather than three.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

385

Supper, the mass and Catholic views about the Church67 – can be grouped into three major themes: justification, sacraments and ecclesiology, respectively corresponding to volumes 3, 2 and 1 of Bellarmino’s Controversies. In the further disputations, the controversial questions directed against the Jesuit cover a great diversity of topics. Pareus and his circle criticise him for his views on the faith, justification and satisfaction given by the death of Christ, celibacy, the merit of good deeds, Purgatory, the invocation of the angels and the saints, the primacy of the pope, and once they argue against his opinion that women or non-Christians may baptise somebody in the case of lethal danger.68 A sequence of disputations, delivered by the Hungarians Mihály Várdi Dobrán, János Budai and Pál Gyúrói, and the German Johann Neerkorn in February and March 1609, discusses, respectively, the invocation of the saints, Purgatory, the marriage of priests and the authority of the councils, each of them consisting of 10 articles, and each of these articles, with very few exceptions, refutes an assertion made by Bellarmino, giving an exact reference to the relevant locus in the Controversies.69 The systematic refutation of the Jesuit’s entire work is placed at the end of the second volume, where the matters of the dissertations follow the exact order of the three volumes of the controversies: they discuss scriptural and non-scriptural authorities in the matter of the doctrine; ecclesiology, including the members of the Church (clergymen and monks); the cult of the saints as members of the heavenly Church (from volume 1 of the 67  Pareus David (Pr.) – Roder Konrad (Resp.), “De fide justificante”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Szegedi Benedek (Resp.), “De justificatione fidei”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Libigius Adam (Resp.), “De sacramentis in genere”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Marcovicius Johann (Resp.), “De baptismo”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Vizsolyi Mihály (Resp.), “Falsa et portentosa dogmata papistarum et Iesuitarum de eucharistia”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Vizsolyi Mihály (Resp.), “Falsa dogmata papistarum de ecclesia eiusque notis”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 39–44, 44–57, 73–75, 75–79, 85–97, 115–120. 68  For instance, Pareus David (Pr.) – Kovásznai Imre (Resp.), “De regeneratione et resipiscentia”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Stephan Wilhelm (Resp.), “Appendix thesium de regeneratione”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Alvinci Péter (Resp.), “De bonis operibus”, Pareus David (Pr.) – Érsekújvári Gáspár (Resp.), “De missa pontificia”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Praetereus Ferdinand (Resp.), “De quinque sacramentis papisticae ecclesiae falso nominatis”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Weigel Martin (Resp.), “De bonis operibus”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Langescheid Heinrich (Resp.), “De baptismo”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Bouchard Étienne (Resp.), “De invocatione Dei”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 255–260, 260–266, 268–271, 376–384, 384–392, 620–624, 722–724, 739–740. 69  Pareus David (Pr.) – Várdi Dobrán Mihály (Resp.), “De invocatione sanctorum”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Budai János (Resp.), “De purgatorio”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Gyúrói Pál (Resp.), “De matrimonio errores pontificiorum”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Neerkorn Johann (Resp.), “De conciliis”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 849–852, 853–857, 860–862, 862–864.

386

Förköli

Controversies); the sacraments in general and in particular, (from volume 2) the grace of the first man, his fall and the original sin; free will; the justification by faith and the merit of good deeds, including prayer, alms and fast (from volume 3).70 The style of this controversy is a crucial question. How much does Pareus, who spares his Lutheran brothers in the debates about the Lord’s Supper, respect his Jesuit opponent? Sometimes, he does not refrain from harsh expressions, qualifying Bellarmino’s accusations against the Protestants as ‘calumny’.71 Although the style of the disputations is usually simple and without any ornaments, as can be observed in texts of Protestant scholasticism, the text does not lack some wit directed against the Jesuit, like in a disputation about the number of the sacraments: ‘Moreover, if every single order [of priesthood] were a sacrament, as Bellarmino vigorously and pompously claims, the Church would have not only seven but thirteen sacraments’ (‘Adde quod si singuli ordines per se sunt sacramenta, quod Bellarminus admodum, histrionice contendit: non iam septem sed minimum XIII. Ecclesia habebit sacramenta’).72 But in spite of the large number of controversial points, the language used against Bellarmino is hardly ever violent. In a dissertation defended by Petrus Lossius from Gdańsk in 1613 about the good deeds, the respondent follows the guidelines as they are proposed by Bellarmino for this matter: just like the Jesuit, he discusses prayer (oratio), fast (ieiunium) and alms (eleemosyna), claiming, of course, that Bellarmino treated these topics imperfectly in the third principal controversy of the third general controversy in his third volume. The respondent’s counter-arguments, however, sometimes touch insignificant points, and they seem to be merely hair-splitting. He criticises Bellarmino because he ‘is wrong when he does not list the burial of the dead amongst the deeds of charity and mercy’ (‘Falso idem asserit, nostros sepulturam murtuorum inter dilectionis et misericordiae opera non recensere’).73 He also reproaches the Jesuit 70  Some examples: Pareus David (Pr.) – Samarjai János (Resp.), “De vanitatibus Bellarmini circa traditiones ecclesiasticas”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Siderius István (Resp.), “De vanitatibus circa controversiam de monarchia ecclesiastica Petri apostoli”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Uchtmann Christoph (Resp.), “De vanitatibus Bellarmini circa controversiam de successione pontificis Romani”; Pareus David (Pr.) – Kanizsai Paulides János (Resp.), “De vanitatibus Bellarmini circa controversiam de conciliis ecclesiasticis”, etc., in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 413–421, 430–433, 433–436, 450–455. 71  For instance, Pareus David (Pr.) – Lossius Petrus (Resp.), “De bonis operibus in particulari”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 2, 73: ‘Calumnia Bellarmini est […]’. 72  Pareus David (Pr.) – Praetereus Ferdinand (Resp.), “De quinque sacramentis papisticae ecclesiae falso nominatis”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 390. 73  Pareus (Pr.) – Lossius (Resp.), “De bonis operibus in particulari” 75.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

387

for restricting the discussion of charity to one particular commandment, and in the same sentence, he implicitly blames him for using the Catholic division of the Ten Commandments: ‘Bellarmino wrongly reduces the alms to his fourth commandment: we generally consider that the entire second table, and especially the eighth commandment, recommends the love of our neighbours’ (‘Incongrue Bellarminus eleemosynam refert ad quartum suum Decalogi praeceptum: nos generatim tota secunda tabula, de diligendo proximo, speciatim octavo praecepto praecipi existimamus’).74 Finally, as if the respondent were out of arguments against the Jesuit in such marginal matters, he accepts his judgement about the Anabaptist concept of Christian charity: ‘We are ready to agree with Bellarmino and disapprove of the community of goods against the Anabaptists’ (‘Communionem omnium bonorum cum Bell[armino] contra Anabaptistas facile improbamus’).75 Even a Calvinist can sometimes agree with a Jesuit, and Bellarmino’s work is used in a very particular way by Balthasar Tilesius, a student from Silesia, who disputed about the Church on 23rd December 1605. He follows the ecclesiological terms from the first volume of the Controversies, and he not only uses and approves of the Jesuit’s distinction between Ecclesia triumphans and Ecclesia militans – i.e., the Church enjoying heavenly happiness and the Church still fighting against evil on earth –, but he also marks an exact reference to Bellarmino on the margin.76 As a Protestant, of course, he does not mention the term of Ecclesia patiens, i.e., the members of the Church who wait for their salvation in Purgatory according to the Catholics. However, the Silesian student is not the only one amongst Pareus’s disciples to speak about the first two terms of the Jesuit’s division of the Church: Johann Neerkorn of Jena, who attacked Bellarmino’s views on the signs of the true Church in his disputation of 1606, had no problem with using the same distinction.77 Balthasar Tilesius, in addition, introduced the term Ecclesia particularis or, with an alternative denomination, Ecclesia visibilis. On the one hand, it is a particular community (coetus) and a building where the members of a congregation are gathered to praise God. On the other hand, the terms denote that the Church exists under historical and social circumstances, implying that human vice, sin and first of all, hypocrisy can be present inside the Church, mixed with the virtue of true 74  Pareus (Pr.) – Lossius (Resp.), “De bonis operibus in particulari” 75. 75  Ibidem. 76  Pareus David (Pr.) – Tilesius Balthasar (Resp.), “De ecclesia”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 605. 77  Pareus David (Pr.) – Neerkorn Johann (Resp.), “De ecclesia et conciliis”, in Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum, vol. 1, 664–665.

388

Förköli

Christians.78 The interesting thing is that the same idea is usually expressed by Protestants with the opposite term of Ecclesia abscondita, the hidden Church. Used by Luther, this expression suggests that a particular individual’s true affiliation to the Church is unknown to man, and it is known only by God.79 Meanwhile, the visibility of the true Church is a Catholic doctrine, defended by Bellarmino in his chapter De Ecclesia militante (lib. 4, cap. 12–13 of volume 1), where he claims that the true Church can be recognised based on visible signs. Even if this idea is incompatible with Protestant teaching, the disputation of the Silesian student uses the term of Ecclesia visibilis in order to formulate a Calvinist teaching of what is visible and what is invisible in the Christian congregation. Thus, Bellarmino is not only a mere target for Pareus’s project of Anti-Catholic controversy, but he also serves as a guideline for Pareus and his pupils, who creatively use and reinterpret the Jesuit’s terminology. 5

Conclusion

As it has been demonstrated with a few examples above, the structure and the paratextual elements of organisation enable Pareus’s Collegia theologica to be used as a handbook of theology and controversy. Amongst his students, his work was actually able to contribute to the further development of theological commonplace books. One of his most eminent Hungarian pupils, István Milotai Nagy attested great ambition regarding this genre: when he published his handbook of Christian theology in the same town of Debrecen, where his predecessor Tamás Félegyházi had published his own Hungarian commonplace book a few decades before, he claimed in the foreword that his work was meant to be the first book of loci communes written in the Hungarian language.80 Furthermore, Pareus indubitably influenced the tone of religious controversies in Eastern Europe, and as we have seen, his disputations reflect and convey not only his Irenicism struggling for a confessional peace between Protestants, but also his professional, reasonable attitude towards his Catholic opponent Roberto Bellarmino. In the Kingdom of Hungary and in Transylvania, the presence of Jesuit arguments was overwhelming. But did Pareus’s two volumes, in addition to the direct role the disputations played in the education of his Hungarian pupils, facilitate the Anti-Jesuit controversy among Transylvanian 78  Pareus (Pr.) – Tilesius (Resp.), “De ecclesia” 606. 79  Heckel J., Lex charitatis. A Juristic Disquisition on Law in the Theology of Martin Luther, translated by G.G. Krodel (Grand Rapids – Cambridge: 2010) 217–218. 80  Milotai Nyilas, Az mennyei tudomány szerint valo irtovany A1r–A3r.

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

389

and Hungarian Protestants? It is common knowledge amongst Hungarian historians that the Jesuit Péter Pázmány’s major Anti-Protestant book, the Hodoegus, had no direct answers from Calvinists. This fact is partly explained by the hypothesis that Calvinists underestimated the intellectual performance of Pázmány’s book, considering it as a mere compilation of Bellarmino’s arguments, and they preferred to concentrate their counterarguments on Bellarmino’s works. In 1618, reformed theologians – maybe Milotai Nyilas himself – published a book which explained their silence in this issue. The Six causes of the Calvinist silence, or why Calvinist preachers do not answer the Hodoegus? has no known copy, but its arguments can be reconstructed from Pázmány’s reaction. One of the six points affirms that the Jesuit’s book needs no answers because Protestant theological textbooks already contain the perfect arguments to every Catholic accusation. The author further refuses to answer Pázmány because of his explicit language, allegedly using invectives and violent terms. This explanation would be compatible with Pareus’s Irenicism and Gabriel Bethlen’s politics of religious tranquillity.81 The publication of Pareus’s disputations as a theological handbook answering Bellarmino’s Controversies and as an exhortation to interconfessional peace fits into this narrative: refusing any debate with Pázmány’s work, full of rhetorical abuses and coarse language, the Heidelberg students chose a purely intellectual argumentation against Bellarmino. All evidence shows that the Hungarian intellectual public was receptive of this kind of systematic treatment of religious controversy. Although little is known about the fate of the Hungarian copies of the Collegia theologica, it is certain that the cultural transfer initiated by Pareus’s work reached far beyond theology: in 1619, Pareus’s son, Johann Philipp published a collection of Hungarian Neo-Latin poetry in Frankfort on the Main, including the works of the greatest humanist poet of Hungary, Ianus Pannonius (1434–1472). Symbolising the cooperation between Transylvania and the Palatinate inside a Calvinist Republic of Letters, the book was dedicated to István, nephew and heir of the Transylvanian prince.82 In the same way it united in itself representative purposes and erudition, the publication of David Pareus’s disputations not only emphasised the intellectual strength of a Protestant community, but also provided a practical tool for their debates.

81  My arguments are based on the following reconstruction: Barcza J., “Újabb szempontok a Pázmány-vitához”, Református Egyház 30 (1978) 154–160. 82  Pareus Johann Philipp (ed.), Delitiae poetarum Hungaricorum (Frankfort on the Main, heir of Jakob Fischer: 1619; VD17 14:642839Y and VD17 3:308891H).

390 6

Förköli

Appendix: a Structural Comparison of Theological Commonplace Books

Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De cognitione Dei

De s. theologia et verbo Dei De s. theologiae principiis et partibus De s. scriptura generatim De libris canonicis et apocryphis De s. scripturae authoritate et perfectione De s. scripturae perspicuitate et interpreatione De judice controversiarum in controversiis fidei

De authoritate scripturae

De Deo De tribus personis divinitatis De filio De spiritu sancto

De creatione

De Deo

De Deo ejusque salutari cognitione De attributis Dei De Deo uno et trino seu de trinitate De creatione mundi, angelorum et hominum De angelis bonis et malis De creatione hominis ad imaginem Dei De providentia Dei De creatione mundi, De angelis, & spiritibus immundis angelorum et hominum De angelis bonis et malis De prima naturae nostrae integritate: De creatione hominis ad ubi de imagine Dei imaginem Dei De providentia Dei & libero arbitrio De providentia Dei

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De scripturae s. canone De s. scripturae authoritate, versione, lectione De s. scripturae obscuritate et interpretatione De interprete authentico, et iudice supremo interpretationum scripturae et controversiarum fidei De perfectione s. scripturae et de traditionibus De necessitate s. scripturae De Deo uno et s. trinitate personarum divinarum De omnipotentiae Dei, eiusque abusu

De creatione mundi, angelorum et hominum De providentia Dei

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

391

(Appendix cont.) Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

De causa peccati et de De peccato contingentia De humanis viribus seu de libero arbitrio De peccato De peccato originis De peccatis actualibus

De lege divina Divisio legum Expositio decalogi De lege naturae De usu legis De discrimine consilium et praeceptorum De vindicta De paupertate De castitate De evangelio Quare opus est evangelii promissione?

De lege Dei De persona & officio Christi De fide De poenitentia: ubi etiam de vita Christiana & tolerantia crucis De justificatione De similitudine & discrimine veteris & novi testamenti De libertate Christiana De scandalo

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De lapsu hominis De peccato in genere ejusque distinctionibus De causa peccati De peccati originalis natura, propagatione et effectis De poena peccati, morte et miseria hominis De libero hominis arbitrio

De lapsu hominis et primo eius peccato De peccato in genere et in specie de originali et actuali De peccato in spiritum sanctum De causa peccati primi et reliquorum omnium De aeterna Dei praedestinatione De duplici praedestinatione Dei, una bonorum ad gloriam, altera malorum ad poenam: secundum Fulgentium ad Monimum De libero arbitrio hominis De gratia De foedere Dei veteri et novo: deque utriusque convenientiae et discrimine De lege et evangelio, et de utriusque discrimine

De lege ejusque abrogatione et usu De aeterna Dei praedestinatione De gratia De evangelio De foedere Dei veteri et novo De Christi mediatoris persona, officio et beneficiis generatim De Christi mediatoris persona seu de filio Dei incarnato De vera Christi divinitate et humanitate

De persona Christi mediatoris De incarnatione filii Dei De communicatione idiomatum De officio mediatoris De satisfactione Christi mediatoris

392

Förköli

(Appendix cont.) Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De gratia et de iustificatione De vocabulo fidei De vocabulo gratiae De bonis operibus Quae opera sunt facienda? Quomodo possunt fieri bona opera? Quomodo placent Deo bona opera? Propter quas causas facienda sunt bona opera? De praemiis De discrimine peccatorum De argumentis adversariorum De discrimine veteris et novi testamenti De discrimine peccati mortalis et venialis

De precatione De praedestinatione De resurrectione carnis, & vita aeterna

De unione personalis duarum naturarum in Christo De triplici officio Christi mediatoris De passione Christi De morte et sepultura Christi De descensu Christi ad inferos De satisfactione et merita Christi mediatoris De resurrectione Christi De ascensu Christi in coelos De sessione Christi ad dextram Dei De spiritus s. persona, officio et donis

De ecclesia Contra Donatistas De signis monstrantibus ecclesiam, quae alii notas nominant

De ecclesia De ministris ecclesiae De ecclesiae disciplina De votis

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De morte Christi pro omnibus De Christi sepultura, resurrectione, ascensu in coelum, sessione ad dexteram Dei De descensu Christi ad inferos De fide iustificante De iustificatione fidei De certitudine fidei, iustificationis, praedestinationis De perseverantia sanctorum De sanctificatione seu regeneratione et conversione hominis ad Deum De necessitate, perfectione et meritis bonorum operum De bonis operibus in particulari oratione, ieiunio, ciborum, delectu, eleemosyna De ecclesia De ecclesia Dei De notis ecclesiae veris et De notis ecclesiae visibilis Falsa dogmata papistarum de falsis De ministerio et ministris ecclesia eiusque notis ecclesiae eorumque De ecclesia falsa eiusque legitima vocatione notis De regimine ecclesiae Papatum non esse veram externo et papae Rom. ecclesiam primatu Nos non esse schismaticos De conciliis ecclesiasticis aut haereticos, eo, quod a papatu secessionem fecimus De clericis De monachis, et perfectione De capite et membris monastica ecclesiae

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

393

(Appendix cont.) Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De laicis et potestate seu De monarchico ecclesiae magistratu civili status De primatus pontificis Romani De antichristo De regimine ecclesiastico in ecclesia apostolica De regimine ecclesiastico ante papatum et sub papatu De ministro et ministris ecclesiae, eorumque vocatione De potestate ecclesiae circa doctrinam De potestate ecclesiae circa disciplinam in legibus ferendi De potestate ecclesiae circa disciplinam in censuris agendis De conciliis De fide justificante De justificatione fidei Falsa dogmata Lombardi, concilii Tridentini, Bellarmini, etc. de iustificatione De sanctificatione et regeneratione De resipiscentia et poenitentia Falsa dogmata concilii Tridentini, catechismi Romani et Bellarmini de poenitentia De bonis operibus De meritis bonorum operum, et de merito ex Biel et Thoma de Argent[ina] De libertate Christiana

394

Förköli

(Appendix cont.) Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

De sacramentis De numero sacramentorum Confirmatio De unctione De baptismo De coena Domini De sacrificio De eucharistico sacrificio De poenitentia De contritione De fide De confessione De praeceptis De satisfactione De praedestinatione De regno Christi De resurrectione mortuorum De spiritu et litera De calamitatibus et de cruce et de veris consolationibus De invocatione Dei seu de praecatione

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

De sacramentis De baptismo De paedobaptismo De coena Domini De missa papali

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De conscientia bona et mala De traditionibus humanis et adiaphoris De scandalo De votis De consiliis et praeceptis De precatione et invocatione Dei De iuramento De beatitudine, cultu et invocatione sanctorum De ieiuniis De eleemosyna De sacramentis in genere De baptismo De s. coena Domini De missa papistica Falsa et impia dogmata papistarum et Iesuitarum de eucharistia et de sacrificio Missa ex Bellarmino et concilio Tridentino De pseudo-sacramento confirmationis De pseudo-sacramento poenitentiae De pseudo-sacramento extremae unctionis De pseudo-sacramento septem ordinum De pseudo-sacramento matrimonii De matrimonio seu conjugio De matrimonio varii errores pontificiorum

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De sacramentis in genere De baptismo De s. coena seu eucharistia De possibilitate praesentiae corporis Christi sub speciebus eucharistiae De missa papistica fugienda et tollenda De pseudosacramento poenitentiae De indulgentiis, extrema unctione, ordine ecclesiastico, matrimonio De purgatorio De statu sanctorum post hanc vitam De intercessione et invocatione sanctorum, et reliquiarum veneratione De invocatione De statuis et imaginibus in templis De votis et iuramentis De antichristo De papatu fugiendo De coelo beatorum

DAVID PAREUS ’ S COLLECTED DISPUTATIONS

395

(Appendix cont.) Melanchthon, Loci communes, 3th edition (CR21, table of contents from page XIII–XVI)

Piscator Johannes, Aphorismi doctrinae christianae ex Institutione Calvini excerpti (Herborn, Christoph Corvin: 1589)

De politico De magistratibus magistratu civilibus et dignitate rerum politicarum De ceremoniis humanis in ecclesia De mortificatione carnis De scandalo De libertate Christiana

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. I. (1611), fol. **4r–6r (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

Pareus, Collegium theologicorum, vol. II. (1620), fol. ):():(7v–):():():(1r. (“Elenchus locorum theologicorum”)

De magistratu politico eiusque potestate De purgatorio De indulgentiis De resurrectione mortuorum et extremo iudicio

Selective Bibliography

Primary Sources



Secondary Literature

Bellarminus Robertus, Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, 3 vols. (Ingolstadt, David Sartorius: 1586–1593). Pareus David, Collegiorum theologicorum […] decuria una (Heidelberg, Jonas Rhodius: 1611; VD17 23:637970E). Pareus David, Collegiorum theologicorum […] pars altera (Heidelberg, widow of Jonas Rosa: 1620; VD17 12:110738F).

Backus I., “Loci communes, and the Role of Ramism in the European Diffusion of Calvin’s Reformation”, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica 22, 2 (2010) 233–247. Bitskey I., “Bellarmino-Rezeption und Anti-Bellarminismus in Ungarn 1590–1625”, in Breuer D., Religion und Religiosität im Zeitalter des Barock, Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 25 (Wiesbaden: 1995), vol. 2, 809–815. Brinkmann G., Die Irenik des David Pareus. Frieden und Einheit in ihrer Relevanz zur Wahrheitsfrage (Hildesheim: 1972). Cevolini A., De arte excerpendi. Imparare a dimenticare nella modernità (Florence: 2006).

396

Förköli

Cevolini A. (ed.), Forgetting machines. Knowledge Management Evolution in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2016). Décultot É. (ed.), Lire, copier, écrire. Les bibliothèques manuscrites au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: 2003). Goyet F., Le sublime du ‘lieu commun’. L’invention rhétorique dans l’antiquité et à la renaissance (Paris: 1996). Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der Frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin: 2015). Heltai J., “David Pareus magyar kapcsolatai”, in Herner J. (ed.), Tudóslevelek művelődésünk külföldi kapcsolataihoz (1577–1797), Adattár 23 (Szeged: 1989) 13–76. Heltai J., Alvinczi Péter és a heidelbergi peregrinusok, Humanizmus és reformáció 21 (Budapest: 1994). Hotson H., “Irenicism and Dogmatics in the Confessional Age. Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46, 3 (1995) 432–453. Hotson H., “Irenicism in the Confessional Age. The Holy Roman Empire, 1563–1648”, in Louthan H.P. – Zachman R.C. (eds.), Conciliation and Confession. Struggling for Unity in the Age of Reform. 1415–1648 (Notre Dame: 2004) 228–285. Kallweit H., Kulturelle Konfigurationen. Studien zum Verhältnis von Wissensordnungen und Erzählformen (Paderborn: 2015). Kühlmann W. et al. (eds.), Die Deutschen Humanisten. Dokumente zur Überlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur in der Frühen Neuzeit. Abt. 1: Die Kurpfalz. Bd. II: David Pareus, Johann Philipp Pareus und Daniel Pareus, Europa Humanistica 7 (Turnhout: 2010). MacPhail E.M., Dancing around the Well. The Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 232 (Leiden: 2014). Moss A., Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: 1996). Schmidt A., “Irenic Patriotism in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century German Political Discourse”, The Historical Journal 53, 2 (2010) 243–269. Strohm Ch., “Kompetenz weltlicher Obrigkeit in Religionsangelegenheiten. Entstehung und Wirkung von David Pareus’ Überlegungen zum Ius circa sacra”, in Friedeburg R. – Schmoeckel M. (eds.), Recht, Konfession und Verfassung im 17. Jahrhundert. West- und mitteleuropäische Entwicklungen, Historische Forschungen 105 (Berlin: 2015) 67–83.

chapter 15

The Good Arts, the Bad Arts, and Nature According to Georg Stengel (1584–1651) Joseph S. Freedman Summary Georg Stengel (1584–1651) is best known for his work as a theologian and a dramatist. But worthy of attention here are the contents of disputations over which he presided as a professor of philosophy at the University of Dillingen from 1614 to 1617. Stengel’s biography is briefly presented along with some additional documentation (mostly through the year 1617) in large part on the basis of manuscript sources. While at the University of Dillingen he presided over nine disputations containing seven distinct texts. The first of these nine disputations, On Good or Bad Syllogisms (1616) was republished in greatly expanded form (as two volumes) in 1618, 1623, 1649, and 1662. Each of the remaining disputations focus on the arts (ars), on nature (natura), or on both. And in all of these individual disputations, the arts, the effects of nature, and syllogisms all are either good or bad. In these disputations, however, that which is “bad” might best be described as that which is not good in a number of different ways. Here special attention is accorded to the disputation On the Good Arts in General (1616), which focuses on nature as well as on the arts. The distinction is made there between 1. the liberal arts and 2. those arts that pertain to the use of the body. But the numerous examples of individual arts presented within this disputation all can be referred to as corporeal arts. Nature is understood there to have two meanings: (1) The ordinary course of nature and (2) physical causality (physics). It is noted that physics results in knowledge (scientia) while the arts do not. But is emphasized that while the arts require nature, they also perfect nature. Discussed here – as well as in the disputations On the Good Arts in Particular and On the Bad Arts – are ways in which the arts can be misused. But in On the Good Arts in General it is also noted is that the (good) arts, with their focus on experience, induction, and singulars, connect to occult forces and can also participate in divinity. In the concluding phrase to this disputation, God (while not directly mentioned) is said to be “the first and highest artisan” (primus et summus artifex).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_016

398

Freedman

Georg Stengel (1584–1651) was a very prolific author during his long career as a professor and administrator.1 His publications fall mostly within the domains of theological writings and dramatic works.2 Here the focus will be on the published philosophical disputations over which he presided during his three years (1614–1617) as a professor of philosophy at the University of Dillingen, and primarily on the disputation published with the title On the Good Arts Considered in General (1616; Fig. 15.1).3 Born in Augsburg, he became a Jesuit in 1601 and studied at the University of Ingolstadt from 1604 to 1607.4 He was a professor of poetics (humaniora) at 1  Biographical information concerning Georg Stengel is provided in Mulsow M., “Stengel, Georg”, in Boehm L. – Müller W. – Smolka J. – Zedelmaier H. (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472–1806, Ludovico Maximilianea Forschungen und Quellen. Forschungen 18 (Berlin: 1998) 417–418; Rädle F., “Die Briefe des Jesuiten Georg Stengel (1584–1651) an seinen Bruder Karl (1581– 1663)”, in Neumeister S. – Wiedemann C. (eds.), Res Publica Litteraria. Die Institutionen der Gelehrsamkeit in der frühen Neuzeit. Teil II, Wolfenbüttler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 14 (Wiesbaden: 1987) 525–534; Rädle F., “Georg Stengel S.J. (1585–1651) als Dramatiker”, in Brinkmann R. (ed.), Theatrum Europaeum. Festschrift für Elida Maria Szarota (Munich: 1982) 87–107; Schneider A., Narrative Anleitungen zur praxis pietatis im Barock. Dargelegt am Exempelgebrauch in den “Iudicia Divina” des Jesuiten Georg Stengel (1584–1651), Veröffentlichungen zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte 11 (Würzburg: 1982). Here – following the designations given in Munich JA: Abt. 40-3, Nr. 71 – all of the instructors at Jesuit academic institutions in the Germania superior province (including Stengel’s work as an instructor) are referred to as professors. Additional biographical research has been undertaken here only for those portions of Stengel’s career from 1604 through 1623 and from 1639 to 1643. 2  Three of these dramatic works performed at Dillingen during his three years there (1614– 1617) as a philosophy professor are cited in the Bibliography: [Stengel Georg S.J.], Otto Redivivus. Summarischer Inhalt der Comoedi von erster Stifftung / Anfang und Vortpflantzung der Universitet der Societat Iesu in Dilingen […] Gehalten in ermelter Universitet zu Dilingen den 22. Octobris. Anno 1614. (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1614); [Stengel Georg], Triumphus Quem olim Deiparae Virgini Mariae, Coeli Terraeque Imperatrici, Caelites Decrevere; Nunc Musae Universitatis Dilinganae in Scenam Christianam Produxere: Cum Templum Societatis Jesu […] Eidem Virgini dedicaretur III. Idus Iun. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: [1617]); [Stengel Georg], Triumph der Gebenedeyten Junckfrawen und Himmelkünigin Maria […] durch ein Comedi zu Gedächtnuß geführt […] den 11. Junii / 1617. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). Concerning the Triumphus (Triumph) refer to the detailed discussion given in Schneider, Narrative Anleitungen 20–23, which is also mentioned in Mulsow, “Stengel, Georg” 417. 3  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Tschudi Dominicus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Bonis Artibus In Genere […] In […] Academia Dilingana Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad publicum certamen proponet […] M.DC.XVI. die [9] Decembris […] Dominicus Tschudi, Ordinis S. Benedicti, In Monasterio Murensi Apud Helvetios, Professus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, et Metaphysicae Studiosus. (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1616). 4  From the dates of letters sent by Georg Stengel to Karl Stengel between 1604 and May 12, 1607 (Munich BSB: Clm 1616, fol. 87r–99v), it is clear that Georg Stengel resided in Ingolstadt during that period. On the basis of a disputation (dated July 3 1607) would appear that he was still in

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

figure 15.1

Title page of Stengels De bonis artibus in genere (1616) [copy in Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: 4 Diss. 3558,30]

399

400

Freedman

the Jesuit Colleges in Porrentruy (1607–1609) and then in Munich (1609–1610).5 Stengel then studied theology – again at the University of Ingolstadt – from 1610 to 1614.6 Following his three years (1614–1617) as a professor of philosophy in Dillingen he was professor of ethics (1618–1621) at the University of Ingolstadt.7 Stengel remained in Ingolstadt as professor of moral theology (1621–1622) and then as professor of scholastic theology (1622–1630).8 From 1629 to 1643 he held Ingolstadt on that date; see [Reihing Conradus S.J. (Pr.) – Schachner Christophorus S.J. (Resp.) – Stengel Georgius S.J. (Resp.)], Conclusiones Ex Universa Aristotelis Philosophia, Ad Publicam Disputationem, In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi, A Duobus E Societate Jesu Metaphysicae Studiosis […] pridie D. Udalrici [= July 3] Propositae. (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1607). Concerning this disputation also see Freedman J.S., “Philosophy Instruction, the Philosophy Concept, and Philosophy Disputations Published at the University of Ingolstadt, c. 1550–c. 1650”, in Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur. Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Cologne – Vienna – Weimar: 2012) 316–362 at 333–334. In Munich JA: 40-3, Nr. 71, pp. 11, 16, 22 and in Munich UA: O_IV_3, fol. 9r, 76r, 167r he is listed as a logic student, a physics student, and a metaphysics student during the academic years 1604–1605, 1605–1606, and 1606–1607, respectively. 5  Letters from Georg Stengel to Karl Stengel sent from Porrentruy and Munich are dated from 9 March 1608 to 3 May 1609 (Clm 1617, fol. 101r–104v) and from 6 December 1609 to 7 September 1610 (Munich BSB: Clm 1617, fol. 105r–112v), respectively. In Munich JA: 40-3, Nr. 71, pp. 37, 40: Stengel’s poetics professorships at Porrentruy (1608–1609) and Munich (1609–1610) are documented, but his instructional activity during the 1607–1608 academic year is not. Here it is assumed that he was a professor at Porrentruy during the entire 1607– 1608 academic year, though his presence at Porrentruy can only be documented here beginning from 9 March of 1608. 6   During this period letters from Georg Stengel to his brother Karl are dated from 21 December 1610 to 21 July 1614; refer to Munich BSB: Clm 1617, fol. 113r–135v. During the academic years 1610–1611, 1611–1612, and 1612–1613 he was apparently also responsible for the overnight supervision of logic students, physics students, and metaphysics students, respectively; see Munich JA: 40-3, Nr. 71, pp. 44, 50, 56. 7  The only information that can be provided here concerning Georg Stengel’s whereabouts during the 1617–1618 academic year is a letter from him to his brother Karl dated in Munich on 7 February 1618 (Munich BSB Clm 1617, fol. 236r–v). His appointment as professor of ethics at the University of Ingolstadt is documented in Munich UA: O_1_4, fol. 116v–117r, as well as his service there as Dean (decanatus) of the Arts Faculty from 16 May to 28 October 1619 (fol. 119r–124r). His Moral Disputations Using the Eight Books of Aristotle’s (Treatise on) Politics was written there and dated with the year 1619. His three years as professor of ethics (1618–1619, 1619–1620, and 1620–1621) at the University of Ingolstadt are documented in Munich JA: Abt. 40-3, Nr. 71, pp. 81, 89, 98. 8  His years as professor of moral theology (1621–1622) and scholastic theology (beginning in 1622–1623) are documented in Munich JA: Abt. 40-3, Nr. 71, pp. 107–115. Letters written in Ingolstadt by Georg Stengel to his brother Karl are extant continuously from 5 November 1618 to 10 March 1626 (Munich BSB: Clm 1616, fol. 237r–253v, 256r–299v). Also see Mulsow, “Stengel, Georg” 417–418.

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

401

administrative positions in Ingolstadt, Munich, and Dillingen; thereafter he resided during his final years (1643–1651) in Ingolstadt.9 During his first academic year (1614–1615) at the University of Dillingen Georg Stengel was responsible for logic.10 During his second year there (1615– 1616) he was responsible for physics.11 He appears not to have been officially responsible for metaphysics (as normally might have been the case) during his third year (1616–1617) as a professor of philosophy in Dillingen.12 Extant are nine published disputations that were presided over by Georg Stengel during the years 1616 and 1617. Nine respondents are mentioned in the first eight of these disputations. In the final disputation – dated 21 August 1617 – 55 candidates for the Master of Arts degree are listed.13 Prior thereto, he presided over a ceremony – published as a broadsheet and dated 19 April 1616 – in which 59 candidates (numbered 1 through 59) for the Bachelor of Arts degree are listed.14 9  Georg Stengel was Rector of the University of Dillingen from 8 April 1640 to 12 April 1643 (StudB Dillingen: XV 226/2, pp. 41–65). Concerning the final 25 years of Georg Stengel’s life refer to the discussion thereof in Schneider, Narrative Anleitungen 34–37 and the summary discussion in Mulsow, “Stengel, Georg” 417–418. 10  StudB Dillingen: XV/226/1, pp. 238 and 239. According to Munich JA: Abt. 40-3, Nr. 71, p. 71 Stengel was Professor of Logic and also was responsible for confessionals (confessarius) at the University of Dillingen during the 1614–1615 academic year. 11  StudB Dillingen: XV/226/1, p. 246. Additional duties assigned to Stengel during the 1615– 1616 academic year (including: catechista in pago) are listed in Munich JA: Abt. 40-3, Nr. 71, p. 76. 12  On 22 October 1616 Professor Plagelius, not Georg Stengel, is listed as the Professor of Metaphysics for the 1616–1617 academic year. However, Stengel is also referred to Stengelio metaphysico on 22 February 1617 and as metaphysico Stengelio on 30 June 1617; metaphysico might simply mean that he was teaching during his third year at University of Dillingen. On 1 July 1617 it is noted that Georg Stengel has completed (teaching) the (three-year) philosophical course (cursum philosophicum). Refer to StudB Dillingen: XV/226/1, pp. 250, 253, 260. 13  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – 55 named candidates for the Master of Arts degree, Peripateticae, Et Evangelicae, Doctrinae Comparatio, Qua ostenditur, Quanta Utrique Ab Altera Lux Accesserit: Praeside Georgio Stengelio, Societatis Iesu, Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, in […] Universitate Dilingana, Ab Eximia Virtute, Et Eruditione […] Dominis Candidatis, Pro Suprema Philosophiae Laurea consequenda, Ad Publicam Disputationem Allata, XII. Calend. Septemb. […] M. DC. XVII. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). The names of 55 candidates (numbered 1 through 55) are listed there on fol. F1–F4; 7 of the 9 students who were respondents in his other 8 published disputations are candidate numbers 1, 2, 5, 14, 17, 25, and 32. 14  Stengel Georg S.J., Catalogus, Quo Describuntur Nomina Virtute Atque Eruditione Inclytorum Iuvenum, Quos In […] Academia Dilingana, Ob Ingenuos Labores In Philosophia […] Coeptos, Bacca Et Lauro Insigniores Faciet, Georgius Stengelius Societatis Jesu, Philosophiae Professor Ordinarius XIII. Kalendas Maias […] M. DC. XVI. Nomina Candidatorum. 1. […]

402

Freedman

These nine published disputations contain a total of seven distinct texts. Two of these seven texts were published twice each, each having a different title and respondent.15 Short titles (in translation) of these seven texts (in chronological order of publication) are listed here.16 [1] On Good and Bad Syllogisms,17 [2] On the Good Arts in General,18 [3] On the Good Arts in Particular,19 [4] On the Bad Arts,20 [5] The Declaration of the Good Effects of 59. […] Quaestiones pro inauguratione Candidatorum agitandae. I. Palliatumne potius esse Philosophum deceat, quam Togatum? II. An Sermones et Vestes Philosophi congruere debeant? III. Quaenam Captio sit omnium perniciosissima, quae utilissima? […]. ([Dillingen]: 1616). The names of the 59 candidates (numbered 1 through 59) are listed on this broadsheet. The 9 students who were respondents in his other 8 published disputations are candidate numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 17, 21, 25, and 26. 15  With regard to the two texts that were each published twice refer to footnotes 20 and 21. One could argue, in the case of the four disputations in which these two texts were published twice, that the presider in all four of them – Georg Stengel – could be regarded as the author. A similar case could be made with regard to Stengel (Pr.), Peripateticae Et Evangelicae, Doctrinae Comparatio, where 55 candidates are listed (see footnote 13). However, no decisions pertaining to authorship are made here with regard to any of the published disputations that are cited in the Bibliography. With regard to the authorship of disputations during the late 16th and the 17th century refer to the discussion (and literature cited) in Freedman J.S., “Published academic disputations in the context of other information formats used primarily in Central Europe (c. 1550–c. 1700)”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 89–128. 16  All of these published disputations are also cited in full in Leinsle U.G., Dilinganae Disputationes. Der Lehrinhalt der gedruckten Disputationen an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Dillingen 1555–1648, Jesuitica 11 (Regensburg: 2006) 609–611. 17  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Ruepand Kaspar (Resp.) – Friesenegger Maurus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, In […] Academia Dilingana […] Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad Publicum Certamen Proposita […] M.DC.XVI. die {29} Ianuarii; Respondentibus F. Casparo Ruepando, F. Mauro Friesenögger, Ordinis S. Benedicti in Monte Sancto Andechs Professis, et Physicae Studiosis. […] (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1616). 18  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere. 19  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Letter Franz (Resp.) Disputatio Philosophica De Bonis Artibus In Specie […] In […] Academia Dilingana Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad publicum exercitium instituet […] Franciscus Letter, Ordinis S. Benedicti, In Monasterio Murensi, Apud Helvetios, Professus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, et Metaphysicae Studiosus. […] M. DC. XVI. V. Idus Decembris. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1616). 20  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Morstein Ratholdus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Malis Artibus, Quam In […] Academia Dilingana, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Proponet Ratholdus Morstein, Ratholdicellensis Acronianus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, ac Metaphysicae Studiosus. […] M. DC. XVII. die 22. Februarii. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). This disputation contains the identical text as Stengel Georg (Pr.) – Diem Nicolaus (Resp.), Castigatio Philosophica, Malarum Quarundam Artium, Partim Antiquarum, Partim Recentium, Pro Solenni Disputatione, Sub praesidio, Georgii Stengelii […] In […]

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

403

Nature,21 [6] Judgment Concerning the Hidden and Bad Effects of Nature,22 and [7] Comparison between Aristotelian and Evangelical Doctrine.23 The first of these seven texts had – in greatly expanded form – a substantial publication history.24 On Good and Bad Syllogisms was published in book format (two volumes) in Munich in 1618 and thereafter in Ingolstadt (1623, 1631), in Erfurt (1623, 1649) and in Leipzig (1662). During his tenure as a professor of ethics at the University of Ingolstadt Stengel also prepared a manuscript treatise titled Moral Disputations Using the Eight Books of Aristotle’s (Treatise on) Politics (dated 1619).25 The second published disputation at the University of Dillingen in which Stengel served as presider – On the Good Arts in General – begins with a very short introductory segment to the reader (‘LECTORI’) and is followed by five short chapters. The titles of these five chapters pose the following questions: 1. Why should the contemplator of nature (also) examine ars?26 2. What are

Academia Dilingana […] M. DC. XVII. VIII. Cal. Martii, Publice proposita, A Nicolao Diem, Brigantino, Acroniano, Philosophiae Baccalaureo, et Metaphysicae Studioso. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). These two published disputations differ only with regard to their titles, the names of their respondents, and their dedications. 21  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Faber Georg (Resp.), Bonorum Quorundam Naturae Effectuum Declaratio, Quam, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] In […] Universitate Dilingana […] M. DC. XVII. __ Die Junii. Velitationi publicae exponent, Georgius Faber, Biberacensis Suevus. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617), which contains the identical text as Stengel Georg (Pr.) – Molitor Georg (Resp.), Indagatio Physica, De Bonis Quibusdam Naturae Effectibus, In […] Universitate Dilingana, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Publicae disputationis ergo instituta, A Georgio Molitore Ottenburano, Algoio, Philosophiae Baccalaureo, Et Metaphysicae Studioso […] M. DC. XVII. __ Die Junii. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). These two published disputations differ only with regard to their titles, the names of their respondents, and their dedications. 22  Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Pfeffer Johann Wilhelm (Resp.), Iudicium, De Arcanis Quibusdam, Iisque Malis Naturae Effectibus, Seu Potius Defectibus Ac Praecipue, De Illis, Quae, Circa Monstra, In Disceptationem Venire Possunt, Quod, Auspicio Georgii Stengelii […] In […] Universitate Dilingana, Iunii Die 30. Anno M. DC. XVIII. Sub finem cursus Philosophici, publice propugnandum suscipiet, […] Ioannes Gulielmus Pfeffer, Wallersteinensis Rhetus, Artium et Philosophiae Baccalaureus, ac Metaphysicae Studiosus. (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). 23  Stengel, Peripateticae Et Evangelicae, Doctrinae Comparatio. 24  Refer to the full citations (with library locations and call numbers) in the Bibliography. 25  (Stengel Georg), Disputationes morales. In VIII. libros Politicorum Ar[is]t[otel]is Stagyritae. […] Quas pertractabat R.P. Georgius Stengelius Ethices professor Ing[olstadiensis] anno salutis 1619. A literal translation of this title has not been attempted here. 26  ‘Cur naturae contemplator de arte tractat?’, Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 1. The English term ‘art’ is not an accurate translation (from the Latin) of the singular form (ars) of ‘the arts’ (artes). Therefore, the Latin language term ars will be used here.

404

Freedman

the similarities and differences between ars and nature?27 3. What is ars?28 4. What is the meaning of idea (idea) and is it a necessary component of ars?29 5. What are the sub-categories of ars and how can it be known whether or not any given ars is good?30 It is stated in the short introductory segment that the concept of ars will be defined and classified into parts. The latter occurs within Chapter V, where the arts are divided into the liberal arts and ‘those arts that pertain to the use of the body’ (ad corporis utilitatem pertinent).31 The liberal arts listed – grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astrology – are frequently (but not always) found within writings by Stengel’s contemporaries.32 A complete listing of the corporeal arts is not attempted within this published disputation, among those mentioned there are the military and nautical arts, hunting and fishing (ars venandi, ars piscandi), agriculture, and architecture (ars aedificatoria).33 The numerous examples of individual arts presented 27  ‘Quae sit similitudo et dissimilitudo inter artem et naturam?’ Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 3. 28  ‘Quid sit ars?’ Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 5. 29  ‘Quid sit idea et quam ad opera artis necessaria?’ Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 9. 30  ‘Quam varia sit Ars? Et quo modo cognoscatur, an aliqua Ars sit bona?’ Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 13. 31  Ibidem 13, XXXVI. Ars is not defined therein, but is described and discussed. Concerning the extent to which abstract concepts (such as ars) were considered to be definable during the early 17th century refer to the discussion and sources cited in Freedman J.S., “Introduction. The Study of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Writings on Academic Philosophy. Some Methodical Considerations”, in Freedman J.S., Philosophy and the Arts in Central Europe, 1500–1700. Teaching and Texts at European Schools and Universities, Variorum Collected Studies Series 626 (Aldershot, UK – Brookfield, Vermont: 1999) 1–40 at 4–7. 32  Two exceptions thereto can be listed here. Clemens Timpler lists 18 liberal arts in Timpler Clemens, Metaphysicae Systema Methodicum, Libris quinque Per Theoremata Et Problemata selecta concinnatum. Cui […] In Principio Accessit Eiusdem Technologia; Hoc est Tractatus Generalis Et Utilissimus de natura et differentiis artium liberalium […] (Hanau, Peter Antonius: 1616) following the first pagination, fol. c4r. Alsted Johann Heinrich, Cursus Philosophici Encyclopaedia Libris XXVII Complectens […] (Herborn, Christoph Corvinus: 1620) 8, left column, lists seven liberal arts which are grammar, rhetoric, logic, lexicography (lexica), oratory, poetics, and mnemonics. 33  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 13, XXXVI. The importance given to the latter is alluded to as follows (13, XXXV., lines 5–6): ‘Quae fere principales seu architectonicae censentur’. Also refer to the following published University of Ingolstadt disputation: Coscan Oswald S.J. (Pr.) – Zeyll Wolfgang Friedrich (Resp.), Disputatio Physica De Generalibus Architectonicae Principiis […] In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi Die {26} Aprilis Anni M DC XIX Praeside Oswaldo Coscano […] defendet Wolffgangus Fridericus Zeyll Passaviensis Metaphysicae Studiosus (Ingolstadt, Gregor Hänlin: 1619). A detailed

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

405

within this disputation are all corporeal arts; the arts (artes) and the corporeal arts appear to be synonymous therein.34 In Chapter I, physics is defined as a contemplative science (scientia contemplativa); physics is stated to be diametrically opposed to ars: physics is speculative and focuses on knowledge (cognitio) while ars is practical and focuses on corporeal works (in opere).35 Chapter III is specifically devoted to discussion of ars. There it is noted that ars arrives at universal precepts via induction with the use of collected experience based on work with singular things.36 In Chapter III it is also noted that ars, insofar as it focuses on singular things, is not a science (scientia).37 However, in response to a point made that is attributed in this disputation to Avicenna, he indirectly provides further commentary thereupon. Avicenna is said to have distinguished between theoretical medicine (medica theorica) and practical medicine (medica practica). The former is linked to physics, which indicates that it is a science; the latter focuses ‘here and now’ (hic et nunc) on the use of experience for the use of (the) health (of individuals).38 discussion of corporeal arts is presented in Ebert Theodor (Pr.) – Ammon Elisaeus (Resp.), Manuductionis Aphoristicae Ad Discursum Artium Et Disciplinarum Methodicum Sectio Decimatertia […] Artes Effectivae ad disputandum propositae In Academia Viadrina Praeside M. Theodoro Eberto […] Respondente Elisaeo Ammonio Francof. Marchico. ad diem 14. Martii […] M. DC. XX. (Frankfurt on the Oder, widow of Nikolaus Voltz – Michael Koch: 1620). 34  This differs substantially from the classification of ars presented in a University of Ingolstadt disputation published in the year 1610; refer to Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Calchus Franz Maximilian (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica De Artibus Generatim, Et Arte Artium Speciatim […] In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi, Anno M.DC.X. Die {15} Decemb. proposita, Praeside Georgio Clainero […] Respondente […] Francisco Maximiliano Calcho, Mediolanensi, Philosophiae studioso (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1610) 11–14. While the corporeal arts (referred to there as artes inferiores serviles) are mentioned, the emphasis therein is largely on subject-matters that fall within the scope of theology, law, philosophy and philology. This classification of the arts is presented and briefly discussed in Freedman, “Philosophy Instruction” 323–325, 338–339. 35  ‘Cum Physica sit scientia contemplativa […]. Nam Ars tanquam factiva, et Physica tanquam speculativa […] pene e diametro opponuntur; eo quod illa versetur in opere, ista moretur in cognitione’. Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 1, lines 1, 7–10. 36  ‘Colligit enim Ars per viam experientiae et inductionis universalia quaedam praecepta, quae postea fiunt principia operis, dum eadem per exercitationem Artis, rursus singularibus non per realem influxum, sed per directionem Artis applicantur’. Ibidem 6, XIV, lines 9–12. 37  Ibidem 9, lines 12–14 (XXI). 38  Ibidem, lines 1–5 (XXI). But in this context (ibidem, lines 14–21, XXI) it is noted that theorists (of science) and practitioners (of the corporal arts) need to be ‘friends’ (amici) and work together, and (for example) that a ‘perfect medical practitioner’ (perfectus medicus)

406

Freedman

Analogously, music and astrology are both divided into theoretical (theorica) and practical (practica) components.39 Theoretical music uses the scientific method to deduce (scientifica methodo deducit40) conclusions from the principles of arithmetic while practical music, insofar as it is taught via experience, has the properties of an ars. Theoretical astrology is linked to geometry while practical astrology is referred as ‘the nautical art’ (ars nautica). It appears that arithmetic and geometry each can be considered as a science (scientia) while practical music and the nautical art both cannot.41 In this published disputation politics is referred to as a science (scientia politica).42 It is not clear whether or not this also applies to ethics: in his single direct mention of ethics he appears to connect it to (individual) human actions rather than to knowledge and science.43 While dialectic is mentioned here as combines medical theory with (non-scientific) knowledge acquired via the practice of medicine. 39  Ibidem 9, lines 6–10 (XXI). The use of the Latin term theorica here requires explanation. The English term ‘theoretical’ can be rendered into Latin as ‘theoretica’ or as theorica. Theoretica refers to theoretical philosophy (as opposed to practical philosophy); theorica, as used here, has a much broader scope, referring to all academic disciplines that do not focus primarily on singular things and experience. Theorica is also used – and with this broader scope – in some late 16th- and early 17th-century discussions of academic travel; refer to the following uses thereof: Zwinger Theodor, Methodus Apodemica […] (Basel, Eusebius Episcopius: 1577) 38; Gross Johann Georg, Compendium Quatuor Facultatum: I. Philosophiae, II. Medicinae, III. Juris-prudentiae, IV. Theologiae S. […]. (Basel, Ludwig König: 1620) 239; Alsted Johann Heinrich, Encyclopaedia Septem tomis distincta […]. (Herborn, no printer given: 1630) Vol. (Tomus) 7, 2209, I. 40  Ibidem 9, line 7. The meaning of methodus scientifica is not discussed in this published disputation, but it appears that it refers to logical deduction, as induction is linked here (6, XIV, lines 9–12) to ‘ars’, not to scientia (see the text passage corresponding to footnote 36). During the late 16th- and early 17th-century methodus scientifica was largely understood within the context of logic; refer to the discussion in Freedman J.S., “The History of ‘Scientific Method’ (methodus scientifica) in the Early Modern Period and its Relevance for School-Level and University-Level Instruction in Our Time”, in Dooley B. (ed.), Renaissance Now! The Value of the Renaissance Past in Contemporary Culture (Oxford et al.: 2014) 287–318. 41  It is noted (9, XXI, lines 7–10) that music relies on experience while the nautical art relies on experience together with observation (observationes). 42  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 8, XXI, lines 2–3. Politics is also referred as politica scientia in his manuscript treatise on Moral Disputations Using the Eight Books of Aristotle’s (Treatise on) Politics: see (Stengel Georg), Disputationes morales, fol. 3r–3v. 43  ‘Neque enim ideo praecise cognitio aliqua practica est, quia de re operabili, seu praxi agit: sed quia circa illam versatur modo operabili, praescribendo videlicet praecepta, atque explicando, quomodo, quando, et quibus conditionibus etc. fieri debeat: qua quidem ratione Ethica, circa humanas actiones, se se occupat’. Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 2, lines 1–5 (II.). It appears that ethics is understood here to have a

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

407

one of the seven liberal arts, it is not discussed therein. It is not clear whether the presider (Stengel) and the respondent (Tschudi) in this published disputation would have regarded dialectic (logic) to be an ars and/or a scientia.44 Although in Chapter I physics is defined as a scientia and also is regarded as diametrically opposed to ‘ars’, and while reasons are given there as to why a physicist should examine ars, it is concluded that ars should not be discussed further in connection with physics, but rather in connection with nature.45 In the ensuring discussion in Chapter II of similarities and differences between ars and nature (natura) it is noted that natura has two distinct meanings.46 But what these two meanings are is not sufficiently clarified within this context of this disputation. Stengel’s contemporaries frequently utilized the terms nature (natura) and natural (naturalis) in many diverse ways.47 The way or ways in which the terms nature and natural are actually utilized by individual authors can be difficult to discern. Some of the many uses of the term nature scattered through the corpus of the published writings of a Protestant contemporary of Stengel, Clemens Timpler (1563/64–1624) appear to provide insight into how this same term is used in On the Good Arts in General.48

practical component. Citations from Aristotle’s writings on ethics are provided in ibidem 3 (VIII, 5), 4 (IX, 6), and 6 (XIX, line 19). 44  In a published University of Ingolstadt anonymously presided over by Georg Clainer, logic is referred to as follows: ‘Rationalis Philosophia, quam etiam Dialecticam et Logicam vocant, est Scientia et Ars; Practica et Theoretica; immo Pars et Organum Philosophiae’. [Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Albericus Joannes S.J. (Resp.) – Feldner Daniel S.J. (Resp.) – Verdunchk/Verdugk Georgius S.J. (Resp.)], Positiones Aristotelicae E Tribus Scientiis, Logica, Physica, Metaphysica decerptae […] In […] Ingolstadiensium Academia […] A Tribus E Societate Iesu Religiosis Et Philosophiae Studiosis […] propugnatae […] M. DC. XII. Die 3. Iulii. (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1612), fol. 1v, 4., lines 1–2. In Stengel (Pr.) – Ruepand (Resp.) – Friesenegger (Resp.), De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo logic (considered as a whole) is not defined, classified, or otherwise discussed. 45  ‘Itaque Ars a Physico consideratur, non tantum, quia Physicae, sed etiam quia ipsi Naturae est opposita’. Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 2, IV, lines 7–8. 46  Ibidem 2, VIII, (3–4). 47  Refer to the various meanings of natura and naturalis listed in the following disputation held in Dillingen during the calendar year prior to the arrival of Stengel there: Gaudin Ambrosius S.J. (Pr.) – Peschung Placidus (Resp.) – Streber Roman (Resp.) – Locher Maurus (Resp.) – Bridler Adalbert (Resp.), De Principiis Entis Naturalis, In […] Academia Dilingana publice habita, III. Nonas Iunii, Anno M.DC.XIII. […] (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1613) 10–12. 48  With regard to Timpler refer to Freedman J.S., European Academic Philosophy in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. The Life, Significance, and Philosophy of Clemens Timpler (1563/64–1624), 2 vols., Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 27

408

Freedman

Timpler uses the term nature in (what for him what appears to be) its broadest sense as the order that links all entities together (secundum naturam), which he also refers to as 1. the ordinary course of nature (ordinarium naturae cursum).49 This is contrary to 2. that which is outside of the ordinary course of nature (extra naturam, extraordinaria). While Timpler does not directly discuss that which falls outside the ordinary course of nature, it appears to include the following: 2a. that which is above the ordinary course of nature (supra naturam, hyperphysica), 2b. that which is apart from the ordinary course of nature (praeter naturam, paraphysica), and 2c. that which is contrary to the ordinary course of nature (contra naturam). In On the Good Arts in General the term entity (entitas) is mentioned in contradistinction to quality (which includes ars) and to idea (which is linked to ars).50 Also mentioned there is the term contra naturam.51 In the disputation on Judgment Concerning the Hidden and Bad Effects of Nature (presided over by Stengel) the terms praeter naturam and secundum regulam naturae are both used.52 It would appear that one of the two meanings of the term natura as utilized in On the Good Arts in General corresponds to Timpler’s the ordinary course of nature. Timpler also sometimes equates nature with physical cause(s), which usually refers to one or more of the following: efficient cause, final cause, material cause (i.e., matter) and formal cause (i.e., form). Timpler also equates nature specifically with matter and form. In On the Good Arts in General, it is noted 1. that physics discusses how (natural bodies) are produced (or, using the examples of hail, snow, winds, and storms, how they are generated by mother nature),53 and 2. that one of the two distinct meanings of the term nature is (Hildesheim – Zurich – New York: 1988) and (with regard to his views on nature and natural) see pages 239–244, 621–625. 49  With regard to this entire paragraph see ibidem 239–242, 622–623. 50  Entity is contrasted with quality and habitus in Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 5, XI, lines 4–8 and 11, XXVI, respectively. Concerning ars as disposition (habitus) and quality refer 2, VIII, 2, lines 1–2. (‘[…] Ars est accidens, utpote habitus in intellectu artificis inhaerens’) and to 5 (‘Caput III. Quid sit Ars? Habitum hanc [sic] esse […] Per habitum, qualitas quaedam perseverans, et experientia ob publicam vel utilitatem, vel necessitatem acquisita intelligitur’). 51  ‘Sed neque ceremoniae sacrae, neque vera miracula ulla contra nos sunt: quia neque contra Naturam’. Ibidem 14, XXXVIII, lines 2–3. 52  Stengel (Pr.) – Pfeffer (Resp.), Iudicium, De Arcanis […] Iisque Malis Naturae Effectibus 2 (V, lines 13–14), 3 (VII, line 7), 4 (IX, line 1). 53  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 2, lines 5–10. With regard to the use of the phrase mother nature (matre natura) here (lines 9–10) it can be noted for Timpler, when nature is regarded as a physical cause, it sometimes (also) has something comparable to a personality (e.g., nature does nothing in vain); see Freedman, European

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

409

substance (that is, both matter and form).54 It would appear that the second of the two meanings of the term nature – also referred to there as natural bodies (naturalium corporum) and natural things (rei naturalis res naturales)55 – corresponds to Timpler’s physical causes. Taken together, these two meanings – 1. the ordinary course of nature and 2. physical causes – are expressed side-by-side within the following two phrases found in Chapter III of On the Good Arts in General: [i.] ‘Natura, vel constent Natura’ and [ii.] ‘Natura in re naturali’.56 Nature is implicit within both of these two meanings while physics is implicit in the second meaning (of the term nature) only. This apparently explains why in Chapter II arts is discussed together with nature instead together with physics. Included among the dissimilarities between ars and nature listed and discussed in Chapter II are the following: [1] The use of an exemplar (to be used by an artisan) is required in ars but has no place in nature.57 [2] All components of nature are self-contained; but this is not the case with ars, since some parts of an artefact (e.g., wood, stones) are found in nature.58 [3] Nature always operates in the same way. But ars does not, since the artisan (artifex) works differently depending on the task to be completed; for example, an architect constructs a building differently if that structure is intended for military (and not for civilian) purposes.59 Included among the similarities between ars and nature are the following: [1] Neither ars nor nature deliberately leave things to chance, but rather both work with the use of established criteria in accordance with defined order and rules.60 [2] Both ars and nature sometimes cause monstrosities inadvertently.61 [3] Both ars and nature produce in similar ways: nature produces in accordance

Academic Philosophy 242, 624 (footnote 194). It also may have the same meaning in Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere. 54  ‘Natura autem, prout hoc loco accipitur […] est substantia, nempe forma et materia […]’. Ibidem 3 (VIII, 2, lines 2, 6). 55  Ibidem 1 (I, line 2), 4 (IX, 4, line 2 and IX, 6, line 2). 56  Ibidem 4 (IX, 4, lines 2–3 and IX, 6, line 4). 57  Ibidem 3 (VIII, 1). 58  Ibidem 4 (XI, 4). 59  Ibidem 4 (XI, 7). 60  ‘Quia utraque non fortuito, sed certis conditionibus definitoque ordine et lege operatur’. Ibidem 3 (VII, 3). A literal translation of this sentence into English is difficult. 61  ‘Quia utraque sua monstra effectusque per accidens productos habet’. Ibidem 3 (VII, 5, line 1). Monsters are accorded substantial discussion in Stengel (Pr.) – Pfeffer (Resp.), Iudicium, De Arcanis […] Iisque Malis Naturae Effectibus Chapters II and III (3–14).

410

Freedman

its own proper form while ars does so with the use of an idea that is preconceived in the mind of an artisan.62 Chapter IV in On the Good Arts in General focuses on the concepts of idea and exemplar. Idea (idea) exists in the intellect (of the artisan).63 Exemplar (exemplar) is the practical form ( forma practica) which is applied (by the artisan) in order to produce a given work.64 The connection between idea and exemplar is not directly explained in this disputation. However, he once refers to the idea as ‘preconceived’ in the mind of the artisan.65 It appears that the exemplar follows therefrom.66 The idea and the exemplar are both needed in order that the artisan can complete any given work.67 The necessity of nature (and physics) for ars is clearly noted within this published disputation. Ars requires knowledge of physics.68 Physics is perfectly aware of any faults (peccata) of the arts; that which is clearly at odds with physics doctrines is surely contaminated by errors.69 Ars imitates nature.70 Ars by itself cannot do anything without nature; many things (for example, substances, walls, fleas, silver, gold) are made by nature which cannot be made by ars alone.71

62  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 3, VII, final three lines. 63  ‘Dicimus autem Ideam in intellectu formaliter existere […]’. Ibidem 10, XXIV, line 1. 64  Ibidem 7, lines 2–3. 65  ‘Denique […] utraque producit simile: Natura quidem secundum propriam formam, Ars autem secundum Ideam in animo artificis praeconceptam’. Ibidem 3, VII, final three lines. 66  ‘Ratio autem cum qua Ars opus suum efficit, nihil est, nisi Exemplar, seu quaedam operis efficiendi Idea mente artificis concepta, ad cuius similitudinem externum opus efficitur. Quae quidem Ratio seu Idea tunc vera aut recta est, quando fini congruit. Quare tunc artifex cum vera ratione et absque errandi periculo operatur, quando ita operatur, quem­ admodum finis praeconcepti operis exigit’. Ibidem 6, XIII, lines 6–11. 67  Ibidem 6, XIII, lines 6–7; 12, XXIX, lines 2–5 (‘Ars quippe cum sit quidam habitus effectivus, nec faciat opus suum, nisi Idea mediante, videtur ab eadem Idea Artis effectus tanquam a quodam principio effectivo dependere’). 68  ‘Quod quidem Ars consequitur ex cognitione rerum naturalium […]’. Ibidem 2, V, line 4. 69  Ibidem 2, VI, lines 4–7. Here physics appears to have something analogous to a personality, such as mother nature (mater natura); refer to footnote 53 and the corresponding passage in the text. 70  ‘Ars sit Naturae imitatrix […]’. Ibidem 2, IV, line 1. The following publication provides a broader context for the view that ars imitates nature: Moritz A. (ed.), Ars imitatur naturam. Transformationen eines Paradigmas menschlicher Kreativiät im Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Münster: 2010). 71  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 7, XVII, line 15 (‘Nam Ars, quae sine Natura nihil sola possit efficere […]’.), lines 3–5 (‘Quaedam tamen ita a Natura fiunt, ut nequeant per se ab Arte fieri, qualia sunt substantiae, mures, pulices, argentum aurum etc’.).

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

411

However, ars is also assessed positively therein. The production of artefacts requires many steps72 and requires (the artisan to have) constancy (constantia).73 And while ars needs nature, it perfects nature74 as well: using the example of a statue that the artisan makes from a rough stone found in a field, the artisan takes the needed material from nature and makes it more perfect that it was.75 And by connecting nature with the occult forces of (natural) things, ars teaches how especially admirable artefacts are made.76 In On the Good Arts in General it is noted that God is the cause and exemplar of substances, natural effects, and natural forms.77 God is also origin of ideas, but ideas are both divine and human; humans can participate in divine ideas.78 It would appear that ars participates in divinity insofar as it is said to harbor secrets (arcana) and connects with occult forces.79 In Chapter V it is noted that 72  The perceived difficulty of these steps is evident from the description given thereof: ‘Quorum nonnulla fiunt resectione, quo modo statuarii ex trunco Polyphemum, hoc est, alium truncum effigiant: nonnulla transfiguratione, quo modo ex tignis et lapidibus domus compingitur: nonnulla additione, quo modo Zeuxis in tabula per additionem colorum Helenam describit: nonnulla aliis modis, quos omnes si sciremus, Daedalum vinceremus’. Ibidem 7–8, XVIII. 73  Ibidem 7, XVIII, final two lines; 8, lines 1–5. Constancy is a subject-matter that apparently was only rarely discussed within early 17th-century academic philosophical writings; refer to the brief discussion thereof in Halbach Daniel (Pr.) – Fahrenwalt Balthasar (Resp.), Collegii Ethici Disputatio XX De Reliquis Virtutibus imperfectis. Continentia, Tolerantia, Et De Constantia, Quae […] In Inclyta Borussorum Academia, quae Regiomonti est […] Habebitur VI. Decemb. Gregor. horis pomerid. (Königsberg, Johann Schmidt: 1617), fol. A4v. 74  ‘Alia auspicatur Ars, perficit Natura; alia, quae Natura inchoavit, Ars ad perfectionem maiorem perducit’. Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 8, XIX, lines 1–2. Perfect results can also follow when theory (science) and practice (ars) are utilized together; refer to footnote 38 and the corresponding passage in the text. 75  ‘Quare Philosophice dictum est, DEUM creare, Naturam generare, Artem componere, quae secundum quid etiam perfectior est, quam Natura, quia artefacta prout naturale tanquam materiale includunt, pure naturalibus perfectiora censentur. Unde lapis in statuam factus, nobilior censetur, quam cum rudis adhuc in agro iaceret’. Ibidem 5, XII, lines 6–10. The use of the phrase secundum quid here may serve as an indirect indication of issues expressed elsewhere within this published disputation with regard to the arts. Refer to footnotes 84 through 88 as well as to the corresponding passages in the text. 76  ‘[…] Ars docet opera quaedam, ac praesertim admiranda facere; mutuos Naturae consensus, et occultas rerum vires inter se copulando’. Ibidem 2, V, lines 2–3. A literal transition into English has not been attempted here. 77  Ibidem 6, XV, lines 2–16. 78  Ibidem 11, XXV, lines 4–9. It has been noted that ars produces and composes (footnotes 74 and 75, respectively). Although the artisan only composes and produces while God creates, it is possible that the presider (Stengel) and the respondent (Tschudi) in this disputation would have accepted the view that the artisan ‘participates’ in God’s creation. 79  Ibidem Introduction (‘LECTORI’.), line 2 and the passage quoted in footnote 76 above.

412

Freedman

theologians are able to distinguish between true and false miracles. But among the requisites in order to do so is knowledge of individual persons and circumstances, both of which – insofar as they focus on singulars – fall within the domain of ars.80 And in the concluding phrase to On the Good Arts in General God (while not directly mentioned) is said to be ‘the first and highest Artisan’.81 However, in this published disputation some issues pertaining to ars are also mentioned. Ars depends on experience, which is acquired through exercise (exercitatio) and memory; but that experience can be lost via idleness or forgetfulness.82 And changes in individual circumstances pertaining to time, place, individuals, and other factors can interfere with the work of even the most capable artisan.83 Also mentioned in On the Good Arts in General is the extent to which ars can be used in order to produce outcomes which, generically speaking, are not good. Ars can either be good (proba) or not good (improba) as well as either legitimate or spurious.84 Ars can be good, true, and natural or it can also be adulterated or, better said, be a simulation and abuse of ars.85 In Chapter V, ars not used properly is referred to as inactivity (inertia), as Canidia,86 or as a step-mother (noverca).87 And the text of this published disputation ends with the warning that while not always the case, physically good arts are often utilized in ways that are morally bad.88

80  Ibidem 14, XXXIX, 4–5. It is also noted in this published disputation (13, XXXV, lines 1–4) that the origin of the arts is older than the origin of the sciences: ‘Artium autem inventio seu origo, ut quidem ex Aristotele in princ. Metaph. colligitur, antiquior est inventione scientiarum, quia ad Artes quaerendas, homines necessitate quadam (cum variis rebus artefactis se indigere viderent) excitati sunt’. 81  ‘Omnia ad primi et summi Artificis gloriam’. Ibidem 14, final phrase. 82  Ibidem 6, XIV, lines 16–19. 83  ‘5. Quia utraque sua monstra effectusque per accidens productos habet. Licet enim fortuna cum intellectualibus virtutibus locum habere non videatur […] cum tamen plurima saepe incidant circa singularia, quae etiam a sapientissimo artifice praevidere non potuerunt […]’. Ibidem 3, VII, lines 10–16. 84  Ibidem 1, Introduction (‘LECTORI’.), lines 6–7 and 10–11. The terms probus and improbus are difficult to translate here into English. Concerning the translation of improbus as that which is not good refer to the paragraph in the text corresponding to footnotes 94 and 95. 85  ‘Atque vel hoc uno ex capite, saepe liquet, quaenam sit bona seu vera et naturalis Ars, quae adulterina, seu potius simulatio, et abusus Artis’. Ibidem 2, V, lines 6–8. 86  In poems written by Horace, Canidia is understood to be a witch who was active in ancient Rome; refer to Paule M.T., Canidia, Rome’s First Witch (London et al.: 2017). 87  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 14, XXXVII, lines 1–7. 88  ‘Quanquam non semper ita, sed saepe etiam per Physice Bonas Artes, moraliter Male operetur’. Ibidem 14, XL, lines 9–12.

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

413

It appears that this issue – the extent to which the arts are good (bonae) or bad (malae) – is reflected within the content of the two additional published disputations on the subject-matter of the arts in which Georg Stengel served as presider. The text of On the Good Arts in Particular consists of four chapters. Although ‘good arts’ (bonae artes) are mentioned in its title, its content focuses almost entirely on the misuse of arts. Chapters I, II, and III discuss the misuse of arts that discuss the characteristics of letters, syllables, and words.89 Chapter IV discusses (and rejects) the view that the arts can be used to make gold or to result in other miraculous effects.90 The text of On the Bad Arts consists of three chapters. Misuse of the mathematical arts (catoptrics, geometry, music, and arithmetic) in the subjectmatter of Chapter I while the misuse of medicine, the military arts, hunting, and fishing are discussed in Chapter II; Chapter III focuses primarily on black magic (magia nigra).91 However, in On the Good Arts in General magic is said to have its origin in physics, and it is also noted in there that the individual arts discussed in Chapters I and II of On the Bad Arts also can be understood to be good arts.92 During Stengel’s third academic year (1616–1617) as a professor of philosophy at the University of Dillingen he was apparently not responsible for teaching metaphysics. During that same academic year he presided over eight published disputations, containing a total of six separate texts. Three of these texts discussed the good and bad arts while two others focused on the good and bad effects of nature. The dichotomy between good and bad is evident within these latter five disputations as well as within the disputation (published during Stengel’s second academic year in Dillingen) On Good and Bad Syllogisms.93 In the context of these six texts, however, it is not clear what the term ‘bad’ means. In On the Good Arts in General arts that are not good (including those 89  Stengel (Pr.) – Letter (Resp.) De Bonis Artibus In Specie chapters I, II, and III (1–12). 90  Ibidem chapter IV (12–17). 91  Stengel (Pr.) – Morstein (Resp.), De Malis Artibus chapters I (1–13) and II (13–19). 92  Stengel (Pr.) – Tschudi (Resp.), De Bonis Artibus In Genere 2, VI, lines 1–2; 4, XI, 7; 9, 1–14; 13, XXXVI. In a published University of Ingolstadt disputation on natural magic the distinction is made between the use and misuse thereof: Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Baumann Christian (Resp.), Disputatio Physica, De Magia Naturali, Et Viribus Naturae Contra Magos […] in […] Ingolstadiensium Academia, Praeside Georgio Clainero […] Tuebitur Christianus Bauman, Wisensteigensis Suevus, Artium liberalium, et Philosophiae Baccalaureus […] M. DC. XI. Die XII. Decemb. (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1611) 3, VI, lines 1–5. 93  ‘Schon früh interessiert ihn [Stengel], phil. wie theol., das Problem des Guten und des Bösen’. Mulsow, “Stengel, Georg” 417, right column. While none of these six texts focus on metaphysics as a whole, it could be argued that during the early 17th century the subject matter of good and bad pertained not only to ethics, but also to metaphysics.

414

Freedman

which are not properly used) are mentioned using diverse terminology.94 In On Good and Bad Syllogisms, ‘bad’ appears to refer to syllogisms that are erroneous in different ways. A comprehensive view of that which is ‘bad’ is not specifically addressed in any of the published disputations presided over by Stengel in 1616 or 1617; it may have been regarded as a subject-matter that was considered as too dangerous to address.95 It would appear that within the context of these disputations, ‘bad’ might be best be described as that which is not good in a number of different contexts and ways. When assessing Georg Stengel’s career, it can be asserted that his major accomplishments – while not taking his work as an administrator into account – were his theological publications, the professional success of many of his theology students, and his literary production.96 But also worthy of consideration are the University of Dillingen disputations (published in 1616 and 1617) over which he presided; of particular importance is the discussion of ars, as compared and contrasted with nature, in On the Good Arts in General.97 This discussion should be useful in the context of future research on the meaning of (and connections between) the arts (liberal as well as corporeal), nature, philosophy, and the sciences during the early 17th century. 94  Refer to footnotes 84 through 88 as well as the corresponding paragraph in the text. 95  In Stengel (Pr.) – Pfeffer (Resp.), Iudicium, De Arcanis […] Iisque Malis Naturae Effectibus 1, II, lines 1–3 it is noted that ‘De Malo tamen morali, non est hic disserendi locus. Naturale Malum duntaxat nostri fori est: quamvis a morum malitia, ad Naturae Mala multa transferri queant’. Concerning the danger of discussing certain subject matters refer to the following: ‘Facilis huic nodo reperiretur cuneus, si cum Ockamo 1. part. Summae Physicae c. 4 dicere vellemus Physicam esse ex parte practicam, cum de anima deque operationibus animasticis, et adeo etiam de actibus voluntatis, prout sunt liberi, agat. Verum alius periculosior scopulus nos terret, ne ad hunc portum appellamus’. Ibidem 1, II, lines 1–4; 2, line 1. Concerning William of Ockham’s views concerning ars refer to Kaufmann M., “Ockhams Theorie des Kunstproduktes”, in Moritz A. (ed.), Ars imitatur naturam 73–85. 96  Refer to the synopsis of Stengel’s career and accomplishments in Mulsow, “Stengel, Georg” 417–418. 97  ‘Als bemerkenswerte Individualitäten fallen […] Jakob Bidermann […] Georg Stengel in der ausführlichen Beschäftigung mit dem Verhältnis von Natur und Kunst […] Christian Baumann […] und Christoph Haunold auf […]’. Leinsle, Dilinganae Disputationes 241. Two additional disputations on the subject-matter of ars and nature (both published in Dillingen) are Holzhai Georg (Pr.) – Weiss Matthaeus (Resp.), Theses Philosophicae De Natura, Arte, Casu, Anima rationali […] In […] Academia Dilingana […] Iunii, Anno M.DC. XII. Praeside P. Georgio Holzhai […] Respondente […] Matthaeo Weiss, Ordinis S. Benedicti, professo in Coenobio Andecensi (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1612) and Wenckh Caspar (Pr.) – Raittenhueber Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Physica De Natura Et Arte […] In […] Universitate Dilingana Praeside Gaspare Wenck […] Tuebitur Ioannes Raittenhuber Philosophiae Baccalaureus […] Ad diem {10} Iunii, Anno M. DC. XXII. (Dillingen, Ulrich Rem: 1622).

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

415

Selected Bibliography 1

Abbreviations and Symbols

Library and Archive locations and call numbers are provided for all manuscripts and publications dated prior to 1700. The following abbreviations are used for this purpose: BSB Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich) HAB Herzog August Bibliothek (Wolfenbüttel) JA Jesuiten-Archiv (Munich) SB Staatliche Bibliothek (Regensburg), Staatsbibliothek (Berlin) SLUB Staats-, Landes- und Universitätsbibliothek (Dresden) SStB Staats- und Stadtbibliothek (Augsburg) StudB Studienbibliothek (Dillingen) UA Universitätsarchiv (Munich) UB Universitätsbibliothek ZB Zentralbibliothek (Zurich) The following abbreviations are also used (in published disputations): (Pr.) presider (Resp.) respondent { } The parentheses are used where the day when a given disputation was held is written onto the title page by hand. __ This underlining is used where there is an empty space within which the day when a given disputation was (supposed to be) held is not provided.

2

Manuscripts

2.1

Georg Stengel

(Stengel Georg), Disputationes morales. In VIII. libros Politicorum Ar[is]t[otel] is Stagyritae. […] Quas pertractabat R.P. Georgius Stengelius Ethices professor Ing[olstadiensis] anno salutis 1619. (Munich UB: 40 Col.ms. 684) Letters by Georg Stengel to his brother, Karl (Carolus) Stengel: 63 letters, dated between 1602 and 1617 (Munich BSB: Clm 1616, fol. 86r–152v) and 67 letters, dated between 1618 and 1632 (Munich BSB: Clm 1617, fol. 236r–299v, 500r–v)

416 2.2 2.2.1

Freedman

Manuscripts in which Georg Stengel is Mentioned Dillingen, Studienbibliothek [StudB]

Volumen primum Actorum in Academia Dilingana Ao. […] 1551 ad 1632 […]. (XV/226/1) Actorum universitatis Dilingae volumen II Ab Anno Domini 1632 ad Annum 1716 inclusive. (XV/226/2)

2.2.2

Munich, Jesuiten-Archiv

2.2.3

Munich, Universitätsarchiv

Catalogi breves Provinciae Germaniae Superioris omnes qui in Archivo Gen. inveniri possunt ab anno 1556–1709. Catalogi III eiusdem Provinciae ab anno 1590–1705. Descripsit ex Catalogo in Archivio gen. S.J.P. Herm. Hafner S.J. (Abt. 40–3, Nr. 71)

Acta (of the Arts Faculty of the University of Ingolstadt), 1567–1690. (O_1_4) Catalogus studiosorum metaphysice (physice et logice) in Academic Ingolstadiensi [Catalog of students in the third (metaphysics), second (physics) and first (logic) years of the philosophical course at the University of Ingolstadt], 1591–1666. (O_IV_3)

3

Published Writings

3.1

Georg Stengel

[Reihing Conradus S.J. (Pr.) – Schachner Christophorus S.J. (Resp.) – Stengel Georgius S.J. (Resp.)],98 Conclusiones Ex Universa Aristotelis Philosophia, Ad Publicam Disputationem, In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi, A Duobus E Societate Jesu Metaphysicae Studiosis […] pridie D. Udalrici [= July 3] Propositae (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1607). [Munich UB: 4 Philos. 309,7] [Stengel Georg S.J.], Otto Redivivus. Summarischer Inhalt der Comoedi von erster Stifftung / Anfang und Vortpflantzung der Universitet der Societat Iesu in Dilingen […] Gehalten in ermelter Universitet zu Dilingen den 22. Octobris. Anno 1614 (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1614). [Munich BSB: Res/4 Bavar. 2197,IV,1/89#Beibd.12] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Ruepand Kaspar (Resp.) – Friesenegger Maurus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, In […] Academia Dilingana […] Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad Publicum Certamen Proposita […] M.DC.XVI. die {29}99 Ianuarii; Respondentibus F. Casparo Ruepando, F. Mauro Friesenögger, Ordinis S. Benedicti in Monte Sancto Andechs Professis, et Physicae Studiosis. […] (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1616). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1298#Beibd. 4]

98  The presider and the two respondents are not mentioned by name within this published disputation but they are all named in Munich UA: O_I_4, fol. 73v; O_IV_3, fol. 9r. 99  The date (29) is handwritten on the title page of this copy and is also given in StudB Dillingen: XV/226/1, p. 248.

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

417

Stengel Georg S.J., Catalogus, Quo Describuntur Nomina Virtute Atque Eruditione Inclytorum Iuvenum, Quos In […] Academia Dilingana, Ob Ingenuos Labores In Philosophia […] Coeptos, Bacca Et Lauro Insigniores Faciet, Georgius Stengelius Societatis Jesu, Philosophiae Professor Ordinarius XIII. Kalendas Maias100 […] M. DC. XVI. Nomina Candidatorum. 1. […] 59. […] Quaestiones pro inauguratione Candidatorum agitandae. I. Palliatumne potius esse Philosophum deceat, quam Togatum? II. An Sermones et Vestes Philosophi congruere debeant? III. Quaenam Captio sit omnium perniciosissima, quae utilissima? […] ([Dillingen]: 1616). (broadsheet, illustrated) [Augsburg SStB: Diss. phil. 1368]101 Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Tschudi Dominicus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Bonis Artibus In Genere […] In […] Academia Dilingana Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad publicum certamen proponet […] M. DC. XVI. die [9]102 Decembris […] Dominicus Tschudi, Ordinis S. Benedicti, In Monasterio Murensi Apud Helvetios, Professus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, et Metaphysicae Studiosus (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1616). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 3558,30] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Letter Franz (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica De Bonis Artibus In Specie […] In […] Academia Dilingana Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Ad publicum exercitium instituet […] Franciscus Letter, Ordinis S. Benedicti, In Monasterio Murensi, Apud Helvetios, Professus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, et Metaphysicae Studiosus. […] M. DC. XVI. V. Idus Decembris (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1616). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss 2087# Beibd. 47] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Morstein, Ratholdus (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica, De Malis Artibus, Quam In […] Academia Dilingana, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Proponet Ratholdus Morstein, Ratholdicellensis Acronianus, Philosophiae Baccalaureus, ac Metaphysicae Studiosus. […] M. DC. XVII. die 22. Februarii (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Wolfenbüttel HAB: A: 287.11 Quod. (5), Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1305#Beibd. 22] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Diem Nicolaus (Resp.), Castigatio Philosophica, Malarum Quarundam Artium, Partim Antiquarum, Partim Recentium, Pro Solenni Disputatione, Sub praesidio, Georgii Stengelii […] In […] Academia Dilingana […] M. DC. XVII. VIII. Cal. Martii, Publice proposita, A Nicolao Diem, Brigantino, Acroniano, Philosophiae Baccalaureo, et Metaphysicae Studioso (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 2087#Beibd. 49, Zurich ZB: RRm 172,21]103 100  This same date (April 19) is given in StudB Dillingen: XV/226/1, p. 248. 101  Nine respondents are listed in the extant Dillingen disputations published in 1616 and 1617 over which Stengel presided; all nine are listed as Baccalaureus candidates (13. Kalendas Maias […] 1616 cf. footnote 14) and seven thereof – excluding Caspar Ruepandus and Maurus Friesenegger – are listed as Magister candidates (12. Calend. September 1617). 102  In Dillingen StudB, XV/226/1, p. 251 it is noted that this disputation was held on 9 December 1616. 103  This disputation has the identical texts as the prior disputation (De Malis Artibus) but has a different title, a different respondent (Nicolaus Diem) and a different dedication from the prior disputation.

418

Freedman

[Stengel Georg], Triumphus Quem olim Deiparae Virgini Mariae, Coeli Terraeque Imperatrici, Caelites Decrevere; Nunc Musae Universitatis Dilinganae in Scenam Christianam Produxere: Cum Templum Societatis Jesu […] Eidem Virgini dedicaretur III. Idus Iun[ii] (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: [1617]). [Munich BSB: 4 Bavar. 2193, I, 1/57] [Stengel Georg], Triumph der Gebenedeyten Junckfrawen und Himmelkünigin Maria […] durch ein Comedi zu Gedächtnuß geführt […] den 11. Junii / 1617 (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Zurich ZB: Rd 504: f,2] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Faber Georg (Resp.), Bonorum Quorundam Naturae Effectuum Declaratio, Quam, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] In […] Universitate Dilingana […] M. DC. XVII. __ Die Iunii. Velitationi publicae exponet, Georgius Faber, Biberacensis Suevus (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 2087#Beibd. 50, Zurich ZB: RRm 1284: f,15.] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Molitor Georg (Resp.), Indagatio Physica, De Bonis Quibusdam Naturae Effectibus, In […] Universitate Dilingana, Praeside Georgio Stengelio […] Publicae disputationis ergo instituta, A Georgio Molitore Ottenburano, Algoio, Philosophiae Baccalaureo, Et Metaphysicae Studioso […] M. DC. XVII. __ Die Junii (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1368#Beibd. 7]104 Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Pfeffer Johann Wilhelm (Resp.), Iudicium, De Arcanis Quibusdam, Iisque Malis Naturae Effectibus, Seu Potius Defectibus Ac Praecipue, De Illis, Quae, Circa Monstra, In Disceptationem Venire Possunt, Quod, Auspicio Georgii Stengelii […] In […] Universitate Dilingana, Iunii Die 30. Anno M. DC. XVII. Sub finem cursus Philosophici, publice propugnandum suscipiet, […] Ioannes Gulielmus Pfeffer, Wallersteinensis Rhetus, Artium et Philosophiae Baccalaureus, ac Metaphysicae Studiosus (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss 1368#Beibd. 6] Stengel Georg S.J. (Pr.) – 55 named candidates for the Master of Arts degree, Peripateticae, Et Evangelicae, Doctrinae Comparatio, Qua ostenditur, Quanta Utrique Ab Altera Lux Accesserit: Praeside Georgio Stengelio, Societatis Iesu, Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, In […] Universitate Dilingana, Ab Eximia Virtute, Et Eruditione […] Dominis Candidatis, Pro Suprema Philosophiae Laurea consequenda, Ad Publicam Disputationem Allata, XII. Calend. Septemb. […] M. DC. XVII (Dillingen, Barbara Mayer: 1617). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1285#/Beibd. 6] Stengel Georg S.J., Libellus De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] olim […] in […] Academia Dilingana Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, editus; Nunc denuo, quorumdam rogatu, ad publicam utilitatem formis subiectus. (Munich, Nikolaus Heinrich: 1618). [Munich BSB: Ph. sp. 799 (1)]

104  This disputation has the identical texts as the prior disputation (Bonorum quorundam naturae effectuum declaratio) but has a different title, a different respondent (Georgius Molitor) and a different dedication from the prior disputation.

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

419

Stengel Georg S.J., Libelli De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Pars Altera, Nunquam Antehac edita. in qua Inter varios Sophismatum ludos, de insolubilibus potissimum disputatur: Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] (Munich, Nikolaus Heinrich: 1618). [Munich BSB: Ph. sp. 799 (2)] Stengel Georg S.J., De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo; Distributus in duas partes; quarum prima de Syllogismo, secunda de Insolubilibus, deque Conversionibus agit. Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] Nunc tertio et cum novo augmento, ad publicam utilitatem formis sub­ iectus (Ingolstadt, Wilhelm Eder: 1623). [Munich BSB: Ph.sp. 800 (1)] Stengel Georg S.J., Libelli De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Pars altera. In qua primum inter varios Sophismatum ludos, de insolubilibus, tum etiam de Bonis et Malis Conversionibus disputatur (Ingolstadt, Wilhelm Eder: 1623). [Munich BSB: Ph.sp. 800 (2)] Stengel Georg S.J., Libellus De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] olim In […] Academia Dilingana Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, editus: Nunc denuo, quorundam rogatu, ad publicam utilitatem formis subjectus (Erfurt, Johann Birckner: 1623). [Zurich ZB: RRm 255: b] Stengel Georg S.J., Libellus De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo; Distributus in duas partes; quarum prima de Syllogismo, secunda de Insolubilibus, deque Conversionibus agit. Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] […] Editio sexta (Ingolstadt, Wilhelm Eder: 1631). [Zurich ZB: RRm 255: 2] Stengel Georg S.J., Libellus De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Auctore Georgio Stengelio, Societatis Jesu, olim In […] Academia Dilingana Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, editus: Nunc denuo, quorundam rogatu, ad publicam utilitatem formis subjectus (Erfurt, Johann Birckner: 1649). [Berlin SB: Nl 11918-1/2 (1)] Stengel Georg S.J., Libelli De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Pars Altera, Nunquam Antehac Edita, in qua Inter varios Sophismatum ludos, de insolubilibus potissimum disputatur: Auctore Georgio Stengelio […] (Erfurt, Johann Birckner: 1649). [Berlin SB: Nl 11918-1/2 (2)] Stengel Georg S.J., Libellus De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, A. Georgio Stengelio […] olim in […] Academia Dilingana Philosophiae Professore Ordinario, editus: Nunc denuo, quorundam rogatu, ad publicam utilitatem formis subjectus. (Leipzig: Johann Brendel ‒ Johann Bauer: 1662). [Augsburg SStB: Phil 3681-1] Stengel Georg S.J., Libelli De Bono Et Malo Syllogismo, Pars Altera Nunquam Antehac Edita. in qua Inter varios Sophismatum ludos, de insolubilibus potissimum disputatur (Leipzig, Johann Brendel – Johann Bauer: 1662). [Augsburg SStB: Phil 3681-2]

3.2

Other Writings Published Prior to 1700

Alsted Johann Heinrich, Cursus Philosophici Encyclopaedia Libris XXVII Complectens […] (Herborn, Christoph Corvinus: 1620). [Berlin SB: 4″ A 4864] Alsted Johann Heinrich, Encyclopaedia Septem tomis distincta […]. (Herborn, no printer given: 1630), Vol. (Tomus) 1, 1, 3, 65–72 and Vol. (Tomus) 7, 1957, 2209–2397 (Apodemica: 2209–2213). [Regensburg SB: 999/2 Philos. 3017 (Vols. 1–3 and 4–7)]

420

Freedman

Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Calchus Franz Maximilian (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica De Artibus Generatim, Et Arte Artium Speciatim […] In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi, Anno M.DC.X. Die {15} Decemb. proposita, Praeside Georgio Clainero […] Respondente […] Francisco Maximiliano Calcho, Mediolanensi, Philosophiae studioso (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1610). [Munich BSB: H.lit.p. 647 a#Beibd.1] Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Baumann Christian (Resp.), Disputatio Physica, De Magia Naturali, Et Viribus Naturae Contra Magos […] in […] Ingolstadiensium Academia, Praeside Georgio Clainero […] Tuebitur Christianus Bauman, Wisensteigensis Suevus, Artium liberalium, et Philosophiae Baccalaureus M. DC. XI. Die XII. Decemb. (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1611). [Augsburg SStB: 4 Kst 2835#Beibd. 7] [Clainer Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Albericus Joannes S.J. (Resp.) – Feldner Daniel (Resp.) – Verdunchk/Verdugk Georgius S.J. (Resp.)],105 Positiones Aristotelicae E Tribus Scien­ tiis, Logica, Physica, Metaphysica Decerptae […] In […] Ingolstadiensium Academia […] A Tribus E Societate Iesu Religiosis Et Philosophiae Studiosis […] propugnatae […] M. DC. XII. Die 3. Iulii. (Ingolstadt, Andreas Angermaier: 1612). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1236#Beibd. 1] Coscan Oswald S.J. (Pr.) – Zeyll Wolfgang Friedrich (Resp.), Disputatio Physica De Generalibus Architectonicae Principiis […] In […] Academia Ingolstadiensi Die {26} Aprilis Anni M DC XIX, Praeside Oswaldo Coscano […] defendet Wolffgangus Fridericus Zeyll Passaviensis Metaphysicae Studiosus (Ingolstadt, Gregor Hänlin: 1619). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 3110,4] Ebert Theodor (Pr.) – Ammon Elisaeus (Resp.), Manuductionis Aphoristicae Ad Discursum Artium Et Disciplinarum Methodicum Sectio Decimatertia […] Artes Effectivae ad disputandum propositae In Academia Viadrina Praeside M. Theodoro Eberto […] Respondente Elisaeo Ammonio Francof. Marchico. ad diem 14. Martii […] M. DC. XX. (Frankfort on the Oder, Nikolaus Voltz, Michael Koch: 1620). [Dresden SLUB: Coll. diss. A 28,39] Gaudin Ambrosius S.J. (Pr.) – Peschung Placidus (Resp.) – Streber Roman (Resp.) – Locher Maurus (Resp.) – Bridler Adalbert (Resp.), De Principiis Entis Naturalis, In […] Academia Dilingana publice habita, III. Nonas Iunii, Anno M.DC.XIII. […] (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1613). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 1285#Beibd. 4] Gross Johann Georg, Compendium Quatuor Facultatum: I. Philosophiae, II. Medicinae, III. Juris-prudentiae, IV. Theologiae S. […]. (Basel, Ludwig König: 1620). [Berlin SB: A 4950] (A 4950, 1: Compendium philosophiae) Halbach Daniel (Pr.) – Fahrenwalt Balthasar (Resp.), Collegii Ethici Disputatio XX De Reliquis Virtutibus imperfectis. Continentia, Tolerantia, Et De Constantia, Quae […] 105  The presider and the three respondents are not mentioned by name within this published disputation but they are all named in Munich UA: O_1_4, fol. 89r; O_IV_3, fol. 13v. Regarding the career of Georg Clainer (1574–1620) see Neumann, “Clainer, Georg” 71.

THE GOOD ARTS, THE BAD ARTS, AND NATURE ACCORDING TO STENGEL

421

In Inclyta Borussorum Academia, quae Regiomonti est […] Habebitur VI. Decemb. Gregor. horis pomerid. (Königsberg, Johann Schmidt: 1617). [Berlin SB: Np 2810 (20)] Holzhai Georg S.J. (Pr.) – Weiss Matthaeus (Resp.), Theses Philosophicae, De Natura, Arte, Casu, Anima rationali […] In […] Academia Dilingana […] Iunii, Anno M.DC.XII. Praeside P. Georgio Holzhai […] Respondente […] Matthaeo Weiss, Ordinis S. Benedicti, professo in Coenobio Andecensi (Dillingen, Johann Mayer: 1612). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 3694,1] Timpler Clemens, Metaphysicae Systema Methodicum, Libris quinque Per Theoremata Et Problemata selecta concinnatum. Cui […] In Principio Accessit Eiusdem Technologia; Hoc est Tractatus Generalis Et Utilissimus de natura et differentiis artium liberalium […] (Hanau, Peter Antonius: 1616). [Freiburg UB: B 2272bi] Wenckh Caspar S.J. (Pr.) – Raittenhueber Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Physica De Natura Et Arte […] In […] Universitate Dilingana, Praeside Gaspare Wenck […] Tuebitur Ioannes Raittenhuber Philosophiae Baccalaureus […] Ad diem {10} Iunii, Anno M. DC. XXII. (Dillingen, Ulrich Rem: 1622). [Munich BSB: 4 Diss. 3647,23] Zwinger Theodor, Methodus Apodemica […] (Basel, Eusebius Episcopius: 1577). [Munich BSB: ESlg/4 It. coll. 29]

4

Secondary Literature

Freedman J.S., European Academic Philosophy in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. The Life, Significance, and Philosophy of Clemens Timpler (1563/64–1624), 2 vols., Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 27 (Hildesheim – Zurich – New York: 1988). Freedman J.S., “Introduction. The Study of Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Writings on Academic Philosophy. Some Methodical Considerations”, in Freedman J.S. (ed.), Philosophy and the Arts in Central Europe, 1500–1700. Teaching and Texts at European Schools and Universities, Variorum Collected Studies Series 626 (Aldershot, UK – Brookfield, Vermont: 1999) 1–40. Freedman J.S., “Published academic disputations in the context of other information formats used primarily in Central Europe (c. 1550–c. 1700)”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 89–128. Freedman J.S., “Philosophy Instruction, the Philosophy Concept, and Philosophy Disputations Published at the University of Ingolstadt, c. 1550–c. 1650”, in Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur. Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 316–362.

422

Freedman

Freedman J.S., “The History of ‘Scientific Method’ (methodus scientifica) in the Early Modern Period and its Relevance for School-Level and University-Level Instruction in Our Time”, in Dooley B. (ed.), Renaissance Now! The Value of the Renaissance Past in Contemporary Culture (Oxford et al.: 2014) 287–318.106 Kaufmann M., “Ockhams Theorie des Kunstproduktes”, in Moritz A. (ed.), Ars imitatur naturam. Transformationen eines Paradigmas menschlicher Kreativität im Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Münster: 2010) 73–85. Leinsle U.G., Dilinganae Disputationes. Der Lehrinhalt der gedruckten Disputationen an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Dillingen 1555–1648, Jesuitica 11 (Regensburg: 2006). Moritz A. (ed.), Ars imitatur naturam. Transformationen eines Paradigmas menschlicher Kreativät im Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Münster: 2010). Mulsow M., “Stengel, Georg”, in Boehm L. – Müller W. – Smolka J. – Zedelmaier H. (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472–1806, Ludovico Maximilianea Forschungen und Quellen. Forschungen 18 (Berlin: 1998) 417–418. Neumann U., “Clainer, Georg”, in Boehm L. – Müller W. – Smolka J. – Zedelmaier H. (eds.), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Teil 1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472–1806, Ludovico Maximilianea Forschungen und Quellen. Forschungen 18 (Berlin: 1998) 71. Paule M.T., Canidia, Rome’s First Witch (London et al.: 2017). Rädle F., “Georg Stengel S.J. (1585–1651) als Dramatiker”, in Brinkmann R. (ed.), Theatrum Europaeum. Festschrift für Elida Maria Szarota (Munich: 1982) 87–107. Rädle F., “Die Briefe des Jesuiten Georg Stengel (1584–1651) an seinen Bruder Karl (1581–1663)”, in Neumeister S. – Wiedemann C. (eds.), Res Publica Litteraria. Die Institutionen der Gelehrsamkeit in der frühen Neuzeit. Teil II, Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 14 (Wiesbaden: 1987) 525–534. Schneider A., Narrative Anleitungen zur praxis pietatis im Barock. Dargelegt am Exempelgebrauch in den “Iudicia Divina” des Jesuiten Georg Stengel (1584–1651), Veröffentlichungen zur Volkskunde und Kulturgeschichte 11 (Würzburg: 1982).

106  A pre-publication version thereof is accessible via academia.edu.

chapter 16

Progress or Conservatism? Eighteenth-Century Disputations and Dissertations at the University of Innsbruck between (Catholic) Enlightenment and Josephinism Isabella Walser-Bürgler Summary The University of Innsbruck (Austria) was founded in 1669. As a Jesuit institution based in the counter-reformatory stronghold of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Tyrol the ideas of the Enlightenment along with a new teaching content, new scholarly and scientific findings, and new approaches to long-established disciplines only slowly trickled into the curriculum. Due to their hybrid role as an obsolete scholastic ‘relic’ on the one hand and a means of promoting recent knowledge on the other, the disputations and dissertations given and published at the University of Innsbruck in the eighteenth century serve as intriguing documents of the actual velocity and intensity with which the implementation of both Enlightenment values and educational reforms took place in Innsbruck. The article thus investigates a selected number of disputations and dissertations produced in the context of the core Jesuit disciplines of the Philosophical and the Theological Faculty to trace the intellectual crises, conflicts, and changes from conservative to ‘modern’ thinking from the beginning of the 1700s until the years following the suppression of the Jesuits (1773). As the main source of the disputations, dissertations, and their respective context and reception functioned the diaries of the Theological Faculty of the University of Innsbruck.

1

Background and Research Question

The University of Innsbruck was founded in 1669 by Emperor Leopold I. On a political level, the foundation meant to help the Tyrol compensate for the loss of its autonomous government in 1665 (after the Tyrolean line of the Habsburgs had died out) and the region’s consequent placement under the central

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_017

424

Walser-Bürgler

authorities in Vienna.1 Among the intellectual spheres, the newly established University was quickly felt as a cultural and literary enrichment despite the missing of an immediately present sovereign, who could serve as a patron and customer.2 While the catchment area of the University of Innsbruck included all parts of the historical Tyrol, the Hochstifte Brixen and Trento, the presentday region of Vorarlberg, Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland, the Tyrolean students in particular enjoyed the newly acquired privilege to take up their studies in their home region (until then, they most commonly had had to fall back on the Universities of Freiburg, Vienna, Dillingen, Ingolstadt, and Padua).3 Similar to many other universities within the Habsburg realms (e.g. Vienna, Graz, Olomouc, Trnava), the University of Innsbruck was a Jesuit institution organised according to the Ratio studiorum of 1599. Originally, the Jesuits had been brought to Innsbruck by Emperor Ferdinand I in 1562 as an instrument of the Counter-Reformation and as a support in the Habsburg strife for the Catholic universal monarchy.4 Shortly upon their arrival, they established a college and a Gymnasium in Innsbruck and eventually managed to strengthen their position as Catholic teachers for the Tyrol against the Franciscans and the commission of the Tyrolean estates. By the time the University of Innsbruck came into existence, the Jesuits were the undisputed power of instruction, hence naturally growing their school teachings into the university studies. Apart from their control of the content and methods of teaching, they staffed the first chairs when the Faculty of Philosophy began to operate in 1669, followed by the Faculties of Theology and Jurisprudence in 1671/72, and the 1  Oberkofler G. – Goller P., Geschichte der Universität Innsbruck (1669–1945), Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe 14 (Frankfort on the Main: 21996) 14. 2  Šubarić L., “Von der Gründung der Universität bis zur Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens (1773): Epochenbild”, in Korenjak M. – Schaffenrath F. – Šubarić L. – Töchterle K. (eds.), Tyrolis Latina. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur in Tirol, Bd. 2: Von der Gründung der Universität Innsbruck bis heute (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 609–619. 3  Riedmann J., Geschichte Tirols (Vienna: 1982) 142; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 12, 35. 4  In fact, the Tyrol was the only province among the Habsburg hereditary lands to remain Catholic in the sixteenth century. For more details on the development of the Jesuit order in the Tyrol – especially with regards to the Tyrolean school system – as it is briefly outlined in the following, see the contributions of Wollgast S., “Die Philosophie zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung”, in Benedikt M. – Knoll R. – Rupitz J. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Philosophie in Österreich von 1400 bis heute: Bd. 1,2: Die Philosophie in Österreich zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung (1650–1750). Die Stärke des Barock (Klausen-Leopoldsdorf – Cluj-Napoca: 1997) 15–62, and Zrenner W., “Ingolstadt – Innsbruck – Graz: Zum Einfluss des Jesuitentums in den habsburgischen Erblanden”, ibidem 381–405.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

425

Faculty of Medicine in 1674/75. They would ultimately fill most of the chairs in the respective four faculties (and indeed all of the chairs in the main Faculties of Philosophy and Theology) until the middle of the eighteenth century.5 The Jesuits’ influence inside and outside the University was that immense and their body of teachers and preachers in the Tyrol that big compared to any other religious order or secular group of teachers, that the University of Innsbruck clearly formed a ‘bulwark of Catholic belief’ during these years.6 Yet what started as an alliance between the Habsburgs and the Jesuits at the time of the Counter-Reformation and the foundation of the University, abruptly came to an end in the course of the eighteenth century; the former alliance turned into an enmity, when Maria Theresa and Joseph II gradually took a stand against the Jesuit education system and induced a comprehensive set of reforms from roughly 1740 to 1780. Their main concerns related firstly to the fact that the education the Jesuits provided in their proven scholastic manner was no longer appropriate, since the State was rather in need of civil servants, merchants, and soldiers instead of scholars and priests. Secondly, the Viennese court did not fancy the idea of the Jesuits occupying the monopoly on education in Austria, given that they were solely bound to the non-state directives of the papacy in Rome regardless of any state concerns.7 The Tyrol and the University of Innsbruck made a particular interesting case in terms of this new reform spirit characterising the eighteenth century. Starting from the century’s first decades, traditional political, religious, and educational views were suddenly thwarted by the reforms of the Enlightened Absolutism and the Catholic Enlightenment initiated by Maria Theresa 5  Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 18. The Jesuits could appoint their teachers without any state confirmation just by the permission of the Upper German Provincial Superior. Only the few non-Jesuit professors and Diocesan priests were appointed by the emperor. Details about the nomination process in Innsbruck can be retrieved in Probst J., Geschichte der Universität in Innsbruck seit ihrer Entstehung bis zum Jahre 1860 (Innsbruck: 1869) 31–32. 6  Coreth E., Die theologische Fakultät in Innsbruck. Ihre Geschichte und wissenschaftliche Arbeit von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Veröffentlichungen der Universität Innsbruck 212 (Innsbruck: 1995) 19: ‘Bollwerk des katholischen Glaubens’. For further aspects of the University’s Catholic character (e.g. professors had to regularly deliver their profession of faith, confess before Easter, and stick to the rules of Lent), which was diligently preserved by the Jesuits, cf. Probst, Geschichte der Universität 92–94. 7  Engelbrecht H., Geschichte des österreichischen Bildungswesens. Erziehung und Unterricht auf dem Boden Österreichs. Bd. 3: Von der frühen Aufklärung bis zum Vormärz (Vienna: 1984) 40; Promitzer C., “Bildung im Machtdreieck: Anmerkungen zum österreichischen Bildungswesen in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in Benedikt – Knoll – Rupitz (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Philosophie in Österreich von 1400 bis heute: Bd. 1,2, 485–504 at 488–489.

426

Walser-Bürgler

and Joseph II, alongside novel ideas coming from the south with the Italian Pre-Illuminismo. This mixture put a unique imprint on the contemporary Tyrol, chiefly affecting the University as the Tyrol’s main educational institution. For as Wangermann showed, ideas of the Catholic Enlightenment and the Enlightenment in general were in the first place supported and spread by an intellectual elite operating in the context of the University of Innsbruck.8 Due to this elite’s commitment to the new ideas, they took influence on many generations of students, who, in turn, transferred and conserved these ideas until well into the post-Napoleonic era, when most other German Catholic places and places within the Habsburg Empire had long abandoned them. Rightly therefore, the University of Innsbruck can be considered one of the centres of the (Catholic) Enlightenment and its related educational reforms within the German-speaking area and the Habsburg sphere of influence. Based on these observations, the aim of this article is to examine the degree to which the disputations and dissertations given at the University of Innsbruck actually reflect the clash between the conservative and the enlightened forces – and eventually the enforcement of both the Viennese reforms and the Enlightenment ideas – in the eighteenth-century Tyrol. In its hybrid role of being an obsolete scholastic ‘relic’ on the one hand and a means of promoting new knowledge on the other, the genre will serve this purpose in the most adequate way. In particular, the following questions will be tackled: Do the dissertations and disputations in Innsbruck bear any traces of what was so pressingly going on in the Tyrol of the time? Did they serve as the driving force behind the spreading of the new ideas, ultimately rendering them publicly respectable in the Tyrol, or were they rather used as safe havens for conservative thinking? Is there a continuous development discernible from conservative to enlightened thinking, or did conservative ideas initially even become reinforced as the reforms increased? Or will the investigation eventually reveal that the ideas of the (Catholic) Enlightenment were in fact not that prominently represented at the University of Innsbruck as many histories of education like to make us believe? Given both the Catholic setting of the University of Innsbruck and the strong religious drive behind the Viennese reforms, this article will mainly focus on disputations and dissertations produced in the context of the Jesuit reach (in particular at the Philosophical and Theological Faculty) and in the course of

8  Wangermann E., “Giuseppinismo e Aufklärung cattolica nell’ambito dell’Università di Innsbruck”, in Luzzi S. (ed.), Aufklärung cattolica ed età delle riforme. Giovanni Battista Graser nella cultura europea del Settecento. Atti della giornata di studi Rovereto, 6 maggio 2003 (Rovereto: 2004) 207–220.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

427

Maria Theresa’s and Joseph’s reforms between c. 1740 and 1780.9 So far, no one has ever studied the disputations and dissertations of Innsbruck University from that time – neither as a source of the Enlightenment in the Tyrol, nor as academic texts in their own right. This article will present a choice of representative examples and case studies brought together from various sources for the first time to shed new light on the teaching content at the University of Innsbruck during the time of contemporary political, religious, institutional, and intellectual change on the one hand and the process of enforcing the Enlightenment in the Tyrol on the other. Among the most important sources for the selected disputations rank the Ephemeris […] facultatis theologicae in […] universitate Oenipontana (EphTh), the diaries of the Theological Faculty,10 as well as the internal database of the former project Tyrolis Latina. The project was concluded in 2012 with the publication of two volumes on the history of the Latin literature in the Tyrol.11 2

Pre-Illuminismo, Catholic Enlightenment, and Educational Reforms

The Age of Enlightenment did not settle homogeneously. It was rather characterised by a variety of trends with similar goals in different parts of Europe 9  Since their emergence in the context of the Reformation, disputations and dissertations have proved fruitful as a key instrument of religious debate culture. Cf. Kelly W.A., The Theological Faculty at Helmstedt. An Outline of its Intellectual Development as Mirrored in its Dissertations, together with a Chronological Catalogue, 3 vols., Ph.D. dissertation (University of Strathclyde: 1991); Appold K.G., Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung. Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 127 (Tübingen: 2004); Paintner U., “Aus der Universität auf den Markt: Die disputatio als formprägende Gattung konfessioneller Polemik im 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel antijesuitischer Publizistik”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 129–154; Van Hoorn T., “Hexen-Dissertationen: Akademische Debattenkultur um 1700”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 217–228. 10  Its four volumes (I: 1671–1713; II: 1713–1751; III: 1751–1812; IV: 1812–1832) are preserved in the university archive in Innsbruck and in sum constitute more than 2000 handwritten pages. Volume I and II had been lost for several decades (reference to this shortage was made in Oberkofler G., Geschichte und Bestände des Universitätsarchivs Innsbruck, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universtitätsgeschichte 8 [Innsbruck: 1970] 33, n. 8), in 2005, however, they were offered to the archive by a private collector so that the archive managed to successfully repurchase them. An overview of the archive stock is provided in ibidem 27–68. 11  Korenjak M. – Schaffenrath F. – Šubarić L. – Töchterle K. (eds.), Tyrolis Latina. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur in Tirol, 2 Bde. (Vienna: 2012). I am grateful for having been allowed to use the database as a working tool for this article.

428

Walser-Bürgler

(e.g. Jansenism, Pietism, Philanthropinism, Esoterism of secret societies, just to name a few). In the Tyrol in particular there were three main manifestations that partly overlapped, partly even merged: the Italian Pre-Illuminismo, the Catholic Enlightenment, and state reforms of educational dimension. At their core, all three strands sought to arrive at a new separation of religion and science and a reconciliation between reason and faith for the common good. Yet more than the intellectual spirit of departure (as it was, for instance, the case in most parts of Germany), it was the political circumstances which led to the persistent implementation of Enlightenment thinking in the Tyrol:12 while the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) had unveiled to the Viennese court the general deficiencies of the dynasty’s administration and territorial command in contrast to the centralized French state or Prussia, the Tyrol more than any other region among the Habsburg lands was marked by an alarming ‘influence of the clergy and the plurality of ecclesiastical authority’.13 Maria Theresa and Joseph II hence were in great need to get rid of those old hierarchies of authority, if they successfully wanted to enforce the centralized state. In addition to their efforts, to which the Tyrolean estates were not entirely opposed in the beginning,14 the strong conservative church system had for some time already been eyed suspiciously by a small group of Tyrolean intellectuals, who had close contact with some of the key figures of the Italian Pre-Illuminismo. Those key figures played a crucial role as agents of Enlightenment ideas for the Tyrol, bringing them on years before the first reforms under Maria Theresa set in.15 Due to the geographical proximity, a solid infrastructure as well as study tours and educational ‘exchanges’ between Italians and Tyroleans, the relationship between Italy and the Tyrol naturally was a good one at the time. So after the Pre-Illuminismo had been initiated at the end of the seventeenth century in Italy, it slowly also took effect on the Tyrol in the first two or three decades of the eighteenth century. Among its major Italian representatives ranked Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), a clergyman, scholar, advisor and librarian to the duke of Modena. He wrote a number of texts driven by 12  Gimpl G., “Die wahre Philosophie. Zum Paradigmenwechsel der österreichischen Philosophie im Maria-Theresianischen Reformkatholizismus”, in Benedikt M. (ed.), Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Österreichische Philosophie zur Zeit der Revolution und Restauration (1750–1820) (Vienna: 1992) 279–327. More information on the political conditions leading to the installation of Enlightenment ideas in the Tyrol, see Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 69–76. 13  Cole L., “Nation, Anti-Enlightenment, and Religious Revival in Austria: Tyrol in the 1790s”, The Historical Journal 43 (2000) 475–497 at 478. 14  Riedmann, Geschichte Tirols 149. 15  Wandruszka A., “Die Katholische Aufklärung Italiens und ihr Einfluss auf Österreich”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung und Josephinismus (Vienna: 1979) 62–69 at 66.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

429

the spirit of the Enlightenment, discussing as broad a spectrum of topics as ecclesiastical and educational reforms, the codification of law, the abolition of torture and superstition, or poor relief and welfare.16 The fact that Muratori was widely read in the Tyrol (with his most influential works being those relating to religious matters: De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negotio, 1714; Della carità cristiana, 1723; Della regolata divozione de’ Cristiani, 1747; Della pubblica felicità, 1749) is well reflected by the historical catalogue of the university library Innsbruck. Of all the Austrian libraries, it contains the greatest number of works by Muratori.17 The Tyrolean polyhistor and key character of the Tyrolean Enlightenment, Anton Roschmann (1694–1760), kept up an extensive correspondence with Muratori and made sure to spread Muratori’s ideas among the Tyrolean intellectuals. He did so most successfully by eventually founding a scholarly society, the ‘Societas Silentiariorum’, in 1738 which was based on the model of similar associations from the Trentino Tyrol.18 Back then, especially Rovereto, the second most important town of the Tyrol after Innsbruck, had developed into a centre of the Pre-Illuminismo. The town had grown wealthy due to its silk production, which brought about a confident middle class open to the new ideas of enlightened Italy. The first scholarly society in Rovereto was set up by Girolamo Tartarotti (1706–1761) in 1728: the ‘Accademia dei Dodonei’. Tartarotti himself was heavily influenced by Muratori’s thinking and became an advocate for the philosophy of reason, critical church history, and the disposing of the belief of witches and witchcraft within the ‘Accademia’. Tartarotti’s pupils would later, in 1750, found its successor society, the ‘Accademia degli Agiati’, among whose external members also Roschmann counted.19 Roschmann’s own ‘Societas Silentiariorum’ quickly turned into a major engine of Italian Enlightenment thought in the northern Tyrol. Renamed to ‘Academia Taxiana’ (1741–1756), pursuant to the palace of the count Taxis where the meetings took place, Roschmann’s society constituted the most significant forum for the exchange of pre-illuministic discourses in and around Innsbruck; in weekly discussions many matters brought 16  Giersig E., “Muratori und die Einflüsse der italienischen Aufklärung in Österreich”, in Benedikt (ed.), Österreichische Philosophie zur Zeit der Revolution 456–470 at 463. 17  Grass N., “L.A. Muratori und Tirol”, in Meid W. – Ölberg H.M. – Schmeja H. (eds.), Studien zur Namenkunde und Sprachgeographie. Festschrift für Karl Finsterwalder zum 70. Geburtstag, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 16 (Innsbruck: 1971) 427–434 at 431. Paradoxically though, the reception of Muratori’s ideas in the Tyrol is not as well studied as, for instance, their reception in Salzburg and at the Viennese court of Charles VI, Maria Theresa, Joseph II, and Leopold II (on that matter, cf. Giersig, “Muratori” 458–460). 18  Šubarić, “Epochenbild” 615. 19  On Rovereto and its academies: Šubarić, “Epochenbild” 616.

430

Walser-Bürgler

up by the circles of Muratori and Tartarotti were debated profoundly with the aim to reorganise the Tyrolean society from within.20 The ideas of the Italian Pre-Illuminismo eventually also reached the University of Innsbruck through the Tyrolean academies: firstly by way of members of the Trentino Tyrolean academies taking over chairs (like Giovanni Battista Graser [1718–1786], a member of the ‘Accademia degli Agiati’, who became the first non-Jesuit professor at the Philosophical Faculty in 1760; he remained professor until 1779);21 secondly by way of professors of the University becoming members of the ‘Academia Taxiana’ (like the professor of Natural Law, History of the German Empire, and Public Law, Paul Joseph Riegger [1705–1755]; he was professor in Innsbruck from 1733–1749).22 This connection between the academies and the University was one of the main reasons why the ideas of the Enlightenment stuck with the Tyrol for much longer than with other parts of Austria or Western Europe. While the Enlightenment, particularly in France or England, died away quickly with the end of the academies as the sole shelters of Enlightenment thinking, the University of Innsbruck basically institutionalised Enlightenment ideas and thus conserved them even after the downfall of the Tyrolean academies.23 Much of what the Italian Pre-Illuminismo had put forward, was tied to new ideas of a more modern Catholic reality and practice of the Christian faith. Hence, it also opened up both a stately and an intellectual discourse in the Tyrol, which was to reshape the religious life within the region and which came to be known as the Catholic Enlightenment. It is important to understand that the Catholic Enlightenment did not constitute a measure against faith but against secularisation; in accordance with the principles of the Enlightenment, the Catholic faith should be made to persist in a reasonable way.24 This meant that the Vatican’s authority needed to be subordinated to the authority of the national Church for better control on the one hand, and that any liturgical, miraculous, and morally reprehensible pomp needed to 20  Reinalter H., “Gesellschaftstheorien und Sozialkritik in der österreichischen Aufklärung”, in Benedikt – Knoll – Rupitz (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Philosophie in Österreich von 1400 bis heute: Bd. 1,2, 759–771 at 760. 21  On Graser’s life and works, see Walser I. (ed.), Im theresianischen Zeitalter der Vernunft. Giovanni Battista Graser: ‘De praestantia logicae’. Mit einer Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Tirolensia Latina 8 (Innsbruck: 2013) 9–17. 22  Šubarić, “Epochenbild” 616. 23  Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 196–197. 24  The difficulties of definition regarding both the history of the church and the history of ideas are outlined in Plongeron B., “Was ist Katholische Aufklärung?”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung 11–56 at 11–15. Generally on the global phenomenon of the Catholic Enlightenment, see Lehner U.L., The Catholic Enlightenment. The Forgotten History of a Global Movement (New York: 2019).

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

431

be abandoned from Catholicism and the Church on the other. With special regard to the latter, it was more of an intellectual undertaking, supported by the efforts of the Tyrolean scholarly circles. In fighting for a ‘reasonable religion’, which was characterised by sincere spiritualism instead of superstition, baroque cultic worshipping, or belief in miracles and witchcraft, they turned a lot of the notions to account that sprang from all corners of Western Europe (not only from pre-illuministic Italy, but also from Jansenist France, Protestant Germany, or rationalist England).25 Following Muratori’s pre-illuministic thought on the practice of faith, for example, they requested a more practical liturgy that should reflect the transformation of concepts from beatitudo to felicitas, frui to uti, agape to caritas, or earthly theocracy to welfare state; following Jansenist thinking, they demanded a return to the simplicity of the ancient dogmas (i.e. the so-called ecclesia-antiqua-ideal); following Protestant attitudes, they favoured the applied pastoral side of the relationship between the individual and God, when discussing moral-theological questions; following rationalist ideas, they stressed the responsibility of humankind in comprehending the world as it is in accordance with the principles of Deism, Empirism, and Physicotheology. Building on and mutually interfering with these trends, Maria Theresa and Joseph II took concrete actions to dissolve the hierarchies and procedures of the long-established ordo Christianus. In sum, their ecclesiastical reforms amounted to a few thousand from the middle to the end of the eighteenth century, of which some of the most important ones included:26 the reduction of Christian holidays and masses; the abolition of mendicant orders and contemplative clergy; the reclassification of dioceses to improve pastoral care; the introduction of religious freedom; the repeal of the Church’s tax exemption and the restriction of its financial possibilities; the

25  On the Pre-Illuminismo in the following, cf. Hollerweger H., “Tendenzen der liturgischen Reformen unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II.”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung 295–306 and Gimpl, “Die wahre Philosophie” 289; on Jansenism, see Frank I.W., “Zum spätmittelalterlichen und josephinischen Kirchenverständnis”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung 143–172 (at 167); on Protestantism, see Laun A., “Die Moraltheologie im 18. Jahrhundert unter dem Einfluss von Jansenismus und Aufklärung”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung 266–294; on rationalism, see Plongeron, “Katholische Aufklärung” 18–19, 22–27, 33, and Fuhrmann M., Latein und Europa. Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts in Deutschland von Karl dem Großen bis Wilhelm II. (Cologne: 2001) 97. 26  Cf. collectively Pototschnig F., “Die Entwicklung des Kirchenrechts im 18. Jahrhundert mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Österreichs”, in Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung 215–233 (219–225; 229–231); Wandruszka, “Katholische Aufklärung Italiens” 63–65; Laun, “Die Moraltheologie” 284; Riedmann, Geschichte Tirols 150; Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 73–75.

432

Walser-Bürgler

State’s takeover of education from elementary to university education and the formation of priests. From the last point, the close tie between the Catholic Enlightenment and the educational reforms executed by Maria Theresa and Joseph II becomes manifest. Catholic Enlightenment was ultimately perceived as only achievable with the right educational system. In order to produce a useful and effective society, driven by operational readiness and a practical understanding of the world in philosophy, literature, the sciences, and the arts, education firstly needed to get rid of the conservative forces of religion (dogmas, superstitional belief, etc.).27 Secondly, education needed to be made accessible to everybody (hence the step-by-step introduction of compulsory education until its final consolidation in 1774), so that no one could ever be led astray by the lack of education – not even the least reasonable person.28 Of course, the educational reforms did not only pertain to elementary school and the Gymnasium, but they affected also the University of Innsbruck in terms of its organisation, its teachers, and its teaching contents. Already at the end of the seventeenth century, the Tyrol had been marked by an abundance of clergymen with concurrent shortage of sinecures; the number of students had started to considerably exceed the requirements of academics and theologians, who had ultimately flooded the Tyrolean society.29 As a result, the court in Vienna had intervened for the first time in 1706, establishing the first limits to the admission to studies.30 On the eve of Maria Theresa’s rule, the University of Innsbruck already constituted quite a ‘modern’ university in structural terms compared to the Universities of Vienna or Graz. Despite some resistance on the part of the Jesuits, it had its Ordinarienfakultäten, received financial protection by the region (in order to pay secular and/or external professors), and – most importantly – applied a teaching programme adapted to the utilitarian spirit of the Enlightenment:31 in 1733, the third philosophical year 27  Fuhrmann, Latein und Europa 93, 95. 28  Cf. Riedmann, Geschichte Tirols 150–151. 29  Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 41, 61. 30  These measures wore on until the death of Charles VI in 1740. Cf. Mraz G., Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck von ihrer Gründung bis zum Jahre 1740, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte 3 (Innsbruck: 1968) 157–162; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 39. 31  Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 63, explains this receptiveness towards reform both by the University’s recent foundation and by the fact that it was closer to the Protestant universities of the German area, with which it was competing for students. More detail on the teaching programme as outlined in the following, see ibidem 62–63; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 30–46; Tilg S. – Korenjak M., “Von der Gründung der Universität bis zur Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens (1773): Philosophie und

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

433

of Metaphysics was eliminated, and within the next two years, modern chairs were set up in each of the four faculties (i.e. chairs for Surgery; Experimental Physics; Public Law; Natural Law; History of the German Empire; History including Chronology, Cosmography, Geography, and Historia litteraria). These tendencies to give practical relevance to the university studies – even though not all of them grew out of the sincere pedagogical desire to help people make proper use of their reason but out of the State’s absolutist intention to produce useful subjects – were further fostered in the years to come until Joseph’s death in 1790. Next to minor matters regulating university life like the beginning of the official state supervision of the University by means of a socalled ‘state superintendent’ (1742), the foundation of the university library ad usum publicum with Anton Roschmann as its first director (1745), or the reorganisation of the censorship of books published and used for teaching in the Tyrol, which had formerly been dictated by the Jesuits (1746), Maria Theresa’s reign (1740–1780) especially saw to three major university reforms:32 the socalled Chotek’sche Restabilisierung (1748) as well as the two big curriculum reforms (1752; 1772) brought about measures such as the prohibition of dictation as a teaching method, a turn towards a more practical implementation of the teaching content (e.g. practice at hospitals for medical students), the standardisation of the period of study for all four faculties including a fixed syllabus, the prescription of teaching manuals, the appointment of secular professors, the public availability of lectures, the introduction of further new subjects (like Italian, Cameralistic Sciences, Austrian History, Philology, or Mechanics), or the repression of scholastic, speculative, and theoretical body of thought in philosophy and theology (substituted by the natural sciences in philosophy; Church History, Patristics, and Pastoral Theology in theology). After the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, Joseph II continued the reforms at Innsbruck University during his reign, yet in a more radical way (1780–1790).33 Naturwissenschaft”, in Korenjak – Schaffenrath – Šubarić – Töchterle (eds.), Tyrolis Latina 833–861 at 836. 32  On the former, see Probst, Geschichte der Universität 131, 135–136; Mraz, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 170; Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 66–67; on the latter, see Falkner A., Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck 1740–1773, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte 4 (Innsbruck: 1969) 31–56, 77–86; Brandl M., Die Theologische Fakultät Innsbruck 1773–1790 im Rahmen der kirchlichen Landesgeschichte, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte 5 (Innsbruck: 1969) 40–50; Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 189–196; Coreth, Die theologische Fakultät 23. 33  Brandl, Die Theologische Fakultät 37–39, 51, 57–64; Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 197–201, 227–228, 510; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 35– 36, 63–66.

434

Walser-Bürgler

In 1782, he reduced the University to the status of a Lyzeum, which only offered the philosophical course in full, while especially the law and medicine studies were degraded to a few basic classes; graduations were no longer possible – except sometimes in theology. In sum, not more than twelve teachers remained at the whole institution. When in 1784 German was introduced as the teaching language (here again, theology remained the exception) and in 1786 philosophy was weakened down to the same rating as the other studies, the damage had already taken its toll. The lack of students and the financial excavation resulted in the Lyzeum’s provincial status, providing not more than provincial education.34 Eventually in 1792 thus, Leopold II reinstalled the University of Innsbruck at the request of the Tyrolean Diet, but it was to take until after the Coalition Wars that all four faculties worked properly again. 3

Disputation Practice at the University of Innsbruck

Much has already been written about the general practice of disputations at universities in the Early Modern Period.35 This chapter will therefore focus on the Tyrol exclusively and explain in more detail the context of disputations and dissertations at eighteenth-century Innsbruck University. The tradition of giving disputations was well institutionalised in Innsbruck due to the disputations’ crucial role in the Jesuit Ratio studiorum.36 Like at many universities in the German-speaking world, the disputations served as an integral part of class besides lectures (lectiones), review exercises (repetitiones), and ordinary exercises (exercitia). Among the disputations, there were different forms, each meant for different settings. The more prestigious the disputations, the more theses were to be defended and the more festive the setting became. However, most disputations in Innsbruck served private exercise purposes, whereas only

34  Cf. Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 201–202; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 66–83. 35  See, for instance, Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19 (2004) 129–187; Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013); Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017). 36  Cf. Weijers, In Search of the Truth 210.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

435

a tiny fraction was actually open to the public and/or connected to the acquisition of academic degrees.37 The first among the main types of disputations in Innsbruck according to the conventions of Jesuit education were the so-called circuli.38 They used to be simple weekly repetitions in the form of private disputations, which is why they are often confused with actual repetitiones in the EphTh. Circuli belonged to the first disputation exercises first- or second-year students performed with participation being on a voluntary basis. The designation is derived from the practice of the students alternately taking over the role of respondents and opponents.39 A second group of disputations at Innsbruck University was constituted by the disputationes sabbaticae, which took place almost every Saturday unless it was a holiday or a graduation day. This type of disputation was already quite formal compared to the circuli despite their exercise character. Only outstanding and promising students would normally seize this opportunity to defend their professors’ theses on a specific topic. In rare cases, these disputationes sabbaticae would even be printed. The third group of university disputations in Innsbruck, the disputationes menstruae, were the most festive among the private disputations. Held four times a year, they would usually involve two excellent students chosen to perform as respondents, while the opponents often were part of the professorial council rather than of the student body. The theses were customarily printed beforehand, put up on the University’s noticeboard, and finally distributed among the audience on disputation day. Public disputations held on request of a respondent – in particular in conjunction with academic degrees40 – pertained to the most prestigious 37  Especially disputations for the doctorate were rare, as the doctorate was usually reserved for students or scholars of academic excellence. This trend is ascertainable for Innsbruck from the EphTh, but similar trends are known from the German-speaking world: Marti H., “Dissertation und Promotion an frühneuzeitlichen Universitäten des deutschen Sprachraums”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 1–20 at 5; Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 129. 38  A full account of the disputation types of Innsbruck University, as summarised in the following, can be retrieved in Probst, Geschichte der Universität 49–53; Mraz Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 133. 39  Cf. Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 134. 40  In contrast to today’s practice, academic degrees were not requisite to proceed with or conclude one’s studies in the Early Modern Period. In Innsbruck, the following degrees could theoretically be attained: the Baccalaureate of Philosophy and of Theology, the Licentiate in each of the four faculties, the Magisterium of Philosophy (equal to the Doctorate in the other three faculties), and the Doctorate in each of the three higher faculties. Probst, Geschichte der Universität 53–54.

436

Walser-Bürgler

elements of academic distinction and were only permitted to the most distinguished students and scholars. Those kind of grand public disputations existed in two forms in Innsbruck: the actus parvus and the actus maior (also called a disputatio solemnis). The smaller and cheaper disputation act, the actus parvus, had to be officially granted by the Faculty, to which the willing respondent belonged. Once approved, the disputation itself would cover up to fifty theses (they mostly remained unpublished) on one of the subareas of the respective Faculty’s studies. The entire procedure would last for several hours, in which the respondent defended the theses offered by the chairing professor against the opposing arguments brought forth by the other professors of the Faculty (and potential invited opponents). The bigger, more expensive, and hence more significant among the public disputations was the actus maior. It afforded the approval of the University, given that it welcomed not only all of its members but also influential and honourable invitees like royalty or local dignitaries among the audience.41 Similar to the actus parvus, the theses defended by the respondent of the actus maior were restricted to a subdiscipline within the respective subjects of Philosophy, Theology, Jurisprudence, or Medicine. Yet often it was the content of a book written by the praeses and/or the respondent themselves, which was disputed and which had been printed before with a list of appended theses. These prints would be dedicated to a patronus, who bore either the full or partial costs of the print and the festivity (e.g. refreshments, concluding banquet, accompanying music). The act lasted for an entire day and was conducted in the following way: the praeses took a seat on a high pulpit, while the respondent sat down on a slightly lower pulpit; opposite of them the opponents (normally eight in number) were seated, who had been invited by the respondent eight days in advance of the disputation; right behind them, the rector of the University and the rest of the audience were located. The disputation commenced with an opening address given by the respondent and an introduction into the subject by the praeses. Eventually, the first opponent – normally the theses’ patronus or at least his official delegate – started off the argument; the rest of the opponents followed according to a fixed order of precedence (the deans of the faculties in accordance with the faculties’ hierarchy; internal professors according to the faculties’ subject hierarchy; external scholars and teachers from the neighbouring monasteries of Wilten, Hall, or Stams, who in turn were ranked pursuant to the canonical age of their orders).42 41  Since these disputations were rated among the University’s most important solemnities, they usually are described in great detail in the EphTh. 42  The monasteries offered philosophical and theological convent studies alternatively to university studies. These convent studies had been existing since before the foundation of

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

437

As ‘channels of communication, both private and public’,43 the disputations and dissertations at Innsbruck University served to air long-established institutionalised trends as well as novel ideas; reactionary forces existed alongside progressive ones, especially during the first half of the eighteenth century. Yet as we will see in the following chapter, the most influential disputations given were in fact in accordance with the Enlightenment spirit, supporting contemporary ideas and fighting old orthodox beliefs. In this way, the disputations formed part of the intellectual discussions evolving around the Pre-Illuminismo, the Catholic Enlightenment, and the educational reforms coming from Vienna. Many of those topical dissertations even went through a couple of reprints, which underlines their significance as vehicles for enlightened thinking in conjunction with the reflection of intellectual trends within the four faculties. What is most characteristic about the Enlightenment disputations in Innsbruck is the fact that the topics disputed were often not determined by class requirements, but rather by the individual interests of the professors.44 After all, the printed dissertations were part of the professors’ personal ‘publication lists’ at the time, while the disputation ceremony offered them the opportunity to enter into a scholarly exchange with other professors and the lecturers of the various Tyrolean orders.45 Analogous to the content disputed, the disputation system underwent several changes in the course of the second half of the eighteenth century, as it was in itself not immune to the Enlightenment reforms.46 As a first measure, Maria Theresa banned ornamental copper plate illustrations from printed disputations in 1748 following the Chotek’sche Restabilisierung. According to her utilitarian strife to confine scholarly issues to their essence, the prints were from now on solely restricted to the quaestiones disputabiles. As of the first the University and were thus still popular among young novices. However, the University of Innsbruck and the convents (especially Wilten) maintained a close disputation intercourse, which meant that professors from each of the institutions mutually participated in their respective disputation acts. Haidacher A., Das Stift Wilten und die Universität Innsbruck 1670–1782. Ein Beitrag zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte Tirols im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Innsbruck: 1952) 29–30, 109–117. As to the ranking of the opponents, it goes without saying that, despite its supposed fixedness, the ranking often led to conflicts between the parties involved. A few illustrative examples are provided in ibidem 32–38. 43  Chang K., “Kant’s Disputation of 1770: The Dissertation and the Communication of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe”, Endeavour 31 (2007) 45–49 at 45. 44   Tilg – Korenjak, “Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft” 837, exemplified by means of a couple of selected philosophical dissertations. 45  Mraz, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 133. 46  Probst, Geschichte der Universität 181–184; Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 80–81, 137–140.

438

Walser-Bürgler

curriculum reform of 1752, additional exams were introduced into the four faculties (the Theological Faculty was most affected), so that in turn the number of public disputations went down for a few years. Moreover, the smaller and internal disputations employed for exercise purposes (i.e. the circuli, the disputationes sabbaticae, and the disputationes menstruae) were reduced to a maximum length of thirty minutes. As a consequence, these disputation forms slowly withered away, because half an hour was in most cases too short to expand on one thesis properly – including the objectives raised –, let alone a few theses.47 The practical relevance of education during the Josephinian era along with the transformation of Innsbruck University to a Lyzeum finally put a preliminary end to the disputation system in Innsbruck in the 1780s. Neither could disputations any longer sustain their authority as carriers of new ideas in the face of the latest anti-scholastic attitude, nor could they be aligned with the introduction of German as a teaching language, nor could they compete with the newly implemented checking modes in both the ‘sciences’ and the ‘humanities’. 4

Disputations in Enlightenment Context

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the University of Innsbruck was still a very ‘Jesuit’ and a rather conservative place. This becomes evident from one crucial disputation episode from the years 1710–1711, which is well documented in the EphTh I (330, 337, 339–340): on 17 July 1710, two students from the monastery of Wilten, Casimir Grustner (1690–1754) and Cajetan Franck (1689– 1747), publicly defended the pro-Thomistic publication Innocentia praemotionis Thomisticae (Augsburg, David Zacharias: 1710) by the Wilten philosophy professor Leopold Karl Kalchschmidt (1679–1740) in a philosophical disputatio held at the monastery. It treated one of the most central religious disputes, namely God’s predestination and the freedom of the human will. Following the Thomism of the Dominicans (the term misleadingly refers to Thomas Aquinas), Kalchschmidt, who served as the praeses, outlined in his work that the human will receives its determination only by God’s grace; without this divine impetus (praemotio physica), humans are not capable of any action.48 This opinion was commonly opposed by the strand of Jesuit Molinism (named after the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina), which put more emphasis on the 47  Similar trends are identifiable at many contemporary German universities; cf. Marti, “Dissertation und Promotion” 7–8; Weijers, In Search of the Truth 232. 48  Haidacher, Das Stift Wilten 39.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

439

human freedom of will. Naturally thus, the Jesuits of Innsbruck University, who had been invited to join the disputatio as opponents, felt snubbed when they received the printed theses, and rejected the invitation. As the entry in EphTh I, 330, further explains, they did not agree on especially two issues: firstly, Kalchschmidt’s book had already been printed in Augsburg in 1710 and had this way avoided censorship by the Theological Faculty of Innsbruck University (which was responsible for anything published in the Tyrol); secondly, Kalchschmidt cited the French Dominican Augustin Le Blanc (JacquesHyacinthe Serry; 1659–1738), who was known as an ardent enemy of the Jesuits. As a reaction to the Wilten disputation, the Jesuits at the Theological Faculty planned their counterattack. In an actus maior, also advertised as disputatio publica polemica,49 the student Franz Xaver Weinzierlin was supposed to defend his own theses, entitled Scientia dei media contra innocentiam praemotionis Thomisticae publicatam et propugnatam (Innsbruck, Jakob Christoph Wagner: 1711), on 27 February 1711 against Kalchschmidt’s work. However, the Abbot of Wilten intervened at the last minute by involving the Governor of Innsbruck and several other Tyrolean authorities, so that the disputation had to be temporarily postponed (EphTh I, 337: ‘acquiescat interim Facultas Theologica’). The disputation eventually took place on 20 March 1711 after much official action, this time on the part of the University. As a symbol of provocation, it was celebrated pompously with trumpets and drums; the thesium patronus was the Bishop of Chur (EphTh I, 339). In the end, the disputation turned out to be a huge success for the Jesuits, given that their student Weinzierl defended his theses in an impressive way and with distinction (‘maxima cum discretione’; ‘ad stuporem et satisfactionem omnium praesentium’) on his own without a praeses against a professor from Wilten. Moreover, he even mockingly defamed and condemned Thomism (calling it ignorant and meaningless compared to the Jesuit received opinion), accusing Le Blanc as the enemy of the Church and a supporter of Jansenist doctrine. In this sense, Weinzierl’s disputation constitutes an insightful document of the Jesuits’ alertness concerning any Jansenist or Enlightenment trends, strictly banning and denouncing every idea that essentially was not in agreement with the traditional Jesuit ideology.50 49  Cf. Kollmann J. (ed.), Die Matrikel der Universität Innsbruck 2.2: Matricula Theologica. 1701–1735 (Innsbruck – Munich: 1972) LXVI. 50  Haidacher, Das Stift Wilten 62. For a full account of the controversy of divine grace in the Tyrol, see also ibidem 39–72; Mraz, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 145–149; Kustatscher E. – Korenjak M., “Von der Gründung der Universität bis zur Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens (1773): Theologie und kirchliches Schrifttum”, in Korenjak – Schaffenrath – Šubarić – Töchterle (eds.), Tyrolis Latina 807–832 at 813–814.

440

Walser-Bürgler

Until the middle of the eighteenth century, however, smaller Enlightenment ideas slowly started to steal into the old ways of thinking. A couple of exemplary disputations should serve to highlight this trend: First of all, in 1720, the aforementioned Casimir Grustner, by now a professor at Wilten monastery himself, published the Naturalis theologiae nucleus sive tractatus philosophicus de existentia et essentia entis increati (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner) with the approval of the University and the Jesuits and had it defended by three of his pupils at the monastery (Marian von Spaur, Matthias Perckhofer, Sebastian Falger).51 Dedicated to the Abbot of Wilten, it provided a philosophical investigation into the nature and existence of God. Instead of applying a specific Christian moral, Grustner brought forth Enlightenment arguments of Physicotheology, i.e. the rationalistic proof of God’s existence based on the wonders of nature.52 In similar Enlightenment fashion, Grustner turned God’s most essential characteristic, namely his providentia, into a system of good and bad values that are yet unequally distributed among the people, but can at least contribute to the progress of society, the arts, and the sciences. A few years later, in 1741, the professor of medicine, Franz Payr (1685–1759), published his Apologia inter sarcophibum et sarcophilum cum crisi Theophili Veronensis (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner). It had previously been successfully defended by his student Johannes Joseph Lang as an inaugural oration for the doctorate. Although it is a medical text in the first place, it reveals a link between medicine and theology typical of the time, and can thus rightfully be ranked a theological work in second instance. By discussing the dietetic advantages of a meat-free nutrition, Payr inevitably came to touch upon matters of moral theology. Correspondingly, reflections on the necessity of individual solutions for individual issues characterised almost all of the theses. At the end, after having challenged the prevailing Christian notions on rules for fasting on the basis of rationalistic premises, the author – literally calling himself the ‘lover of God and friend of truth’ according to the work’s title – settled on an intermediate position between the ‘refuser of meat’ (sarcophibus) and the ‘lover of meat’ (sarcophilus). In that respect, the disputation set an interesting example of how matters of faith and science can be reconciled pursuant to the principles of the Catholic Enlightenment.53 51   Kustatscher – Korenjak, “Theologie und kirchliches Schrifttum” 814–815. 52   On the general dissemination and reception of Physicotheology in contemporary Innsbruck, see Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 68–70. 53  For more detail on the disputation, see Kustatscher – Korenjak, “Theologie und kirchliches Schrifttum” 825–826; deeper insight into the system of Enlightenment moral theology is provided by Laun, “Die Moraltheologie”.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

441

The law professor Paul Joseph Riegger finally, who later was to design the official state-approved manual for Canon Law (Institutiones juris ecclesiastici, Vienna, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1774), demonstrated the practical application of historical investigations by means of three disputations. While history had not played an important role in the Ratio studiorum as an independent subject outside of rhetoric class,54 it received an unseen significance as a useful subject (and auxiliary science) to tackle the challenges of the present and the future during the Enlightenment. Accordingly, in the course of the first educational reforms, both a chair for the History of the German Empire (taken by Riegger) and a chair for History (including Chronology, Cosmography, Geography, and Literary History) were established for the first time in Innsbruck in 1733 and 1735; likewise, the historical disciplines were treated as focal points at the Tyrolean academies, and particularly Tartarotti and Roschmann shared a special interest in the subject.55 Riegger, himself part of the ‘Academia Taxiana’, firstly had his Dissertatio historico-iuridica de ordine equitum hospitalariorum domus Teutonicae in Ierusalem (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1742) defended in a public disputation by Johann Michael Weltin on 22 August 1742. The work composed the history and constitution of the Teutonic order and marked an early attempt to promote historical investigations to a broad audience in Innsbruck. The effort apparently bore fruits, because three, respectively five years later, some dozen theses taken from Riegger’s Systema historiae Romano-Germanicae in tabulas contractum et in certas periodos distinctum (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1745; 1747) were defended by Ignaz Xaver Dalser and Ferdinand Karl von Ulm zu Erbach (1725–1781). The theses dealt with the early History, Church History, Politics, Geography, and Literature of the German Empire (c. 714–936) and in the printed dissertation illustrated many aspects by means of tables and charts. This graphic method of conveying knowledge had been introduced by Riegger to ultimately render the Systema applicable in class, while at the same time endowing history with a pragmatic grounding.56

54  Hammerstein N., “Universitäten”, in Hammerstein N. – Herrmann U. (eds.): Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Bd. 2: 18. Jahrhundert. Vom späten 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Neuordnung Deutschlands um 1800 (Munich: 2005) 369–400 at 380. 55  Engelbrecht, Österreichisches Bildungswesen 62–63; Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 46; Šubarić, “Epochenbild” 615–616. 56  More on the meaning of Riegger’s disputations in Šubarić L. – Schaffenrath F. – Kennel P., “Von der Gründung der Universität bis zur Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens (1773): Geschichtsschreibung”, in Korenjak – Schaffenrath – Šubarić – Töchterle (eds.), Tyrolis Latina 726–777 at 754.

442

Walser-Bürgler

Starting from the middle of the eighteenth century and lasting until Joseph II turned the University of Innsbruck into a Lyzeum, a process became apparent particularly at the Theological Faculty, which went hand in hand with the increasing opening up of the traditional Jesuit system to the ideas of the Enlightenment and the educational reform spirit. This process was characterised by a critical recapitulation of the Jesuits’ themselves on their doctrines on the one hand, and by the introduction of different schools of thought into the so far exclusively ‘Jesuit’ Faculty on the other. As an example of the former ranks the dissertation of the Jesuit professor of Casuistry and Scholasticism, Franz Xaver Mannhart (1696–1773). Mannhart was one of the most respected Tyrolean theologians before the suppression of the Jesuits and served as intermediary between Innsbruck University and the Viennese court at the time of the Chotek’sche Restabilisierung.57 As is documented in EphTh II, 455, his student Franz de Paula von Wissenegg defended Mannhart’s Dissertationes theologicae de indole, ortu ac progressu ex fontibus sacrae doctrinae (Augsburg – Innsbruck, Joseph Wolff: 1749) on 11 August 1749 in a public disputatio solemnis. The Dissertationes essentially included a critical consideration of the past, present, and future of theological doctrine, and constituted the results of Mannhart’s epistemological research of the most recent years. As an insider regarding the tendencies of contemporary theology, he made sure to stand up for a rationalistic approach to dogmatic and scholastic formalism. Hence rejecting everything that was speculative or irrational about theology and turning down the principle of sola scriptura, he tried to advocate a more empirical understanding of God similar to the ideas of Physicotheology or Deism. For sure, Mannhart’s approach was against traditional Jesuit ways and was not entirely well received at Innsbruck University. Yet by bringing forth in public something as outrageously unheard, he added a new, namely less onesided component to theological thinking in Innsbruck. Three years later, in the course of the first big curriculum reform, this critical attitude towards scholasticism represented by Mannhart fully reached the Theological Faculty: Speculative Dogmatic Theology was pushed back in favour of historical and positive dogmatic disciplines like Christian Theology of the Bible, Patristics, and Ecclesiastical History.58 This trend, which was now officially institutionalised by the state, also led to the appointment of representatives of other orders (Premonstratensians, Cistercians, Franciscans) as professors of theology at Innsbruck University for the first time, who were supporting

57  Cf. Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 28. 58   Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 50.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

443

and spreading Augustinian-Thomist doctrines.59 Intellectually speaking, this development did not imply a total detachment from scholasticism, since the new non-Jesuit professors were not necessarily anti-scholastic in their general approach. What was in full accordance with the Enlightenment, however, was the fact that for the first time at the Theological Faculty in Innsbruck there was the freedom to discuss and teach any theological questions and to have the various doctrines exist side by side in mutual respect (more or less).60 An illustrative example of this novel spirit at the Theological Faculty constituted the 400 page-long Dissertationes historico-criticae in universos theologiae tractatus (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1766) by the Cistercian Joachim Platner (1725–1789), who had been professor of Scholasticism at Innsbruck University since 1761 and would remain teacher at the Theological Faculty until 1781. Even though Platner sympathised with the Thomist doctrine, he did not polemicise against other theological doctrines. His Dissertationes, defended by Casimir Sterzinger in November 1766, reflected his objective attitude and formed a diligent rationalistic and historical-critical study of the entire field of theology, which was very much in line with the official state-approved university policy of the time.61 In a very specific way, Platner appeared as a representative of a theology balanced between old and new. For even though he cautiously rejected the idea of a Catholic State Church, he stood up against the obsolete methods of scholastic theology. As is often the case with processes of progression and change, they facilitate immoderate notions of endorsement on the one hand and resistance on the other. The peak of these developments at the University of Innsbruck was reached during the 1760s and the years leading up to the second big curriculum reform of 1772 – at least according to what the disputation practice of this time indicates. Regarding the ‘notions of endorsement’, the 1760s were characterised by a striking number of disputations propagating the disintegration of religious belief and attacking the authority, the immunity, and the legal claims of the Catholic Church.62 The court in Vienna was not much in favour of these 59  At that time, the anti-monastic measures had not yet reached the Tyrol; they would only set in under Joseph’s rule. The Jesuits themselves were divided on the new appointments, but their appeal against the decision was anyhow dismissed by Maria Theresa. Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 170–171. 60  Although the claim for diversity of opinions had been fixed in the official study regulations since the beginning of the University (Mraz, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 128), it had been a mere illusion before Mannhart and the educational reform of 1752. 61  On Platner’s Dissertationes in greater detail, see Brandl, Die Theologische Fakultät 130–131; Coreth, Die theologische Fakultät 27–28; Kustatscher – Korenjak, “Theologie und kirchliches Schrifttum” 828. 62  Cf. Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 220, 227, 232 (note 1).

444

Walser-Bürgler

tendencies, since both Maria Theresa and Joseph II wanted to ensure an indeed more rational care of Catholicism, yet not a complete break with Rome. However, the whole issue certainly was an all too natural reaction of hypercorrection with respect to the anti-Jesuit and generally Enlightenment efforts at the University of Innsbruck; likewise, it was a reflection of the flourishing interest among Tyrolean clerics in the status and rights of the Church.63 Among the many dissident disputations, the public disputation of the law student Franz Steinberger attracted the greatest deal of attention (EphTh III, 110).64 For his doctoral promotion, he defended several theses out of the entire field of jurisprudence in March 1768, presided by Johann Franz de la Paix (1721–1788), professor of Constitutional and Natural Law and at the time rector of Innsbruck University. Unfortunately, the thesis print has not been preserved; extracts from its most explosive theses can however be retrieved in the official letter of investigation by the Cardinal Secretary of State.65 The theses contravened common Canon Law and expressed criticism of the Church’s privileges, which aroused protest on the part of the deans of the Philosophical, Theological, and Law Faculty upon their print (EphTh III, 110: ‘protestationem […] contra titulum Thesium’). Even the Bishop of Brixen got involved, demanding the refusal of Steinberger’s doctorate, if he should stick to the presentation of these theses. Yet the disputation eventually took place as planned with Steinberger standing up against the Church’s right of asylum, its entitlement to education, and its claim to assets, while at the same time assigning all its rights and duties to the State. Despite the heavy criticism before and during Steinberger’s disputation, he was awarded the doctorate in Canon and Civil Law. As an example of the contemporary notions of resistance against the Enlightenment trends in Innsbruck opposed to Steinberger’s radical openness, serves the disputation by the Wilten student Alderik Jäger (1746–1819). He publicly defended his Dissertatio de dolore necessario in sacramento poenitentiae cum positionibus ex theologia universa (Innsbruck, Johann Nepomuk Wagner: 1770) ‘sine praeside’ (EphTh III, 121) on 21 August 1770. Jäger was to become professor of Dogmatic Theology at Innsbruck University a year later, acting as a major conservative force against so-called ‘Enlightenment professors’ like Karl von Güntherode (1740–1795) or Karl Schwarzl (1746–1809). His disputation ‘on the sincere fervour in acts of confession’ already hinted at his traditional 63  It is not coincidental that treatises on ecclesiological questions (‘de ecclesia’) proliferated in the contemporary Tyrol. Cf. Plongeron, “Katholische Aufklärung” 34–35. 64  The case of Steinberger (including prelude and repercussions) is discussed in depth in Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 232–242. 65  Transcribed and edited in Falkner, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät 240–241.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

445

understanding and endorsement of Catholic practices, which had been under fire by the supporters of both the Catholic Enlightenment and the Josephinian reforms for decades. The fact that he was appointed professor despite his conservative views seems to suggest that the court in Vienna was in the first place interested in breaking the Jesuits’ influence; apparently, this aim was so crucial to their politics that Maria Theresa and Joseph even deemed reactionary tendencies acceptable for a while. At some point, the Enlightenment with all its implications of institutional reform and intellectual renewal was no longer to be detained from its full spread in Innsbruck. Around the 1770s, the University seemed to eventually give in and yield to the directives of the State and the time. Accordingly, the tone and the topics of the disputations given turned unanimously ‘enlightened’ (parallel to the eradication of conservative Jesuit staff or any kind of traditional thinking). As a first illustrative example of this decisive point in the history of particularly the Philosophical and the Theological Faculty serves the treatise Poesis Hebraica (Augsburg, Ignaz Wagner: 1765) by the polyhistor Ignaz Weitenauer (1709–1783), who was professor of Greek and Hebrew in Innsbruck from 1753–1773. Even though Weitenauer was a Jesuit, he was one of the early and most straightforward thinkers at the Philosophical Faculty. After the substitution of Metaphysics with Hebrew, Greek, and Literary History at the Philosophical Faculty, and with the increasing focus on the ancillary sciences to provide a more rationalistic and source-bound biblical exegesis at the Theological Faculty as of the first curriculum change of 1752, Weitenauer set out to investigate the Old Testament as a piece of literature and art in his Poesis Hebraica far off the previous speculative track.66 The treatise was defended in hundred theses in May 1765 by Weitenauer’s student Casimir Mezger and was reprinted in 1774. In terms of many aspects, Weitenauer displayed a strong influence of the Protestant biblical scholarship. While detailed analyses of the broad range of genres and the elaborate poetic styles of the original Hebrew version later lost in the Vulgata dominated the first two parts of the investigation, the third part critically deconstructed the old-established Catholic quatuor sensus scripturae. Weitenauer’s interpretation of the Bible hence lost its typical Catholic tone of far-fetched allegory to suit the realities of faith, retracing its often isolated and fragmented sense to transparent contexts of 66  On the curriculum change, see Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 53; Kustatscher – Korenjak, “Theologie und kirchliches Schrifttum” 807; Tilg – Korenjak, “Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft” 836. On Weitenauer’s treatise, see Kompatscher G. – Korenjak M., “Von der Gründung der Universität bis zur Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens (1773): Sprachdidaktik, Poetik, Philologie”, in Korenjak – Schaffenrath – Šubarić – Töchterle (eds.), Tyrolis Latina 797–806 at 805–806.

446

Walser-Bürgler

enlightened life. This straight approach to literature, philology, and religion marked the beginning of a complete new confrontation of the Bible as a text in Innsbruck. Another central figure of the Enlightenment in Innsbruck was the already mentioned Karl von Güntherode from the Order of the Servites.67 Like Weitenauer, he belonged to the first generation of exclusively enlightened theologians at Innsbruck University, abandoning traditional thinking in partly radical ways. Güntherode was appointed as a temporary teacher of Logic from 1773–1774; from 1779–1783 he was professor of Ecclesiastical History.68 Especially during his earlier years as a lecturer, he was a prolific writer and enthusiastic teacher of his convictions, which led to numerous publications defended by his students. Before that, however, he had already written a few theological treatises, publicly showcasing his open-minded attitudes at disputations at the Servite monastery. Among those early works we find, for example, Vindiciae Zosimi S.P. in causa Coelesti et Pelagii (Innsbruck, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1770), or Dissertatio de visione Mosis et raptu Pauli (Innsbruck, Johann Nepomuk Wagner: 1772), both defended by the novice Innozenz Sternbach. While the former text dealt with some controversial issues like the original sin and free will, the latter was both an examination of God’s unknown yet allegorical appearance in the Old Testament on the basis of patristic authors, and a prophecy on the future status of the Church.69 Common to both treatises was Güntherode’s underlying criticism of the papal infallibility and pointless devout rites.70 Güntherode’s most influential works disputed at Innsbruck University fall into the period of his lectureship of Logic. At that time, he wrote two textbooks meant for the general use at university. The first one, entitled Dissertatio de criteriis veri et falsi primisque humanae cognitionis principis (Innsbruck, no printer: 1774), contained a philosophical epistemology; the second one, entitled Theologiae naturalis institutio (Innsbruck, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1774) contained a philosophical doctrine of God. Attached at the end of both works is a list of fifty theses, Positiones ex logica et metaphysica (Innsbruck, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1774),71 which were cumulatively defended in a public 67  Wangermann, “Giuseppinismo e Aufklärung cattolica” 209, even labelled Güntherode as the most prominent Enlightenment figure of the Josephinian era in the Tyrol. 68   Oberkofler – Goller, Geschichte der Universität 53. 69  Cf. Brandl, Die Theologische Fakultät 156–157. 70  Güntherode’s blunt and increasingly radical opinions (which made him increasingly ignorant towards the utilitarian curriculum and the needs of his students) would eventually lead to his suspension as professor of Ecclesiastical History in 1783. More information on his ‘inglorious end’ is provided in Coreth, Die theologische Fakultät 45–46. 71  Brandl, Die Theologische Fakultät 153–156; Coreth, Die theologische Fakultät 42–43.

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

447

disputation on 23 July 1774 by Johann Ernst von Königsegg-Aulendorf (1755– 1803) and Christoph Felix von Arz und Vassek (EphTh III, 147). The theses were characterised by Güntherode’s moderate rationalism in treating the question of how to reach knowledge of the truth in conjunction with the proof of God’s existence. Following the tradition of Christian Wolff (1679–1754), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), and Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715), who had integrated different rationalistic and scholastic concepts into an enlightened system of thought, Güntherode arrived at the conclusion in his Positiones that it is firstly the intellect, secondly the senses, and thirdly common authorities that provide knowledge (in other words: metaphysical, physical, and moral instances). Only analytical judgement based on the law of noncontradiction and the principle of sufficient reason will ultimately decide about the truth in knowledge. As far as the existence of God is concerned, Güntherode provided both an ontological and a physicotheological proof by applying the same principles of logic. 5

Concluding Remarks

After the suppression of the Jesuit order as well as parallel and subsequent to central figures of the reform era and the Catholic Enlightenment like Weitenauer or Güntherode, there were other professors at the University of Innsbruck not only representing, but also promoting enlightened thinking (e.g. Johann Baptist Albertini, Franz Ertl, Ignaz Franz de Luca, Johann Nepomuk Pehem, Franz Xaver Jellenz, or Johann Leonhard Banniza). Yet at the same time, the disputation system was subject to changes and lost its primary importance as a voice to both eager professors and students in the course of the transformation of the University to a Lyzeum on the one hand, and the utilitarian drive of Joseph II to establish German as the main language of instruction on the other. Before these trends set in, however, the slow but continuous enforcement of Enlightenment ideas and reforms coming from Italy and the court in Vienna were well reflected in the genre of disputations. This holds especially true for those disputations that were tied to the context of the Jesuit influence (i.e. the Philosophical, the Theological, and partly also the Juridical Faculty). The development traced on the basis of representative disputations in this article was mostly driven by stately demands for greater utility in education as well as general Enlightenment claims for less speculative and irrational ways of thinking. As with every development, there were enthusiastic early starting attempts in the first half of the eighteenth century – partly supported by the Jesuits –,

448

Walser-Bürgler

followed by a general opening up to a variety of doctrines for the first time in the history of the University of Innsbruck. The more these trends started to consolidate, the more they were either countered by conservative reactions or supported by outspoken adherents around the middle of the century. When the suppression of the Jesuits was in the offing in the 1760s, the eventual succumbing to the new ideals, their perpetuation and pursuit was fully realised until the end of the ‘old’ University of Innsbruck in the 1780s. Selective Bibliography

Manuscript Sources



Thesis Imprints

Ephemeris sive Acta inclytae facultatis theologicae in alma caesareo archiducali universitate Oenipontana. Tom. I (1671–1713), cod. 1; Tom. II (1713–1751), cod. 15; Tom. III (1751–1812), cod. 16 (University Archive Innsbruck).

De la Paix Johann Franz (Pr.) – Steinberger Franz (Resp.), [title unknown] (Innsbruck, Johann Nepomuk Wagner: 1768). Grustner Casimir (Pr.) – Spaur Marian von, Perckhofer Matthias, Falger Sebastian (Resp.), Naturalis theologiae nucleus sive tractatus philosophicus de existentia et essentia entis increati (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1720). Güntherode Karl von (Pr.) – Sternbach Innozenz (Resp.), Vindiciae Zosimi S.P. in causa Coelesti et Pelagii (Innsbruck, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1770). Güntherode Karl von (Pr.) – Sternbach Innozenz (Resp.), Dissertatio de visione Mosis et raptu Pauli (Innsbruck, Johann Nepomuk Wagner: 1772). Güntherode Karl von (Pr.) – Königsegg-Aulendorf Johann Ernst von, Arz und Vassek Christoph Felix von (Resp.), Positiones ex logica et metaphysica (Innsbruck, Johann Thomas Trattner: 1774). Jäger Alderik (Resp.), Dissertatio de dolore necessario in sacramento poenitentiae cum positionibus ex theologia universa (Innsbruck, Johann Nepomuk Wagner: 1770). Kalchschmidt Leopold Karl (Pr.) – Grustner Casimir, Franck Cajetan (Resp.), Innocentia praemotionis Thomisticae (Augsburg, David Zacharias: 1710). Mannhart Franz Xaver (Pr.) – Wissenegg Franz de Paula von (Resp.), Dissertationes theologicae de indole, ortu ac progressu ex fontibus sacrae doctrinae (Augsburg –Innsbruck, Joseph Wolff: 1749). Payr Franz (Pr.) – Lang Johannes Joseph (Resp.), Apologia inter sarcophibum et sarcophilum cum crisi Theophili Veronensis (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1741). Platner Joachim (Pr.) – Sterzinger Casimir (Resp.), Dissertationes historico-criticae in universos theologiae tractatus (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1766).

18TH-CENTURY DISPUTATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

449

Riegger Paul Joseph (Pr.) – Weltin Johann Michael (Resp.), Dissertatio historico-iuridica de ordine equitum hospitalariorum domus Teutonicae in Ierusalem (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1742). Riegger Paul Joseph (Pr.) – Dalser Ignaz Xaver, Ulm zu Erbach Ferdinand Karl von (Resp.), Systema historiae Romano-Germanicae in tabulas contractum et in certas periodos distinctum (Innsbruck, Michael Anton Wagner: 1745; 1747). Weinzierlin Franz Xaver (Resp.), Scientia dei media contra innocentiam praemotionis Thomisticae publicatam et propugnatam (Innsbruck, Jakob Christoph Wagner: 1711). Weitenauer Ignaz (Pr.) – Mezger Casimir (Resp.), Poesis Hebraica (Augsburg, Ignaz Wagner: 1765).



Secondary Literature

Benedikt M. – Knoll R. – Rupitz J. (eds.), Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Philosophie in Österreich von 1400 bis heute. Bd. 1,2: Die Philosophie in Österreich zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung (1650–1750). Die Stärke des Barock (Klausen-Leopoldsdorf – Cluj-Napoca: 1997). Brandl M., Die Theologische Fakultät Innsbruck 1773–1790 im Rahmen der kirchlichen Landesgeschichte, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte 5 (Innsbruck: 1969). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19 (2004) 129–187. Coreth E., Die Anfänge der Aufklärungstheologie in Innsbruck. Zur Geistesgeschichte der Innsbrucker Theologischen Fakultät 1773–1783, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Innsbruck: 1947). Coreth E., Die theologische Fakultät in Innsbruck. Ihre Geschichte und wissenschaftliche Arbeit von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Veröffentlichungen der Universität Innsbruck 212 (Innsbruck: 1995). Engelbrecht H., Geschichte des österreichischen Bildungswesens. Erziehung und Unterricht auf dem Boden Österreichs. Bd. 3: Von der frühen Aufklärung bis zum Vormärz (Vienna: 1984). Falkner A., Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck 1740–1773, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte 4 (Innsbruck: 1969). Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010). Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒ Vienna: 2016). Grass N., “L.A. Muratori und Tirol”, in Meid W. – Ölberg H.M. – Schmeja H. (eds.), Studien zur Namenkunde und Sprachgeographie. Festschrift für Karl Finsterwalder

450

Walser-Bürgler

zum 70. Geburtstag, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 16 (Innsbruck: 1971) 427–434. Haidacher A., Das Stift Wilten und die Universität Innsbruck 1670–1782. Ein Beitrag zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte Tirols im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Innsbruck: 1952). Hammerstein N., “Universitäten”, in Hammerstein N. – Herrmann U. (eds.), Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Bd. 2: 18. Jahrhundert. Vom späten 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Neuordnung Deutschlands um 1800 (Munich: 2005) 369–400. Kollmann J. (ed.), Die Matrikel der Universität Innsbruck. II. Abteilung: Matricula Theologica (1672–1755), 3 vols. (Innsbruck – Munich: 1965–1983). Korenjak M. – Schaffenrath F. – Šubarić L. – Töchterle K. (eds.), Tyrolis Latina. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur in Tirol, Bd. 2: Von der Gründung der Universität Innsbruck bis heute (Vienna: 2012). Kovács E. (ed.), Katholische Aufklärung und Josephinismus (Vienna: 1979). Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne ‒ Weimar ‒ Vienna: 2017). Mraz G., Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck von ihrer Gründung bis zum Jahre 1740, Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschich­te 3 (Innsbruck: 1968). Oberkofler G. – Goller P., Geschichte der Universität Innsbruck (1669–1945), Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe 14 (Frankfort on the Main: 21996). Probst J., Geschichte der Universität in Innsbruck seit ihrer Entstehung bis zum Jahre 1860 (Innsbruck: 1869). Riedmann J., Geschichte Tirols (Vienna: 1982). Wangermann E., “Giuseppinismo e Aufklärung cattolica nell’ambito dell’università di Innsbruck”, in Luzzi S. (ed.), Aufklärung cattolica ed età delle riforme. Giovanni Battista Graser nella cultura europea del Settecento. Atti della giornata di studi Rovereto, 6 maggio 2003 (Rovereto: 2004) 207–220. Weijers O., In Search of the Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies on the Faculty of Arts History and Influence 1 (Turnhout: 2013).

Chapter 17

Bismi ’llāhi … Three Dissertations by Johann Michael Lange on Editions and Translations of the Koran Reinhold F. Glei

Summary

Three disputations held at Altdorf under the presidency of Johann Michael Lange, closely related to each other, were dealing with an unusual topic: the reception of the Koran in Europe. Though delivered in a theological faculty, their main focus is historical and philological, as is stated already in their titles (Dissertatio historico-philologicotheologica). The first one dealt with the first printed Arabic Koran in Europe (Venice: Paganini, 1537/38), the second one with further attempts to publish a printed Koran until the end of the 17th century (Hinckelmann: 1694, Marracci: 1698), and the third one, finally, with translations of the Koran into several Oriental and Western languages. Anticipating methods of modern scholarship, these dissertations (printed in Altdorf by Heinrich Meyer in 1703 and 1704) are of extraordinary value not only for studying the dissemination of the Koran in Europe, but also the state-of-the-art of research on the Arabic language and Islam at the beginning of the 18th century.

At the University of Altdorf-Nuremberg, three academic disputations, which are not unimportant for the history of Oriental Studies, were held within six months of the years 1703–1704.1 These disputations took place under the 1  Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Ludwig Michael Konrad (Resp.), De alcorani prima inter Europaeos editione Arabica, ante sesquiseculum et quod excurrit, in Italia per Paganinum Brixiensem facta, sed jussu pontificis Romani penitus abolita (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1703; abbreviated as ‘Lange I’ in this article): ‘On the first Arabic edition of the Koran in Europe, more than one and a half century ago made in Italy by Paganino from Brixen (or Brescia), but by order of the Roman Pope completely abolished’; Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Schnützlein Georg Michael (Resp.), De speciminibus, conatibus variis atque novissimis successibus doctorum quorundam virorum in edendo alcorano Arabico (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1704; = Lange II): ‘On the specimens, various attempts and most recent advances of some learned scholars in editing an Arabic Koran’; Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Lobherr Johannes Konrad (Resp.), De alcorani versionibus variis, tam orientalibus, quam occidentalibus, impressis et hactenus ANEKΔΟΤΟΙΣ (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1704; = Lange III): ‘On the various translations of the Koran, Oriental as well as Western, both printed and still unedited’.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_018

452

Glei

presidency of Johann Michael Lange (1664–1731),2 doctor of theology and professor in Altdorf since 1697. The three accompanying dissertations authored by Lange, published by Altdorf University Press (printer: Heinrich Meyer) in advance of the disputations (held on 19th December 1703, 16th April and 18th June 1704), dealt with editions and translations of the Koran made in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, a topic quite unusual in theological disputations.3 The interdisciplinary nature of the dissertations is mirrored in their inscriptions, which all provide the prolific title Dissertatio historicophilologico-theologica. In fact, they are historical-philological studies with a theological appendix added as a kind of fig leaf, i.e. to lend them a veneer of standard academic theology, as we will see. There was, however, a distinctive tradition of Oriental Studies at Altdorf. Famous Orientalists like Christoph Crinesius (1584–1629), Daniel Schwenter (1585–1636), Theodor Hackspan (1607–1659), Johannes Saubert Jr. (1638–1688) and especially Johann Christoph Wagenseil (1633–1705), Lange’s mentor and patron, had made Altdorf an important place of Oriental Studies in Europe, although not comparable with the 17th century ‘Mecca’ of Orientalists, Leiden, with its far more famous scholars like Thomas Erpenius (1584–1624) and Jacob Golius (1596–1667). Lange himself had studied at Altdorf since 1682; in 1688, he went to Jena, and in 1694, he earned a licentiate of theology at the University of Halle.4 In 1697, he was appointed to the chair of Theology in Altdorf, succeeding Johann Fabricius (1644–1729) who had gone to Helmstedt. The decisive factor for Lange’s appointment was probably Wagenseil’s support, to whom Lange had dedicated a Dissertatio theologica, written when he was still pastor of the parish of Vohenstrauß, a village in the Palatinate Sulzbach. This work, however, was not an academic dissertation like the three pieces quoted above, but a theological treatise (dissertatio bears a different, non-technical sense here) on polemics against the Christian dogmas of Trinity and Christology in the Koran.5 In this treatise, Lange already shows a deep knowledge of Islamic doctrines based on his own reading and interpretation of the Koran. Obviously, 2  Since his name is always given in the Latin form ‘Langius’, it is not clear whether his genuine name was ‘Lange’ or ‘Lang’ in German; both forms do occur in secondary literature. 3  On ordinary theological disputations at Altdorf, see, for example, Marti H., “Der Altdorfer Sozinianismusstreit im Spiegel akademischer Kleinschriften”, in Marti H. – MartiWeissenbach K. (eds.), Nürnbergs Hochschule in Altdorf. Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschafts- und Bildungsgeschichte (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2014) 158–190. 4  There is no modern biography of Lange. See Wagenmann J.A., “Lang [sic], Johann Michael”, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 17 (1883) 601–602; online: http://www.deutsche-biographie .de/pnd100299962.html (last access 27/08/2018). 5  De fabulis Mohhammaedicis circa ss. trinitatis mysterium et generationem in divinis […] Norimbergae, sumtibus Andreae Ottonis, bibliopolæ. Altdorfi, Literis Henrici Meyeri, universitatis typographi, 1697.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

453

Lange had studied the relevant Orientalist sources of his time and was well acquainted with the Arabic language, too. After becoming professor in Altdorf, he deepened this knowledge and, as a fruit of his exhaustive historical and philological studies, he published the three dissertations to be presented here. The following analysis, therefore, has been divided into three parts. After a short introduction, which examines the common features of all three dissertations, the topics of the single works will be listed and discussed in some detail. The first dissertation deals with the first publication of a printed (Arabic) Koran in Europe, the second one with further attempts to publish at least portions of the Koran up to the beginning of the 18th century (mentioning also the two complete editions of late-17th-century), the third one with the translations of the Koran existing up to Lange’s present days. Some remarks on Lange’s position in European Oriental scholarship and the reliability of his results will conclude each part. All three dissertations bear, as mentioned above, the title of a Dissertatio historico-philologico-theologica, which characterizes them as a contribution to history (i.e. the history of Oriental scholarship) and to (Arabic) philology, i.e. to editing and translating Arabic texts. The theological aspect is only an, albeit necessary, corollary. The title pages are equally structured and look as follows (I use the second item, the others providing only slight variations): DISSERTATIO HISTORICO-PHILOLOGICO-THEOLOGICA De [special topic] Quam DEO VOLENTE, SVB PRAESIDIO JOH. MICH. LANGII, Theol. Doct. et Prof. Publ. Ordin. ut et Eccles. Oppid. Symmystae, H. L. Q. C. in Ordine, quem dicimus Circularem, [date] publicae ventilationi subjiciet6 [name]

6  Instead of this phrase, Lange I has ‘publice defendet’ (‘will publicly defend’), Lange III ‘ventilandam sistet’ (‘will present to examination’). The sense remains the same.

454

Glei

----------------------------------------------------AltdorfI, Literis Henrici Meyeri, Universitatis Typographi. ‘Historical-philological-theological dissertation on [special topic], which, if God wills, under the presidency of Johann Michael Lange, Doctor of Theology and Public Ordinary Professor, as well as Fellow Priest of the local church, at the usual time and place, in the so-called Round Lecture Hall, on [date], will be submitted to public examination by [name]. (Published) in Altdorf, by the press of Heinrich Meyer, university printer’. The special topics and dates of the disputations are already given above. The names of the (otherwise unknown) respondents are Michael Konrad Ludwig from Wismar (Lange I), Georg Michael Schnützlein from Weissenburg (Lange II) and Johannes Konrad Lobherr from Nuremberg (Lange III). Only in the first dissertation, there is a dedication by Lange to the student who was going to defend Lange’s theses (‘PEREXIMIO CLAREQUE DOCTO DN. [Domino] RESPONDENTI SUO S.P.D. PRAESES’: ‘To the most distinguished and excellently learned Sir, my Respondent, the President gives his greetings’). In this dedication, Lange refers to another disputation that took place one year ago: on this occasion, Ludwig defended one of Lange’s four dissertations on the genealogy of Christ secundum carnem, i.e. his human genealogical tree, according to the Gospels and the Church Fathers.7 The primary intention of this dedication is to eulogize Ludwig, but Lange, however, uses this conventional address as an apology for his own studies on the Koran. He praises Ludwig for his enthusiasm in sharing his own Orientalist interests and points out that ‘without these studies, no conviction, leave alone a conversion, of the Muhammadans can ever be hoped for’.8 In Lange’s opinion, it is not enough to rely on God’s omnipotence (who would have eradicated Islam if He had wanted to), but to walk ‘on the ordinary path of salvation’,9 i.e. studying and learning. The apologetic purpose is picked up in the dissertation itself 7  De genealogia Christi ex patribus secundum carnem dissertationes theologicae (I–IV ) (Norimbergae, Impensis Andreae Ottonis, Bibliopolae. Altdorfi, Literis Henrici Meyeri, Universit. Typographi: 1703). Ludwig defended the third dissertation. – There is no complete bibliography of Lange’s works today. See the list provided by Baader C.A., Lexikon verstorbener Baierischer Schriftsteller des achtzehenten und neunzehenten Jahrhunderts. Des zwey­ ten Bandes Erster Theil. A–P (Augsburg – Leipzig: 1825), sub voce Lang, Johann Michael (online: https://personenlexika.digitale-sammlungen.de/Lexika/Lang,_Johann_Michael_ (GND_100299962), last access 27/08/2018). 8  ‘in eas literas, sine quibus […] Mohhammaedistarum convictio nulla, nedum ulla conversio sperari potest’ (Lange I, Dedication, fol. A2). 9  Ibidem: ‘nisi ad absolutam DEI potentiam, neglectâ viâ ordinariâ salutis, provocare velimus’.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

455

(Lange I) as well, which Lange calls ‘a mixture of scholarly history and theological questions’.10 In fact, it consists of two parts, the first one being historical (5–19), the second one theological (20–30), the latter making up almost half of the whole study. On the contrary, Lange II and III have no dedications, and the theological parts are much more restricted, comprising only 12 to 14 percent of the whole text. This shows that Lange’s main purpose was to promote Oriental studies at Altdorf, whereas the ‘theological questions’ were only a concession to his regular position as Professor of Theology, which he more or less neglected in the course of his occupation with the Koran. In our analysis, therefore, we will concentrate on the historical and philological aspects, which contribute to the history of Oriental studies in Europe, while the theological aspects, conventional as they are, will mostly be left aside. One point, however, deserves special attention: In all three dissertations,11 there is, on top of the text as well as beneath an ornamental braid giving it an Oriental touch, a calligraphic representation of the so-called basmala (in Arabic script). This formula, which precedes all (except one) surahs, is used throughout in every kind of Islamic writings – as well as in everyday life – as an opening phrase. It runs: bismi ’llāhi al-raḥmāni al-raḥīmi (‘In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful’); the words are typed with a calligraphic crossing over of letters and are provided with a complete (and correct) vocalization. These typographic features can be seen in the following picture:

Figure 17.1

Basmala (Lange III)

The basmala is well comparable to the Christian Trinitarian formula In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti (‘In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’) and was probably coined in direct contrast to it by the compiler(s) of the Koran.12 The fact that Lange placed the basmala at the very beginning of his dissertations is clearly programmatic and even might have been understood as 10  Ibidem: ‘argumentum […], quod ex Historia literaria et quaestionibus Theologicis mixtum’. 11  Lange I, 5; Lange II, 3; Lange III, 3. 12  See Neuwirth A., Der Koran als Text der Spätantike. Ein europäischer Zugang (Berlin: 2010) 201.

456

Glei

a provocation for Christian readers. Actually, it shows that Lange’s aim was not so much to convince or to convert the Muslims, as he pretended, but rather to demonstrate his own knowledge of Islamic Studies in Europe and to join the scientific community of his time. As we will see, Lange was very well informed of and therefore able to take part in contemporary discussions of Oriental philology, although he surely not matched the great names of that discipline. Let us now turn to the contents of the three dissertations. Lange I consists of 28 chapters (5–30), followed by two short notes called (in Greek) EΠIMETPA (literally ‘bonuses, encores’), i.e. additional remarks which are only loosely connected with the text (31–32).13 The first 17 chapters deal with the (presumably) first printing of the Koran, the last ten chapters constitute the theological part of the dissertation. We will concentrate here, as has been stated, on the historical-philological aspects. In ch. 1, Lange points out that he is going to deal with the history of the first printed edition of the Koran, which would be – if extant – older than any printed translation of the Koran. Lange says that this edition was known only to a few contemporary scholars, because it had fallen to oblivion due to an (almost successful) damnatio memoriae by the Roman Church. There are, according to Lange, at least three reliable sources that confirm the former existence of this edition: Teseo Ambrogio, Guillaume Postel and Thomas Erpenius. In the following chapters, Lange explains that, on the contrary, the majority of scholars agree in rejecting the existence of the edition as a fama obscura (ch. 2). Even ‘great names’ did not know about it or even denied that it ever existed (ch. 3).14 Contra, there were also some scholars who affirmed its existence, relying on earlier sources (ch. 4).15 Also in the then most recent and – in 13  The Epimetra refer to – a) a special exegetical problem in the Koran (9:30), namely the identity of ‘Osaira’ (ʿUzayr). Lange quotes from an Arabic commentary used by the German Orientalist Levinus Warner (1618/19–1665), a student of Golius in Leiden, and translated into Latin: see Compendium historicum eorum quae Muhammedani de Christo et praecipuis aliquot religionis Christianae capitibus tradiderunt. Auctore Levino Warnero (Lugduni Batavorum, Typis Ioannis Maire: 1643) 37–38. – b) an anecdote about Nicolaus Clenardus (1493–1542): see below on Lange II, ch. 3. 14  Lange namely refers to August Pfeiffer (1640–1698), who explicitly stated that the Koran was never printed: see his Fasciculus dissertationum philologicarum, in quibus agitur […] de alkorano Muhammedis [= Diss. IV ] (Wittebergae, literis et impensis Michaelis Wendt: 1665) 85. Others, like Theodor Hackspan (1607–1659), Georg Calixt (1586–1656) and Johannes Hoornbeek (1617–1666) did not mention a printed Koran, which they surely would have done, if they had known about it. Such argumenta e silentio are always problematic, however. 15  Lange refers to Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659–1707), who cites four authorities arguing that a printed Koran did exist in the 16th century: Johann Heinrich Häner (1649–1684), Johann Andreas Bose (1626–1674), Thomas Erpenius (1584–1624) and the already mentioned

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

457

Lange’s eyes – most important contribution to Oriental scholarship, Andreas Acoluthus’s Specimen alcorani quadrilinguis (1701), the edition is attested (ch. 5).16 Acoluthus’s ultimate source, however, leaving aside some intermediate links, is identified as Erpenius (ch. 6–8). Lange concludes: ‘Without doubt, these illustrious men relied on the words of Thomas Erpenius, who – as the only one among the elder authors hitherto known to me – has publicly told the learned world (although ninety years after the event), that the abolition [of the Koran] took place just in the year of its printing’.17 Indeed, in the catalogue of Arabic imprints added to Erpenius’ Grammar (not in the 1613, but in the 1620 edition), the famous Leiden scholar claimed that the complete stock had been burnt, so that no copy was left: ‘In Italy, [books] printed in Venice: An Arabic Koran [was printed] around 1530 with Arabic letters, but all copies were burnt’.18 Lange, however, expresses some doubts. Apart from the fact that Erpenius refers to an event ninety years ago, ‘an enormous period of time […], which requires an earlier document not provided, however, by Erpenius’,19 there is another problem, because the catalogue of imprints was, at least partly, compiled not by Erpenius himself but by Guilelmus Coddaeus (1575–1630?), Erpenius’s predecessor, and was left out in the second edition (Leiden: 1628).20 This might be interpreted as a sign of unreliability, but despite of these objections, Lange does not dare to reject Erpenius’s testimony: ‘However, one cannot conclude that the story told by Erpenius about the abolition of the Koran

Altdorfian Johannes Saubert (1638–1688). See Tentzel’s Monatliche Unterredungen Einiger Guten Freunde Von Allerhand Büchern und andern annehmlichen Geschichten etc., vol. 4 (Leipzig, Johann Jakob Fritsch: 1692) 918–921. 16  Tετραπλα [sic, without accent] Alcoranica, sive specimen alcorani quadrilinguis, Arabici, Persici, Turcici, Latini. […] Autore Andrea Acolutho (Berlini, Literis Viduae Salfeldianae: 1701), 40. On Acoluthus, see Bobzin H.: “Die Koranpolyglotte des Andreas Acoluthus (1654– 1704)” in Germano-Turcica. Zur Geschichte des Türkisch-Lernens in den deutschsprachigen Ländern (Bamberg: 1987) 57–59. 17  ‚sine dubio nitebantur viri summi, THOMAE ERPENII verbis, qui abolitionem una cum anno impressionis, solus inter antiquiores, qui mihi hactenus innotuerunt, publico testimonio, (quanquam nonaginta post ipsum Factum, annis) orbi docto tradidit‛ (Lange I, ch. 8, p. 11). 18  Thomae Erpenii Rudimenta linguae Arabicae. accedunt ejusdem praxis grammatica; et consilium de studio Arabico feliciter instituendo (Leidae, Ex Typogaphia Auctoris: 1620), 232: ‘In Italia. Venetiis Excusi. Alcoranus Arabice circa annum 1530. literis Arabicis: sed Exemplaria omnia cremata sunt’. 19  ‘ingens temporis spatium, […] requirit antiquius documentum narrationis, quod Erpenius non indicavit’ (Lange I, ch. 9, p. 11). 20  On the whole topic, see Nallino M.: “Una cinquecentesca edizione del Corano stampata a Venezia”, Atti dell’Istituto di scienze, lettere ed arti 124 (1965/66) 1–12.

458

Glei

through fire is untrustworthy’.21 That Lange suppresses his doubts is not only due to his respect of Erpenius, but also – and primarily – due to confessional reasons, as is shown by the second part of his dissertation where he polemicizes against the Roman Pope having ordered this autodafé. This provides an example that Lange’s ideological bias sometimes overwhelms his critical mind otherwise prevailing in his historical-philological studies. The fact remains, however, that no copy of the Venice Koran was available in the 17th century and that its existence, therefore, was not beyond doubt. Even in mid-16th-century, Bibliander did not know this edition, since he surely would have mentioned it in his Apologia pro editione alcorani (1543, ²1550), albeit referring only to the Latin translation.22 So the main witnesses for the existence of the Venice Koran are, as Lange points out in ch. 11–15, Teseo Ambrogio (1469–1540) and Guillaume Postel (1510–1581). The latter needs no introduction here;23 Teseo was an Italian humanist devoted to Oriental studies, who wrote an introduction to more than a dozen Oriental languages.24 In their correspondence, these scholars explicitly attest the existence of a Koran, printed in Arabic types by Alessandro Paganini, son of Paganino Paganini, in Venice, since Postel asked for the types used in the printing of this Koran in order to publish his own grammar; Teseo tried to get the types from the Paganinis, but did not succeed.25 It seems clear, therefore, that the Venice Koran did exist, and this is what Lange concludes in his final chapter: ‘From what is said it is certain that Paganini edited the Arabic text of the Koran in Italy, already in the 16th century, at the beginning of the Lutheran Reformation. As Erpenius adds, this was in Venice in the year 1530’.26 The correct date, as we know today, is the year 1538/39, and this detail is a quite important one, as we will see. It was a scholarly sensation and a great confirmation of the conclusions drawn by Lange and others, that some thirty years ago a single copy of the presumed lost Venice Koran was discovered by Angela Nuovo in the Franciscan

21  ‘Saltem inde non sequitur, quod narrationi Erpenianae de abolitione Alcorani per ignem, non sit habenda fides’ (Lange I, ch. 9, p. 12). 22  Lange I, ch. 10, p. 12. The apology was part of the famous Koran edition, on which see Bobzin H., Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation (Beirut – Stuttgart: 1995) 181–209. 23  On him, see Bobzin, Koran 365–497. 24  Introductio in Chaldaicam linguam, Syriacam atque Armenicam et decem alias linguas (Papiae, Joan. Maria Simoneta: 1539). 25  See Bobzin H., “Ließ ein Papst den Koran verbrennen? Mutmaßungen zum Venezianer Korandruck von 1537/38”, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Heft 2 (Munich: 2013) 14. 26  ‚Ex dictis constat, PAGANINVM BRIXIENSEM edidisse iam seculo decimo sexto, sub initium reformationis Lutheranae in Italia textum Arabicum Alcorani, et quidem, ut ERPENIVS supplet, Venetiis Anno 1530‛ (Lange I, ch. 17, pp. 19–20).

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

459

Library of S. Michele in Isola.27 As autopsy shows,28 the Arabic characters are represented correctly, although they still look somewhat clumsy and the dots are sometimes put wrong (dāl and dhāl, for example, are often mixed up; the alif maqṣūra has two dots). The vocalization signs, however, are, if not completely missing, in really bad shape.29 The following picture showing the beginning of Surah 18 gives clear evidence of these features.

Figure 17.2

Paganini Koran, Surah 18

However, an autodafé as the assumed reason for the loss of the whole stock (although, in fact, at least one copy survived), must be rejected. As Nallino has already pointed out,30 there is no evidence for that in contemporary sources, and it is not probable that a burning of the Koran would have been passed over in silence. Consequently, Lange’s claim that ‘all copies were destroyed by authority of the Roman Pope and Curia’31 cannot be considered to be true, since it seems to be only a polemical invention made by Erpenius (or others) for confessional reasons. This is implicitly attested by Lange himself, who, in the chapter preceding his conclusion, once more, and too often, indeed, stresses the credibility of Erpenius and others who assert the burning and suppression of the Koran.32 Lange argues that not only the fact that no copy survived 27  See Nuovo A., “Il Corano arabo ritrovato (Venezia, P. e A. Paganino, tra l’agosto 1537 e l’agosto 1538)”, La Bibliofilia 89 (1987) 237–271; English version: “A Lost Arabic Koran Rediscovered”, The Library 6th ser., 12, 4 (1990) 273–292. 28  I owe my colleague Roberto Tottoli (Naples) for providing me a digital copy of the Venice Koran. 29  The printer used only fatḥa, while kasra and dhamma are completely missing (in many cases, fatḥa is put instead); shadda is put only with the word allāh, sukūn and waṣla are almost illegible and not put according to the rules. See also Bobzin, “Mutmaßungen” 30–33, who lists some features of the printing. 30  See above, note 20. 31  ‘cujus autem exemplaria omnia ex Pontificis et curiae Romanae auctoritate sint deleta’ (Lange I, ch. 17, p. 20). 32  ‘His vero evictis, jam nullo negotio poterimus ERPENIO, BOSIO, aliisque superius allegatis auctoribus assensum praebere, quod haec omnia exemplaria sunt cremata et suppressa’ (Lange I, ch. 16, p. 18).

460

Glei

corroborated this theory, but also the political and ecclesiological environment of that time, i.e. the ongoing schismatic tendencies under Pope Clement VII (1523–1534).33 In fact, however, it was Paul III (Alessandro Farnese, 1468–1549, Pope since 1534), under whose papacy the Koran was printed. Paul was a liberal reformer, and it is hardly credible that he ordered the burning of the Koran.34 As Nallino has plausibly suggested, the printing of the Koran – which was intended to be sold in the Muslim world – was rather an economic disaster that led to the pulping of the edition.35 Lange’s discussion, therefore, whether it was justified or not to burn the Koran, seems obsolete. The lengthy theological part (ch. 18–28), which offers the pros and cons for destruction, is, as has been said, a confessional polemic that may be due also to Lange’s purpose to demonstrate his protestant Linientreue.36

…

Lange II deals with later attempts to publish an Arabic Koran (or parts of it) up to the recent editions made at the end of the 17th century. The history of Koran printing is expounded in 36 out of 43 chapters, while only in the last seven chapters the theological questions are picked up again. Obviously, this topic – in comparison with the historical-philological one – seemed no longer to be of great importance. Lange presents a long list of scholarly attempts to publish at least some portions of the Koran that cannot be dealt with here in detail, since this would exceed the space of this article. Therefore, only some dry facts shall be given, concentrating on scholars and works that are yet little known. After a short opening note, Lange deals at length with Guillaume Postel and his efforts in editing the Koran (ch. 2).37 In ch. 3, the story of Nicolaus Clenardus (1493– 1542), taken from Acoluthus and others, is told. Clenardus studied Arabic language and the Koran in Fez/Morocco and wanted to provide a bilingual edition

33  ‘Omnia tunc temporis in motu erant ex Reformationis aestu, ita ut Ecclesiae Romanae addicti metuerent sibi, ne libertate quidam abuterentur, vel ad Religionis Mohhammaedicae propagationem et praedicationem’ (ibidem). There was of course no danger of mass conversion to Islam, as Lange suggests here. 34  See Bobzin, “Mutmaßungen” 38. The historical parallel drawn by Lange (burning of the Koran in Granada commissioned by Francisco Ximenez, 1499/1500) can of course provide no argument for the historicity of the actual case. 35  See above, note 20. 36  There is no place here to discuss the problems regarding Lange’s protestant orthodoxy. It is clear that he had to leave his chair in Altdorf in 1709, because he was accused of pietistic, chiliastic and enthusiastic heterodoxy (Schwärmerei). These charges go back to the years since 1703, so that Lange might have felt obliged to defense himself. 37  See Bobzin, Koran 365–497.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

461

of the Koran, but was forced to flee to Granada; no specimen of this edition is known. In ch. 4 and 5 Widmanstetter and Bibliander are discussed, who need no further investigation here, since they have been extensively studied by Bobzin.38 Ch. 6 is devoted to Petrus Kirstenius (1577–1640), a physician and philologist from Breslau, who published three pieces in Arabic, namely the Paternoster, Psalm 50 (51) and the first Surah.39 Ch. 7 and 8 are again (see above, Lange I) on Erpenius, now concentrating on his publications of pieces of the Koran. Erpenius, as Lange states, promised a complete edition of the Koran, which was never realised, and published only the Historia Josephi (= Surah 12)40 and one more specimen of the Koran (Caput fraudationis = Surah 64) presented as an Exercitatio grammatica.41 Furthermore, in Erpenius’s Grammatica Arabica, posthumously published in 1636, there is an edition of the Locmanni fabulae (= Surah 31);42 in the third impression of that Grammar published by Golius in 1656, an edition of Surah 61 is added.43 The next three chapters (ch. 9–12) deal with Johann Zechendorff (1580– 1662), a German schoolmaster from Zwickau/Saxony who prepared a complete bilingual edition of the Koran, which was, however, never published and thought to be lost.44 Instead, Lange discusses two booklets printed (without date, presumably around 1638 and 1646, respectively) in the school press of the Ratsschule in Zwickau, Zechendorff’s lifelong domain. In these booklets, Zechendorff presented text and translation of some Surahs, along with a list 38  Ibidem 159–275 (Bibliander) and 277–363 (Widmanstetter). 39  Petrus Kirstenius, Tria specimina characterum Arabicorum, […] sive oratio domini nostri ‫ة‬ Jesu Christi […] et regii Davidis psalmus quinquagesimus […] ac tandem primum �‫ ��سور‬suuretu [sic], libri, vulgo, alcorani dicti […] (Breslae, Typis Arabicis, ac sumptibus Authoris: Anno 1608 [the year is encrypted as a chronogram: ‘GerManI ArabIae StVDIa Captent’]). 40  Historia Iosephi patriarchae, ex alcorano, Arabice. cum triplici versione Latina et scholijs Thomae Erpenii, cuius et alphabetum Arabicum praemittitur (Leidae, Ex Typographia Erpeniana Linguarum Orientalium: 1617). 41  Thomae Erpenii Exercitatio grammatica linguae Arabicae in caput alcorani LXIV, quod inscribitur caput fraudationis (this specimen is part of the Rudimenta, cf. note 18). 42  Thomae Erpenii Grammatica Arabica. Ab autore emendata et aucta. Cui accedunt Locmanni fabulae, et adagia quaedam Arabum […] (Lugduni Batavorum, apud Ioannem Maire: 1636). 43  Arabicae linguae tyrocinium. Id est Thomae Erpenii grammatica Arabica; cum varia praxios materia, cujus elenchum versa dabit pagella (Lugduni Batavorum, Typis et impensis Ioannis Maire: 1656). – Moreover, the text of Surah 32 (only in Arabic) is given: see Lange II, ch. 14. 44  The manuscript was rediscovered by Roberto Tottoli in 2014: see Tottoli R., “The Latin Translation of the Qurʾān by Johann Zechendorff (1580–1662) discovered in Cairo Dār alKutub. A preliminary description”, Oriente Moderno 95 (2015) 5–31; Glei R.F., “A presumed lost Latin translation of the Qurʾān (Johann Zechendorff, 1632)”, Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 18 (2016) 361–372.

462

Glei

of remarks on vera and falsa, i.e. true and false doctrines of the Koran.45 In addition, Lange mentions Zechendorff’s earlier publication of the Fabulae Muhammedicae, a Latin poem on the ‘fairy tales’ of the Koran, containing, however, no excerpts from it.46 Lange’s verdict that the loss of the Koran manuscript is less deplorable (due to its poor quality) must be – at least partly – revised in the light of the manuscript newly discovered.47 Zechendorff is also interesting because of his extensive correspondence with Oriental scholars of his time, some of which are mentioned by Lange (ch. 10, 12 and 15).48 Ch. 13 and 14 are again in praise of Jacob Golius, Erpenius’s successor.49 In ch. 15, Johann Fabricius from Danzig (1608–1653) is mentioned, who was in touch with both Zechendorff and Golius. In his Specimen Arabicum, he printed some texts, but only one from the Koran (Surah 97).50 An interesting figure is Father Filippo Guadagnoli (1596–1656), one of the few Catholic scholars mentioned by Lange (ch. 16). He was a very learned Orientalist and extremely skilled in a couple of languages. His command of Arabic was so perfect that he published his own work entitled Apologia pro Christiana religione both in Latin and in Arabic.51 It also contains several passages from the Koran listed in the index.52 Another Catholic Orientalist is treated in the next chapter (ch. 17): 45  S pecimen suratarum, id est, capitum aliquot ex alcorani systemate Johan. Zechendorffi […]. (Cygneae, Typis Melchioris Göpneri: no date) = Surahs 61 and 78; Suratae unius, atque alterius textum, eiusque explicationem ex commentario quodam Arabo [i.e. Baiḍāwī] ponebat Johannes Zechendorff, Scholae Cygneae Rector. (Cygneae, Typis Melchioris Göpneri: no date) = Surahs 101 and 103. 46  Fabulae Muhammedicae sive nugae alcorani […] ex manuscripto Arabo fideliter versae a M. Johan: Zechendorff Lesnicensi, scholae Cygneae rectore. (Altenburgi in Misnia, per Johann Meuschken: 1628). – Lange is wrong assuming that the Carmen Arabicum added to the Latin poem is a specimen of genuine Arabic poetry. In fact, it was composed by Zechendorff himself. 47  See Glei R.F., “Sleeping in the Cave: Zechendorff’s Latin Translation of the Qurʾān”, Journal of Qurʾānic Studies 20 (2018), 121–136. – A complete edition of Surah 18 is in preparation. 48  On Zechendorff’s scholarly network, see Ben-Tov A., “Johann Zechendorff (1580–1662) and Arabic Studies in Zwickau’s Latin School” in The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe. Edited by J. Loop, A. Hamilton, Ch. Burnett (Leiden: 2017) 57–92. 49  See above, note 43. 50  Specimen Arabicum quo exhibentur aliquot scripta Arabica, partim in prosa, partim ligata oratione composita […]. Omnia e cura M. Johannis Fabrici Dantiscani. (Rostochi haeredum Richelianorum typis expressa: anno 1638). – The specimen from the Koran is on pp. 47–48. 51  Apologia pro Christiana religione qua a r. p. Philippo Guadagnolo Malleanensi […] respondetur ad obiectiones Ahmed Filii Zin Alabedin, Persae Asfahensis, contentas in libro inscripto politor speculi (Romae, typis sac. congreg. de prop. fide: 1631). The Arabic translation was published also by the Propaganda in 1637. 52  Alchorani loca in hoc opere allegata 566–572.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

463

Dominicus Germanus de Silesia (1588–1670), a Franciscan friar, published a kind of elementary grammar of the Arabic language53 and a book on theological controversies between Christians and Muslims.54 After 1652, when he was living in the monastery of S. Laurence in Escorial, he worked on a translation of the Koran and planned to produce a bilingual edition. This work, however, was never realised, but the Latin translation survived in some Escorial manuscripts and has been published in a modern critical edition.55 The Compendium historicum by Levinus Warner listed in ch. 18 has already been mentioned earlier.56 The next entry (ch. 19–23) is of special interest: Christian Raue/Ravius (1613–1677) from Berlin, who taught Oriental languages at different places all over Europe (Utrecht, Amsterdam, London, Oxford, Uppsala, Stockholm, Kiel and others), is said to have published, due to the lack of Arabic characters, a transliteration of the first two Surahs using Latin (and partly Greek) letters, along with an interlinear Latin version. The transliteration, no doubt a linguistic pioneer invention, runs like this: Surt fætHt ælktæb sba æjæt mkit bsm ællh ælrHmn ælrHim.57 The work, however, quoted by Lange under the strange title Prima tredecim partium alcorani Arabico-Latini,58 does not contain the aforementioned transliteration, but only a transcription into (very clumsy and

53  F abrica linguae Arabicae cum interpretatione Latina, et Italica, accomodata ad usum linguae vulgaris, et scripturalis. Authore p. f. Dominico Germano, de Silesia […]. (Romae, typis sac. congreg. de prop. fide: 1639). See Bobzin H., “Ein oberschlesischer Korangelehrter: Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, O.F.M. (1588–1670)”, in Kosellek G. (ed.), Die oberschlesische Literaturlandschaft im 17. Jahrhundert (Bielefeld: 2001) 221–231. 54  Antitheses fidei. Ventilabuntur in conventu s. Petri montis aurei fratrum minorum s. p. Francisci (Romae, typis sac. congreg. de prop. fide: 1638). 55  García Masegosa A., Germán de Silesia. Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis. Parte I: La traducción latina; introducción y edición crítica (Madrid: 2009). 56  See above, note 13. 57  Lange II, ch. 22, p. 21. The system (a very strict representation of all written Arabic characters, with no regard to pronunciation) is quite plausible, as is evident at first sight. The meaning is: ‘Opening Surah of the Book [i.e. the Koran], seven verses, from Mecca. In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate’. 58  Prima tredecim partium alcorani Arabico-Latini. Ubi textus Arabicus absque punctis sumtus, literis Latinis exacte expressus, et versio Latina parallela ita apposita, ut similis sit interlineari bibliorum Ebraicorum B. A. Montani, ita positis vocibus textus et versione, ut una Masoram alqorani Arabici exhibeant. […] Opera et studio Christiani Ravii Berlinatis (without place and date, according to Lange the book was published Amsterdam 1646). I used a digital copy from Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München; perhaps some pages are missing. – The division of the Koran into 13 parts (the first part being Surahs 1 and 2) is strange and not attested elsewhere. Perhaps it is a simple mathematical division, since word count of Surahs 1–2 and the complete Koran (ca. 77,450 words, depending on the counting method) gives a ratio of about 1:13.

464

Glei

hardly legible) Hebrew characters59 and, in addition, a separate Latin translation of Surahs 1 and 2.60 Lange says that the book is very rare, and it may be that there is no complete copy any more.61 In the following chapters (ch. 24 and 25), two famous Orientalists are mentioned that need no further comment here: Theodor Hackspan (1607–1659) and Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620–1667). Hackspan was, as has been noticed, professor at Altdorf, where he published his compendium on Islam.62 It contains excerpts from the Koran in Arabic (with full vocalization) and Latin, along with a short introduction into the Arabic language. Hottinger, in turn, was professor in Zurich and is famous, among other works, for his Historia orientalis.63 In the history of Koran printing, however, he did not play a very important role. The next chapter (ch. 26) is on Johann Georg Nissel (1623–1662), who published the Arabic text of Surahs 14 and 15 (called Historia de Abrahamo)64 along with three Latin translations; we will deal with these translations below. Excerpts from the Koran (in Arabic, but without vocalization) are found also in the Theologiae Muhammedanae brevis consideratio by Petrus Holm (1634–1688),65 to whom Lange’s ch. 27 is devoted. 59  It runs (seemingly) like this: ‫סורת פאתחת א[ל]כתאב (אלקראן) סבע איאת מכית בסם אלה‬ ‫אלרחמן אלרחים‬. Note that the explanation of ‘the Book’ is added in brackets (‘alqran’ = al-qurʾān). 60  In fact, this translation is announced on the title page, where it is characterized as more faithful to the sense and less literal: ‘Cum adjuncta versione altera duorum primorum Alquorani capitum strictiore et minus Arabismi sequace’. The very beginning shows what Raue means: ‘Sura Aperiens Hunc librum prima. Septem versuum Meckaea. In Nomine Dei illius Misericordis Miseratoris’. Note that ‘hunc librum’ is accusative according to the Latin syntax (not genitive as in Arabic). To the name of Allah (Deus), the pronoun ‘ille’ is added, which produces a scornful undertone (‘this so-called god’). 61  There are copies listed in the British Library, in the Forschungsbibliothek Gotha, in the Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena, in the Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, in the Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart and in the Tresoar (Frisian Historical and Literary Centre, Leeuwarden). I will check these copies in the next future. 62  Fides et leges Mohammaedis exhibitae ex alkorani manuscripto duplici, praemissis institutionibus Arabicis Auctore Theodorico Hackspan, Ling. Sanct. Professore. (Altdorfi Sumtibus Viduae Scherffianae: Anno Christi 1646). 63  Historia orientalis: quae, ex variis orientalium monumentis collecta, agit I. De Muhammedismo […] Authore Joh. Henrico Hottingero, Tigurino. (Tiguri, typis Joh. Jacobi Bodmeri: anno 1551). – On Hottinger, see Loop J., Johann Heinrich Hottinger. Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: 2013). 64  Historia de Abrahamo, et de Gomorro-Sodomitica eversione ex alcorano, ejusque surata XIVta et XV ta Arabice […]. Opera et Studio Johannis Georgii Nisselii. (Lugduni Batavorum, ex officina Johannis Elsevier: 1655). The work was not published separately, as it seems, but as an appendix to Nissel’s Testamentum. Inter Muhamedem legatum dei, et Christianae religionis populos olim initum [Arabic text with the Latin translation of Gabriel Sionita]. ‫��ذ‬ 65  This book bears the programmatic Arabic title �‫��ا� ب‬ ‫[ محمد ا �لر��سول ا ل ك‬Muḥammad al-rasūl al-kādhib, i.e. ‘Muhammad, the pseudo-prophet’] sive Theologiae Muhammedanae brevis

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

465

In ch. 28, he mentions August Pfeiffer (1640–1698),66 who often promised a complete bilingual Koran, which, however, was never finished or even begun, as it seems. The Augsburg theologian Matthias Friedrich Beck (1640–1701) published an edition of Surahs 30 and 48 in Arabic and Latin67 – the Arabic, as in Raue, written in Hebrew letters, which shows that, in the second half of the seventeenth century, Arabic characters were not available everywhere. As Lange meticulously points out (ch. 29), the Hebrew alphabet (22 letters) is not very convenient to transliterate Arabic (28 letters), not to speak about vocalization signs. The next entry (ch. 30) is only a short note on Johann Andreas Danz (1654–1727), who was professor in Jena and a very prolific writer. He announced the edition of a Koranic specimen which, however, was never realised. The first one to publish a complete Arabic Koran since the days of Paganini was, in fact, Abraham Hinckelmann (1652–1695), chief pastor at S. Catherine’s Church in Hamburg. Lange’s entry (ch. 31) is short and does not properly appreciate Hinckelmann’s work, which is clearly a milestone in Orientalist philology. His Koran, however, is printed only in Arabic;68 a Latin translation announced in the catalogue of the Leipzig book fair in autumn 1692 never saw the light of day.69 In comparison to Hinckelmann’s complete edition, the specimen presented by Sebastian Gottfried Starck (1668–1710) is of less importance (referred to by Lange in ch. 32). He published a translation of Surah 19 (Mary) with some notes, but without the Arabic text.70 Coming to the end of the seventeenth century, the great work of Ludovico Marracci (1612–1700), member of the Roman Propaganda (i.e. the sacra congregatio de propaganda

consideratio […]. Auctore Petro Holm / Angermannia-Sueco. (Jenae, typis et sumtibus Joh. Jacobi Bauhoferi: anno 1670). 66  See above, note 14. 67  Matthiae Friderici Beckii Specimen Arabicum, hoc est, bina capitula Alcorani XXX. de Roma et XLIIX. de Victoria, e IV codicibus MSS. Arabice descripta, Latine versa, et Notis Animadversionibusque locupletata. […] (Prostat Augustae Vindelicorum, sumptibus Laurentii Kronigeri, et Theoph. Goebelii haeredum, typis Koppmaierianis: anno 1688 impressum). 68  Al-Coranus s[ive] lex islamitica Muhammedis, filii Abdallae pseudoprophetae [this title is given both in Latin and Arabic, the latter one omitting the epithet ‘pseudoprophetae’]. Ad optimum codicum fidem edita ex musaeo Abrahami Hinckelmanni, D. (Hamburgi, ex officina Schultzio-Schilleriana: Anno 1694). 69  See Bobzin H., “Von Venedig nach Kairo: Zur Geschichte arabischer Korandrucke (16. bis frühes 20. Jahrhundert)”, in Hanebutt-Benz E. et al. (eds.), Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution, Katalog und Begleitband zur Ausstellung (Westhofen: 2002) 151–176. 70  Specimen versionis coranicae, adornatum in caput XIX. Quod inscribitur caput Mariae, editumque nunc a Seb. Gottf. Starckio. (Coloniae Brandenburgicae [i.e. Neukölln, Berlin], imprimebat Ulricus Liebpertus, electoral. typogr.: 1698).

466

Glei

fide), is referred to in ch. 33 and 34.71 Scholars have underlined ‘its undeniable philological merits, viz. the printing of the original Arabic text, the exactness of the translation, or the use of original Islamic sources to elucidate the meaning of the difficult Qurʾānic text’.72 Marracci’s working method cannot be described here in detail.73 Lange, however, is less enthusiastic about this edition; following Acoluthus, Lange says that it deserved great praise, but also had its shortcomings: ‘Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus’.74 Before Lange discusses Acoluthus himself, he mentions (ch. 35) Johann David Schieferdecker (1672–1721), ‘who combined Arabic and Turkish studies’.75 He wrote both an Arabic and a Turkish grammar and used Surah 1 to provide a linguistic example.76 Finally, Lange refers to ‘the crown’ of Oriental Studies, Andreas Acoluthus (1654–1704),77 whose name is anagrammatised by TV EDAS ALCORAN.78 His polyglot specimen of the Koran (Surah 1 in Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Latin) is highly praised, and Lange expresses his hope for a complete edition of the Koran. Unfortunately, Acoluthus died a few months after the publication of Lange’s dissertation. The theological part of Lange II (ch. 37–43) contains (once more after Lange I) a justification of an edition of the Arabic Koran, which will be passed over here. In sum, Lange II is a somewhat boring list of scholars and books referring to ‘editions’ of the Arabic text, however small the portions of the Koran may be. Among the many snippets meticulously recorded by Lange, the most important works of the seventeenth century, namely Hinckelmann’s and Marracci’s editions, seem to be a bit underestimated – at least from a modern 71  A  lcorani textus universus ex correctioribus Arabum exemplaribus summa fide, atque pulcherrimis characteribus descriptus, eademque fide, ac pari diligentia ex Arabico idiomate in Latinum translatus […]. auctore Ludovico Marraccio e congregatione clericorum regularium matris Dei […] (Patavii, ex typographia seminarii: 1698). 72  Bobzin H., “Latin Translations of the Koran. A short overview”, Der Islam 70 (1993) 193–206 at 199. 73  See Glei R.F. and Tottoli R., Ludovico Marracci at work. The evolution of his Latin translation of the Qurʾān in the light of his newly discovered manuscripts. With an edition and a comparative linguistic analysis of Sura 18. Corpus Islamo-Christianum, Series Arabica-Latina 1 (Wiesbaden: 2016). 74  Lange II, ch. 34, p. 31. Lange quotes a famous statement on Homer made by Horace (Ars poetica, v. 359). 75  Lange II, ch. 35, p. 31: ‘qui Arabismum cum Turcismo conjunxit’. 76  Nucleus institutionum Arabicarum enucleatus, variis linguae ornamentis atque praeceptis dialecti Turcicae illustratus. […] Adcurante M.J. Dav. Schieferdeckero, Weissenfelsensi. (Prostat Lipsiae apud autorem. Cizae [i.e. Zeitz, a village in Saxony], excud. Melchior Hucho: 1695). 77  See above, note 16. 78  Lange, ch. II, p. 32.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

467

point of view. Lange’s knowledge of the history of Oriental Studies, however, is impressive. One will hardly find a relevant work that was overlooked by him.79

…

Consequently, Lange III deals with translations of the Koran (both printed and unpublished ones), into Oriental and Western languages as well. After the Materialschlacht in Lange II, which surely annoyed many readers, this last dissertation is much more structured: There are 50 chapters, explicitly divided into an introduction (ch. 1–3), a first part (ch. 4–46) subdivided into six sections (I Oriental languages, II Latin, III Spanish, IV Italian, V French, VI Recent translations), and a second part (ch. 47–50) on the reliability of translations (with polemical remarks against the Turks). I will concentrate here on the six subchapters. The Oriental languages mentioned in section I (ch. 4–12) are Persian and Turkish (with a short appendix on ‘Malaccan’ and Greek). It is strange that Lange does not even think of Hebrew, since, as a Protestant theologian, he was familiar with this language.80 Perhaps it was the disciplinary dichotomy between theology and philology that led to this blind spot on his mental map. In fact, there was a Hebrew translation of the Koran made in Venice by Rabbi Jacob Levi b. Israel (d. 1636) during the early 17th century,81 based on the 1547 Italian translation (see below). Although Arabic is – like Latin in the Western world – the lingua franca of the Islamic Orient,82 and although there is (theoretically) a prohibition of translations of the Koran (due to the ‘inimitability’ of the holy scripture, i‛jāz al-qurʾān), translations nevertheless did exist in the Islamic world. They were, however, not printed before the 19th century. The necessity of translations, especially into Persian and Turkish, and of commentaries in these languages is 79  For a comprehensive list compiled in modern times, see Smitskamp R., Philologia Orientalis. A description of books illustrating the study and printing of Oriental languages in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. Titelauflage augmented with cumulative indexes (Leiden: 1992). The state-of-the-art is represented in the recently published volume on The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe, edited by J. Loop, A. Hamilton and Ch. Burnett (Leiden: 2017). 80  This is also evident from his comments on Raue (Lange II, ch. 22) and Beck (Lange II, ch. 29). 81  See Lazarus-Yafeh H., “A Seventeenth-Century Hebrew Translation of the Qurʾān”, Scripta Mediterranea 19–20 (1998–99) 199–211, and, in general, Paudice A., “A Hidden World: Hebrew Translations and Transcriptions of the Qurʾān”, in Glei R.F. (ed.), Frühe Koranübersetzungen. Europäische und außereuropäische Fallstudien (Trier: 2012) 137–157. 82  Lange III, ch. 5, p. 5 calls it ‘communis populorum Mercurius’.

468

Glei

put down by Lange in ch. 4 to the existence of two main sects of Islam, the Persian Alishii (i.e. shīʿat ʿAlī, ‘party of Ali’, modern Shiites) and the Turkish Sunniti. In the following chapters, Lange quotes a couple of sources attesting several translations: Persian versions are witnessed by Hottinger, Golius, Hinckelmann and Acoluthus. Examples of a Persian translation are provided by Golius (Surahs 31 and 61) and Acoluthus (Surah 1). Turkish translations are attested also by Acoluthus who has, as has been remarked, a Turkish version of Surah 1 in his four-language table. Moreover, Schieferdecker reports Turkish tituli of some Surahs and mentions a Turkish commentary. In ch. 11, Lange reports that Hottinger gives also a hint to a ‘Malaccan’ translation of Surah 12 (in Arabic script), which refers to the Malaysian language: since 1641, Malakka belonged to the Netherlands, and Oriental scholars may have got some knowledge of Malaysian and of a Koran translation into that language. Finally, Lange (ch. 12) mentions a ‘Barbaro-Greek’ translation of the Koran witnessed by Acoluthus who attests that he was told of this translation by some Greek monks. Remarkably enough, contemporary Greek is classified as an ‘Oriental’ language, which shows how deep an alienation between West and East had taken place since the days of Greco-Roman antiquity. The existence of an early Byzantine translation of the Koran (widely used by Niketas in the 9th century)83 was unknown to Lange and other scholars of the 17th century as well. The next section (II: ch. 13–25) deals with Latin translations.84 The first one is, as is well known, the Antiqua Latina commissioned by Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, and made by Robert of Ketton in 1143.85 Lange reports the verdict of Scaliger and others (ch. 14–16) on this translation, which is rather a paraphrase than a ‘correct’ rendering of the Koran.86 It was printed 83  A comprehensive edition with commentary is prepared by Ulbricht M., Coranus Graecus. Die älteste überlieferte Koranübersetzung in der «Ἀνατροπὴ τοῦ Κορανίου» des Niketas von Byzanz. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar dissertation (Freie Universität Berlin: 2015), to be published in Studi e testi (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). For the time being, see Glei R.F., “Der Mistkäfer und andere Missverständnisse. Zur frühbyzantinischen Koranübersetzung”, in Frühe Koranübersetzungen 9–24. 84  As an overview, see Burman T.E., Reading the Qurʾān in Latin Christendom, 1140–1560 (Philadelphia: 2007). 85  This translation is well-researched; see, among others, Cecini U., Alcoranus Latinus. Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toledo (Berlin: 2012). A modern critical edition, however, is still lacking. 86  This verdict is, at least partly, rejected by modern scholarship: see Burman T.E., “Tafsīr and Translation: Traditional Qurʾān Exegesis and the Latin Qurʾāns of Robert of Ketton and Mark of Toledo”, Speculum 73 (1998) 703–732.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

469

by Bibliander in 1543 (second edition 1550) in Basel along with other (antiIslamic) material; Lange lists the contents of Bibliander’s three volumes and discusses the differences between the two editions (ch. 17 and 18).87 In addition (ch. 19), Lange deals with the number of Surahs (124 instead of 114) and with the term ‘Surah’ itself: He explains that the Latin word Azoara used by Bibliander is derived (and quite distorted) from Arabic al-sūrat(a),88 which is pronounced with assimilation of the article (as-). In Latin, however, the article must be deleted, and the correct form would be Surata (a feminine noun of the first declension). The rest of this section (ch. 20–25) is devoted to short comments on other Latin translations. There are, as has been mentioned above, some hints to a Latin translation done by Juan de Segovia in the 15th century, but Lange cannot confirm its existence (ch. 20). In fact, John of Segovia did a Latin translation of a Spanish translation by Isa Gidelli (see below) in 1456 and produced a splendid trilingual Koran manuscript (Arabic, Spanish, Latin) which has gone lost.89 In ch. 21, Lange mentions a translation of some Surahs by a certain Dominican Richardus (i.e., in fact, Riccoldo da Monte di Croce). This is partly correct, for Riccoldo provided some translations in his confutation of the Koran (Contra legem Sarracenorum, ca. 1310),90 but there was no separate collection of translations. Following Wagenseil (ch. 22), Lange gives the somewhat obscure information that Widmanstetter ‘embellished the Latin translation of the Koran’;91 this probably refers to Widmanstetter’s Epitome alcorani published 1543 in Nuremberg, an abbreviated version based on Bibliander’s text.92 Equally obscure is the following notice (ch. 23) on a fragment of a Koran translation made by the French Orientalist Étienne Hubert of Orléans (1567–1614), of which no trace can be found. Finally, there is a third obscure reference to a Nova Latina, i.e. a new (complete, as it seems) Latin translation of the Koran, made from André du Ryer’s French translation (1647). The existence of this translation 87  On the whole topic, see Bobzin, Koran 159–275. 88  It is strange that the word is printed in Hebrew letters here: ‫אלשורת‬. 89  In recent times, some fragments of this translation have been discovered: see Roth U. and Glei R., “Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund”, Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 11 (2009) 109–154; additions in Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 13 (2011) 221–228. 90  The work is edited by Merigoux J.-M., “L’ouvrage d’un frère Prêcheur florentin en Orient à la fin du XIIIe siècle. Le ‘Contra legem Sarracenorum’ de Riccoldo da Monte di Croce”, Memorie Domenicane 17 (1986) 1–144; see also Burman T.E., “How an Italian Friar read his Arabic Qurʾān”, Dante Studies 125 (2007) 93–109. 91  Lange III, ch. 22, p. 17: ‘Adornavit quoque Alcorani Latinam versionem JOH. ALBERT. WIDMESTADIUS’. 92  See Bobzin, Koran 277–363.

470

Glei

must be questioned,93 since it seems that the assumption of a complete (and even printed!) Nova Latina goes back to a misinterpretation of a passage in Nissel’s edition of Surahs 14 and 15, where he gives the Arabic text along with his own literal translation and, as an appendix, both a Versio antiqua (i.e. Robert of Ketton’s translation) and a Versio nova made from du Ryer’s French translation.94 It was probably Nissel’s own work made in order to illustrate the difference between Robert’s and du Ryer’s versions on the one hand and his own literal translation on the other. The last chapter of the second section (ch. 25) is a short note on Marracci, whose translation was already dealt with in Lange II (see above). In addition, the German translation made by David Nerreter (1649–1726) from the Marracci’s Latin is mentioned.95 There is, however, an important Latin translation omitted by Lange: In 1518, Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1469–1532) commissioned a new Latin translation which was made by a certain Johannes Gabriel Terrolensis. The original manuscript has gone lost, but there is an early seventeenth-century copy of it.96 Section III (on Spanish translations: ch. 26–28) is very short, because there are only two versions attested, which are both lost. The first Spanish translation, as it seems, was made by Juan Andrés (Johannes Andreas Maurus), a Muslim convert to Christianity (baptized 1487). Lange doubts its existence, but Bobzin gives strong arguments that it did actually exist.97 The second one is the already mentioned Spanish translation commissioned by Juan de Segovia, which equally has gone lost. There is, however, an early 17th-century Spanish translation extant in manuscript form, the so-called Toledo Koran from 1606.98 It has been argued that this translation may be identical with Gidelli’s, while 93  See Hamilton A. and Richard F., André du Ryer and Oriental Studies in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford: 2004). On pp. 108–118, Hamilton describes ‘The fortunes of the translation’ (i.e. du Ryer’s) and states that no complete Latin translation of du Ryer exists. 94  The title of the appendix runs as follows: ‘Sequuntur duae adhuc Latinae harum duarum Suratarum Versiones, quarum prima Vetusta est, et Antiqua Roberti Retenensis […]. Altera Nova e Gallica Andr. du Ryer confecta’. 95  David Nerreters Neu-eröffnete Mahometanische Moschea worinn […] Der völlige Alkoran Nach der besten Edition Ludovici Marraccii, verteutscht und kürzlich widerlegt wird (Nuremberg / In Verlegung Wolffgang Moritz Endters. Gedruckt bey Johann Ernst Adelbulner: 1703). – See Cyranka D., Mahomet. Repräsentationen des Propheten in deutschsprachigen Texten des 18. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: 2018) 124–146. 96  See the comprehensive study made by Starczewska K.K., Latin Translation of the Qurʾān (1518/1621) Commissioned by Egidio da Viterbo. Critical Edition and Case Study (Wiesbaden: 2018). 97  Bobzin, Koran 77–78 and 356. 98   Lopez-Morillas C., El Corán de Toledo. Edición y estudio del Manuscrito 235 de la Biblioteca de Castilla-La Mancha (Gijón: 2011).

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

471

other scholars are sceptical about that identity.99 Be this as it may, it is an important gap in Lange’s section. Moreover, recent scholarship has pointed out that there was another Spanish translation made from the Italian Koran in the late 17th century (see below on Section IV). Section IV (ch. 29–37), then, is devoted to the Italian translation published by Andrea Arrivabene in 1547; the translator was, as we know today, Giovanni Battista Castrodardo.100 Lange is well aware that this translation was not made from the Arabic, as is claimed, but from Bibliander’s text (ch. 30). Curiously enough, there is a long sequel of translations made, in turn, from the Italian:101 Salomon Schweigger published a German translation made from the Italian in 1616 (dealt with in ch. 31–35 in some detail), and subsequently, from the German translation, a Versio Belgica vetus [i.e. Dutch translation] was made, being a fourth degree derivative therefore (ch. 36). As has been mentioned, a Spanish translation made in the 17th-century Sephardic community of Amsterdam goes back to the Italian.102 The French translation of André du Ryer (1647) and its derivatives are the subject of Section V (ch. 38–43). Besides du Ryer’s translation itself (ch. 38–39), the mysterious Nova Latina is mentioned again (ch. 40); Lange adds, that it must have been written before the 1685 edition of du Ryer, but in fact, it must be earlier than 1655, when Nissel’s translation was printed. From the French, both an English and a Dutch version were made: Alexander Ross’s translation was published in London 1688 (ch. 41), and the Versio Belgica nova by J.H. Glazemaker (ch. 42) even earlier (Amsterdam 1657). This time, a German translation was made from the Dutch (ch. 43) by a certain Johann Lange (Hamburg 1688).103 The final section VI (ch. 44–46) is entirely devoted to the Latina recentissima, the famous bilingual edition of Marracci (1698), and the German translation made from it by David Nerreter. They need no repeated comment here. In sum, Lange III is surely an elaborate dissertation rich in information on the proposed subject. In comparison to the earlier works (Lange I and II), however, the investigation seems a bit more superficial: there are some gaps and omissions that could have been filled if Lange’s research activities had gone 99  See Wiegers G., Islamic Literature in Spanish and Aljamiado: Yça of Segovia ( fl. 1450), his Antecedents and Successors (Leiden: 1994). 100  See Tommassino P.M., “Giovanni Battista Castrodardo bellunese traduttore dell’Alcorano di Macometto”, Oriente Moderno 48, 1 (2008) 15–40. 101   See, in general, Tommassino P.M., L’Alcorano di Macometto. Storia di un libro del Cinquecento europeo (Bologna: 2013). 102  Boer H. den, and Tommasino P.M., “Reading the Qurʾān in the 17th-Century Sephardi Community of Amsterdam”, Al-Qanṭara 35, 2 (2014) 461–491. 103  On du Ryer’s translation and its derivates, see Hamilton and Richard (note 93).

472

Glei

deeper. Probably Lange’s aim was rather to finish his trilogy on editing and translating the Koran than to protract it with too many details. In any case, Lange has presented a remarkable piece of scholarship that gives witness of the high standard of Oriental Studies at the beginning of the 18th century. After an epilogue and the obligatory polemic part (left out here), Lange’s final remarks (not only to finish the third dissertation, but also given as a general statement) are worth citing here: ‘The benevolent reader may be justly and kindly disposed towards our work, and he may be aware that these dissertations have been managed with much more effort and costs than any other of our dissertations published by us so far. So I hope that our labour will be not done in vain, at least regarding the members of the scholarly community. They will, if only good willed, take care that our final aim will be achieved also by this present work: the glory of the one (true) God’.104 Bibliography

Before 1800

Acoluthus Andreas, Tετραπλα [sic, without accent] alcoranica, sive specimen alcorani quadrilinguis, Arabici, Persici, Turcici, Latini […] (Berlin, Widow Salfeld: 1701). Beck Matthias Friedrich, Specimen Arabicum, hoc est, bina capitula alcorani XXX. de Roma et XLIIX. de Victoria, e IV codicibus MSS. Arabice descripta, Latine versa, et notis animadversionibusque locupletata […] (Augsburg, Jakob Koppmayer: 1688). Ben-Tov A., “Historia Literaria Alcorani: Two Lutheran Scholars Chronicling Oriental Scholarship at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century” in Scholarship between Europe and the Levant. Essays in Honour of Alastair Hamilton, eds. J. Loop – J. Kraye (Leiden: 2020) 195–216 (this relevant paper on Lange has been published after finishing the manuscript. Unfortunately, it could no more be taken into account for this article). Erpenius Thomas, Historia Iosephi Patriarchae, ex alcorano, Arabice. cum triplici versione Latina et scholijs Thomae Erpenii, cuius et alphabetum Arabicum praemittitur (Leiden, Thomas Erpenius: 1617). Erpenius Thomas, Rudimenta linguae Arabicae. accedunt ejusdem praxis grammatica; et consilium de studio Arabico feliciter instituendo (Leiden, Thomas Erpenius: 1620).

104  Lange III, ch. 50, p. 36: ‘Lector benevolus hunc nostrum laborem aequi consulat bonique, atque credat, has Dissertationes nostras multo majore studio et sumtibus nobis constitisse, ac plerasque nostras omnes, quas hactenus edidimus. Doctis saltem laborem non inutilem praestiterimus; qui, si boni fuerint, curabunt, ut etiam hic obtineatur noster finis ultimus, qui est SOLIVS DEI GLORIA’.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

473

Erpenius Thomas, Grammatica Arabica. Ab autore emendata et aucta. Cui accedunt Locmanni fabulae, et adagia quaedam Arabum […] (Leiden, Jean Maire: 1636). Fabricius Johann (from Danzig), Specimen Arabicum quo exhibentur aliquot scripta Arabica, partim in prosa, partim ligata oratione composita […] (Rostock, Reichel Heirs: 1638). Germanus de Silesia Dominicus, Antitheses fidei. Ventilabuntur in conventu S. Petri Montis Aurei fratrum minorum s. p. Francisci (Rom, Sacra congregatio de propaganda fide: 1638). Germanus de Silesia Dominicus, Fabrica linguae Arabicae cum interpretatione Latina, et Italica, accomodata ad usum linguae vulgaris, et scripturalis (Rom, Sacra congregatio de propaganda fide: 1639). Golius Jakob, Arabicae linguae tyrocinium. Id est Thomae Erpenii grammatica Arabica; cum varia praxios materia, cujus elenchum versa dabit pagella (Leiden, Jean Maire: 1656). Guadagnoli Filippo, Apologia pro christiana religione qua a r. p. Philippo Guadagnolo Malleanensi […] respondetur ad obiectiones Ahmed Filii Zin Alabedin, Persae Asfahensis, contentas in libro inscripto politor speculi (Rom, Sacra congregatio de propaganda fide: 1631). Hackspan Theodor, Fides et leges Mohammaedis exhibitae ex alkorani manuscripto duplici, praemissis institutionibus Arabicis (Altdorf, Widow Scherff: 1646). Hinckelmann Abraham, Al-Coranus s[ive] lex Islamitica Muhammedis, filii Abdallae pseudoprophetae [this title is given both in Latin and Arabic, the latter one omitting the epithet Pseudoprophetae]. Ad optimum codicum fidem edita (Hamburg, Typis Gottfriedii Schultzii Benjamin Schiller: 1694). ‫��ذ‬ ‫[ حم‬Muḥammad al-rasūl al-kādhib, i.e. “Muhammad, the Holm Peter, �‫��ا� ب‬ ‫��م�د ا �لر��سول ا ل ك‬ pseudo-prophet”] sive theologiae Muhammedanae brevis consideratio […] (Jena, Johann Jakob Bauhöfer: 1670). Hottinger Johann Heinrich, Historia orientalis: quae, ex variis orientalium monumentis collecta, agit i. de Muhammedismo […] (Zurich, Johann Jakob Bodmer: 1651). Kirstein Peter, Tria specimina characterum Arabicorum, […] sive oratio domini nostri ‫ة‬ Jesu Christi […] et regii Davidis psalmus quinquagesimus […] ac tandem primum �‫��سور‬ suuretu [sic], libri, vulgo, alcorani dicti […] (Breslau, no printer: 1608). Lange Johann Michael, De fabulis Mohhammaedicis circa ss. trinitatis mysterium et generationem in divinis […] (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1697). Lange Johann Michael, De genealogia Christi ex patribus secundum carnem dissertationes theologicae (I–IV ) (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1703). Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Ludwig Michael Konrad (Resp.), De Alcorani prima inter Europaeos editione Arabica, ante sesquiseculum et quod excurrit, in Italia per Paganinum Brixiensem facta, sed jussu pontificis Romani penitus abolita (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1703).

474

Glei

Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Schnützlein Georg Michael (Resp.), De speciminibus, conatibus variis atque novissimis successibus doctorum quorundam virorum in edendo alcorano Arabico (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1704). Lange Johann Michael (Pr.) – Lobherr Johannes Konrad (Resp.), De alcorani versionibus variis, tam orientalibus, quam occidentalibus, impressis et hactenus ANEKΔΟΤΟΙΣ (Altdorf, Heinrich Meyer: 1704). Marracci Ludovico, Alcorani textus universus ex correctioribus Arabum exemplaribus summa fide, atque pulcherrimis characteribus descriptus, eademque fide, ac pari diligentia ex Arabico idiomate in Latinum translatus […] (Padua, Typographia seminarii: 1698). Nerreter David, Neu-eröffnete Mahometanische Moschea worinn […] Der völlige Alkoran Nach der besten Edition Ludovici Marraccii, verteutscht und kürzlich widerlegt wird (Nuremberg, Johann Ernst Adelbulner: 1703). Nissel Johann Georg, Historia de Abrahamo, et de Gomorro-Sodomitica eversione ex alcorano, ejusque surata XIVta et XVta Arabice […] (Leiden, Johann Elzevier: 1655). Pfeiffer August, Fasciculus dissertationum philologicarum, in quibus agitur […] de alkorano Muhammedis [= Diss. IV] (Wittenberg, Michael Wendt: 1665). Raue Christian, Prima tredecim partium alcorani Arabico-Latini. Ubi textus Arabicus absque punctis sumtus, literis Latinis exacte expressus, et versio Latina parallela ita apposita, ut similis sit interlineari bibliorum Ebraicorum B.A. Montani, ita positis vocibus textus et versione, ut una Masoram alqorani Arabici exhibeant […] (no place, no printer, no date; presumably Amsterdam: 1646). Schieferdecker Johann David, Nucleus institutionum Arabicarum enucleatus, variis linguae ornamentis atque praeceptis dialecti Turcicae illustratus. […] (Zeitz [in Saxony], Melchior Hucho: 1695). Starck Sebastian Gottfried, Specimen versionis coranicae, adornatum in caput XIX. quod inscribitur caput Mariae […] (Berlin-Neukölln, Ulrich Liebpert: 1698). Tentzel Wilhelm Ernst, Monatliche Unterredungen Einiger Guten Freunde Von Allerhand Büchern und andern annehmlichen Geschichten etc., vol. 4 (Leipzig, Johann Jakob Fritsch: 1692). Warner Levinus, Compendium historicum eorum quae Muhammedani de Christo et praecipuis aliquot religionis Christianae capitibus tradiderunt (Leiden, Jean Maire: 1643). Zechendorff Johann, Fabulae Muhammedicae sive nugae alcorani […] ex manuscripto Arabo fideliter versae (Altenburg in Meißen, Johann Meuschken: 1628). Zechendorff Johann, Specimen suratarum, id est, capitum aliquot ex alcorani systemate […] (Zwickau, Melchior Göpner: no date [presumably 1638]). Zechendorff Johann, Suratae unius, atque alterius textum, eiusque explicationem ex commentario quodam Arabo [i. e. Baiḍāwī] (Zwickau, Melchior Göpner: no date [presumably 1646]).

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE



After 1800

475

Baader C.A., Lexikon verstorbener Baierischer Schriftsteller des achtzehenten und neunzehenten Jahrhunderts. Des zweyten Bandes Erster Theil. A‒P (Augsburg ‒ Leipzig: 1825), sub verbo Lang, Johann Michael (online: https://personenlexika.digitale -sammlungen.de/Lexika/Lang,_Johann_Michael_(GND_100299962), last access 27/08/2018). Ben-Tov A., “Johann Zechendorff (1580–1662) and Arabic Studies in Zwickau’s Latin School” in The Teaching and Learning of Arabic 57–92. Bobzin H., “Die Koranpolyglotte des Andreas Acoluthus (1654‒1704)” in GermanoTurcica. Zur Geschichte des Türkisch-Lernens in den deutschsprachigen Ländern (Bamberg: 1987) 57‒59. Bobzin H., “Latin Translations of the Koran. A short overview”, Der Islam 70 (1993) 193‒206. Bobzin H., Der Koran im Zeitalter der Reformation. Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Arabistik und Islamkunde in Europa (Beirut – Stuttgart: 1995). Bobzin H., “Ein oberschlesischer Korangelehrter: Dominicus Germanus de Silesia, O.F.M. (1588‒1670)”, in Kosellek G. (ed.), Die oberschlesische Literaturlandschaft im 17. Jahrhundert (Bielefeld: 2001) 221‒231. Bobzin H., “Von Venedig nach Kairo: Zur Geschichte arabischer Korandrucke (16. bis frühes 20. Jahrhundert)”, in Hanebutt-Benz E. et al. (eds.), Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution, Katalog und Begleitband zur Ausstellung (Westhofen: 2002) 151‒176. Bobzin H., “Ließ ein Papst den Koran verbrennen? Mutmaßungen zum Venezianer Korandruck von 1537/38”, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Heft 2 (Munich: 2013). Boer H. den – Tommasino P.M., “Reading the Qurʾān in the 17th-Century Sephardi Community of Amsterdam”, Al-Qanṭara 35, 2 (2014) 461‒491. Burman T.E., “Tafsīr and Translation: Traditional Qurʾān Exegesis and the Latin Qurʾāns of Robert of Ketton and Mark of Toledo”, Speculum 73 (1998) 703‒732. Burman T.E., Reading the Qurʾān in Latin Christendom, 1140‒1560 (Philadelphia: 2007). Burman T.E., “How an Italian Friar read his Arabic Qurʾān”, Dante Studies 125 (2007) 93‒109. Cecini U., Alcoranus Latinus. Eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toledo (Berlin: 2012). Cyranka D., Mahomet. Repräsentationen des Propheten in deutschsprachigen Texten des 18. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: 2018). García Masegosa A., Germán de Silesia: Interpretatio Alcorani Litteralis. Parte I: La traducción latina; introducción y edición critica (Madrid: 2009). Glei R.F. (ed.), Frühe Koranübersetzungen. Europäische und außereuropäische Fallstudien (Trier: 2012).

476

Glei

Glei R.F., “Der Mistkäfer und andere Missverständnisse. Zur frühbyzantinischen Koranübersetzung”, in Frühe Koranübersetzungen 9‒24. Glei R.F., “Scripture and Tradition. Traces of Counter-Reformatory Discourse in Marracci’s Work on Islam”, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 51, 3 (2015) 671‒689. Glei R.F. – Tottoli R., Ludovico Marracci at work. The evaluation of his Latin translation of the Qurʾān in the light of his newly discovered manuscripts. With an edition and a comparative linguistic analysis of Sura 18 (Wiesbaden: 2016). Glei R.F., “A presumed lost Latin translation of the Qurʾān (Johann Zechendorff, 1632)”, Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 18 (2016) 361‒372. Glei R.F., “Sleeping in the Cave: Zechendorff’s Latin Translation of the Qurʾan”, Journal of Qurʾānic Studies 20 (2018) 121‒136. Hamilton A. – Richard F., André du Ryer and Oriental Studies in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford: 2004). Lazarus-Yafeh H., “A Seventeenth-Century Hebrew Translation of the Qurʾān”, Scripta Mediterranea 19–20 (1998‒99) 199‒211. Loop J., Johann Heinrich Hottinger: Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: 2013). Loop J. – Hamilton A. – Burnett Ch. (eds.), The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe (Leiden – Boston: 2017). López-Morillas C., El Corán de Toledo. Edición y estudio del Manuscrito 235 de la Biblioteca de Castilla-La Mancha (Gijón, Lea: 2011). Marti H., “Der Altdorfer Sozinianismusstreit im Spiegel akademischer Kleinschriften”, in Marti H. – Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Nürnbergs Hochschule in Altdorf. Beiträge zur frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschafts- und Bildungsgeschichte (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2014) 158‒190. Merigoux J.-M., “L’ouvrage d’un frère Prêcheur florentin en Orient à la fin du XIIIe siècle. Le ‘Contra legem Sarracenorum’ de Riccoldo da Monte di Croce”, Memorie Domenicane 17 (1986) 1‒144. Nallino M., “Una cinquecentesca edizione del Corano stampata a Venezia”, Atti dell’Istituto di scienze, lettere ed arti 124 (1965/66) 1‒12. Neuwirth A., Der Koran als Text der Spätantike. Ein europäischer Zugang (Berlin: 2010). Nuovo A., “Il Corano arabo ritrovato (Venezia, P. e A. Paganino, tra l’agosto 1537 e l’agosto 1538)”, La Bibliofilia 89 (1987) 237‒271; English version: “A Lost Arabic Koran Rediscovered”, The Library 6th ser. 12, 4 (1990) 273‒292. Paudice A., “A Hidden World: Hebrew Translations and Transcriptions of the Qurʾān”, in Frühe Koranübersetzungen 137‒157. Roth U. – Glei R.F., “Die Spuren der lateinischen Koranübersetzung des Juan de Segovia – alte Probleme und ein neuer Fund”, Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 11 (2009) 109‒154; additions in Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 13 (2011) 221‒228.

BISMI ’ LLĀHI … THREE DISSERTATIONS BY JOHANN MICHAEL LANGE

477

Smitskamp R., Philologia Orientalis. A description of books illustrating the study and printing of Oriental languages in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. Titelauflage augmented with cumulative indexes (Leiden: 1992). Starczewska K.K., Latin Translation of the Qur‘ān (1518/1621) Commissioned by Egidio da Viterbo. Critical Edition and Case Study (Wiesbaden: 2018). Tommassino P.M., “Giovanni Battista Castrodardo bellunese traduttore dell’Alcorano di Macometto”, Oriente Moderno 48, 1 (2008) 15‒40. Tommassino P.M., L’Alcorano di Macometto. Storia di un libro del Cinquecento europeo (Bologna: 2013). Tottoli R., “The Latin Translation of the Qurʾān by Johann Zechendorff (1580‒1662) discovered in Cairo Dār al-Kutub. A Preliminary Description”, Oriente Moderno 95 (2015) 5‒31. Ulbricht M., Coranus Graecus. Die älteste überlieferte Koranübersetzung in der «Ἀνατροπὴ τοῦ Κορανίου» des Niketas von Byzanz. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin: 2015), to be published in Studi e testi (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). Wagenmann J.A., “Lang [sic], Johann Michael”, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 17 (1883) 601‒602; online: http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd100299962.html (last access 27/08/2018). Wiegers G., Islamic Literature in Spanish and Aljamiado: Yça of Segovia ( fl. 1450), his Antecedents and Successors (Leiden: 1994).

Chapter 18

Being Entitled to Dispute: On Disputations in Duisburg in the Second Half of the 17th Century Jan-Hendryk de Boer Summary The university of Duisburg was very prolific in the first fifty years after its foundation in 1655. Within a few years, it established itself as one of the early centres of Cartesianism in Germany. As at other early modern universities, disputation theses were routinely written and published in Duisburg. However, this should not hide the fact that all works had to prove the author’s entitlement to publish such theses and the respondent’s entitlement to defend them in the subsequent disputation. As a result, printed disputations or dissertations did not only try to unfold a certain position argumentatively. In addition, the authors strategically staged the personal, social and discursive prerequisites of their actions. Their goal was to defend their entitlement to dispute against all possible criticism.

Public disputations at universities in the early modern period usually consisted of two interrelated complex speech acts.1 A complex speech act is the routinised conjunction of several speech acts. In contrast to simple speech acts, complex speech acts can contain different illocutionary acts, since they are composed of several linguistic acts. The individual speech acts were sequenced chronologically and causally. This arrangement made it possible to produce complex effects. The first complex speech act of an early modern disputation consisted of the printed disputation theses or the dissertation published by the respondent or his professor. The second complex speech act consisted of the oral disputation, in which the respondent defended the presented theses. Both speech acts achieved the desired perlocution only if they were enacted in combination. Any disputation can be understood as the sum of different types of speech acts. True statements about facts, so-called representativa, were constitutive 1  I am very grateful to Katalin Morgan and Olav Heinemann for revising the English of this paper.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_019

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

479

of disputations. Various argumentative and logical techniques were used to establish the epistemic status of the propositions, i.e. to prove them to be true. The perlocutionary act, that is the intended effect, aimed at convincing those involved that what was claimed was actually true. The disputation pro gradu added another illocutionary act: it was intended to work as a directive speech act that caused the faculty to award the respondent the doctoral degree. According to the terminology proposed by John Searle, the doctoral candidate thereby acquired a new status function.2 Through an institutional mechanism a common entity X is transformed into an institutional fact Y. Disputations functioned as an institutional mechanism that turned one person into something else: whoever entered the disputation as a student would leave afterwards as a doctor. At the same time, the disputation itself was an institution: an author did not simply produce propositions and had them printed afterwards; rather, the professor and respondent or the latter by himself wrote a text that was considered a disputation or dissertation by his colleagues. The theses presented were then discussed during an oral exchange, which took place according to distinct rules. Everyone involved knew that this was not just a conversation, but a conversation with a certain status: it was an oral disputation. There were several entities and mechanisms to guarantee that the public recognised the status of the text and the conversation as a written or oral disputation. These institutions, i.e. the university and the responsible faculty, were of particular importance in disputations pro gradu or inaugural disputations, with which the respondent wanted to acquire a doctoral degree in his discipline.3 University and faculty both guaranteed that the social magic of the disputation was successful in assigning a new status function to the respondent’s person and thereby transforming him from a student to a doctor. The disputation served as an institutional mechanism that enabled the change of status to be effected. In the following, I would like to show that all these mechanisms were obviously not sufficient to legitimise the printed disputation. The space of possibilities opened up by institutions had to be filled with further prospective acts that generated and ensured the author’s entitlement. The particular challenge was to ensure that a disputation as a combination of two complex speech acts would work both in the present and in the future: it had to convince its readers and pave the way to the oral disputation and – in case it was a disputation pro gradu – eventually to the awarding of the doctoral degree. The authors answered this challenge by reflecting on the basic tenets 2  Searle J.R., The Construction of Social Reality (London: 1995) 28–29, 43–51. 3  Cf. Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: the Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19, 2 (2004) 129–187, esp. 140–143.

480

de Boer

of their explanations. In their written disputations, they made explicit the prerequisites that were to enable them to carry out the complex act of disputation. As Robert Brandom has shown, if a speaker adopts a certain position, he thereby commits himself to acknowledging further content as true (or false) and, if necessary, to defending it against criticism by giving reasons and explanations for his position.4 Commitment to a certain position cannot only be challenged by counter-reasons. It is also possible to question whether the one who has committed himself is actually entitled to do so. In printed disputations, the particular challenge regarding the legitimacy of the author and respondent is that they were separated in time from the event of the oral disputation. While in the oral communication game of giving and asking for reasons it is possible to counter a challenge to one’s entitlement directly, texts must meet the possibility of such challenges prospectively. Therefore, the author has to prove his entitlement even if no one had challenged him yet. It was usually not enough for the author to prove himself to be a person of authority. Rather, it was necessary that the text itself ensured its entitlement. For printed disputations, this means that all entities had to be called up to guarantee entitlement a priori. The printed disputations met both possible challenges in advance. Any content-related criticism could be countered by underpinning their position with reasons and authorities. Also, they could face any challenge of their author’s entitlement to present and defend theses by observing themselves as acts of possible communication. By doing so, they proved that their author had rightly committed himself to accepting the truth of certain propositions. Self-observation demonstrated that the text met all preconditions so that its author could take positions and accept commitments. Printed disputations served to prove that the preconditions had been met by placing themselves in a reference framework. These references can be read as self-observations of their own conditions of possibility. The self-observation of the disputation ensured that the two complex speech acts would work together. This was accomplished in the written disputation. Its immediate aim was to ensure that the author was entitled to publish theses. However, the theses should also have an effect in the future: they secured prospectively the student’s right to act as a respondent in the oral disputation and to defend the presented theses. The simplest way to illustrate this future action was to present the student in the role of the respondent on the title page of the print. The printed disputations always pointed to the future, because they created the basis for oral disputation. By this means the two complex speech acts worked together, even though they were separated in time. 4  Brandom R., Making It Explicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment (Cambridge, MA: 1998) 157–163, 241–243.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

481

This was the only way that the disputations pro gradu, the category to which most 17th century disputations printed in Duisburg belong, could assign a new status to the respondent. According to Brandom, in the oral communicative game of giving and asking for reasons, it is possible to counter a challenge of one’s own justification directly,5 while written texts have to meet possible challenges of this kind in advance. Texts can be challenged not only by present communication partners but by any potential reader. Therefore, entitlement must be proven beforehand, even if it has not yet been doubted. As I would like to show, printed disputations or dissertations did not only unfold a certain position argumentatively; rather, the author, or, if author and respondent were not the same person, both parties were presented as being entitled to publish such theses and to defend them in the subsequent disputation. Moreover, they also ensured the authorisation of author and respondent to publish such theses and to defend them in the upcoming oral disputation. To illustrate this process, I would like to use as an example disputations that originated at the University of Duisburg. On the occasion of its inauguration on 14 October 1655, the theologians Johannes Clauberg and Christopher Wittich were awarded their doctorates without a disputation, whereas their colleagues, three medics, two jurists and one philosopher, had to publish disputation theses that have since been lost.6 Soon afterwards there were disputations on a regular basis, both for exercise and for obtaining an academic degree.7 The first printed disputations were published already in 1655,8 initiating a stream of disputations and dissertations that only dried up in the final years of the old University of Duisburg, which was abolished in 1818. For pragmatic reasons, I will confine myself to disputations published during the first four and a half decades of the university. As indicated, my analysis will focus less on the content presented and more on how the authors staged and explained the prerequisites and possibilities of their actions.9 Thereby they strategically managed 5  Ibidem 248. 6  Komorowski M., Bibliographie der Duisburger Universitätsschriften 1652–1817 (Sankt Augustin: 1984) 3; idem, “Zum Promotionswesen an der alten Universität Duisburg”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 187– 194, at 187. 7  Most of the doctorates were awarded in law and medicine; see the list in ibidem 193–194. 8  Komorowski, Bibliographie 17, 89, 140. 9  For this, see the – albeit sketchy – remarks in Roden G. von, Die Universität Duisburg. Mit einem Beitrag von Hubert Jedin “Der Plan einer Universitätsgründung in Duisburg”, Duisburger Forschungen 12 (Duisburg: 1968). A thorough analysis of the Duisburg disputations is Trevisiani F., Descartes in Deutschland. Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft, Philosophie, Geschichte 2 (Vienna – Münster: 2011). Trevisiani was particularly successful in proving that Cartesian philosophy was

482

de Boer

to defend their entitlement against all possible criticism. For disputation theses, this meant that everything had to be called up that a priori guaranteed their legitimacy. The self-observations of the disputations should prove these as acts of possible and justified communication. To this end, the authors reflected on six preconditions: first, those institutions that ensured the effectiveness of the illocutionary act; second, the person of the author or respondent and his networks; third, the media conditions under which publication took place; fourth, the authorities and texts used; fifth, experience and empirical knowledge; sixth, concepts and argumentative procedures. In the following sections, I will use these points to trace the reference network established by the Duisburg disputation theses. 1

Title Pages

The legitimacy of the scholars is unmistakably staged on the title pages of the disputation prints. In addition to the title of the disputation, the praeses and the respondent are mentioned on the title pages with their respective academic grades. The title page of the medical disputation De generatione animalium from 1693, for example, mentions Friedrich Gottfried Barbeck, doctor of philosophy and medicine, professor of medicine and dean of the faculty during that year, as praeses and Johannes Theodor Schombart from Duisburg as the respondent. Typical for the Duisburg disputations printed by Sas is also that the place of the event, the larger lecture hall, is indicated.10 Similarly, 22 years earlier, on the title page of the medical disputation De phthisi, Barbeck appears as praeses. The print emphasises that he holds two doctoral degrees. In addition, he is introduced as a highly honoured professor and teacher of Augustinus Arnold von Woringen. The respondent is introduced using a gerundive construction as the one who has to discuss the disputation theses in institutionalised in teaching for the first time at the University of Duisburg. Johannes Clauberg played a central role here; see also the contributions in Verbeek Th. (ed.), Johannes Clauberg (1622–1665) and Cartesian Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (Dordrecht et al.: 1999); for a biographical sketch see Verbeek Th., “Johannes Clauberg. A Bio-Bibliographical Sketch”, ibidem 181–199; Fischer Th., “Johannes Clauberg (1622–1665)”, in Geuenich D. – Hantsche I. (eds.), Zur Geschichte der Universität Duisburg, 1655–1818. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium veranstaltet im Oktober 2005 anläßlich des 350. Jahrestages der Gründung der alten Duisburger Universität, Duisburger Forschungen 53 (Duisburg: 2007) 294–301. 10  Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Schombart Johannes Theodor (Resp.), Disputatio Medica De Generatione Animalium (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1693); Barbeck became professor for medicine in 1671, he died in 1703; Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 264.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

483

public (‘quam […] Publice ventilandam proponit’).11 A medical disputation about epilepsy from 1659 is even more explicit in explaining the legitimacy of the candidate. The title page informs us that the theses were presented by Tobias Andreae from Bremen with authority and on the instruction of the medical faculty. He intended to obtain the doctorate and the highest honours and privileges of the medical profession at the Academy. To this end, the disputation was subjected to public scrutiny by the learned. The exam was going to take place on September 25th from the ninth to the twelfth hour in the old auditorium.12 A similar picture emerges for the other faculties: Andreae presented his disputation theses on the nature and phenomena of the comets in 1659 to obtain the doctoral degree and the highest honours and privileges of the Faculty of Philosophy.13 After seeking support from the enlightening Father of Light, Andreae praised the faculty as highly learned and ingenious thereby placing it in the role of institutional and legal guarantor of a successful speech act. The place of the ‘publica[e] disquisitio[ni]’ was the old auditorium. It was going to be held on 11 September from the second to the fifth hour of the afternoon. According to the title page, another candidate, Ernst Casimir Wasserbach was confident that his historical disputation De Origine Vetustissimi Lippiensis agri Monumenti Hermiensburgk et Hermiensul, Veterum Saxonum Idoli was of interest beyond the local Duisburg audience.14 The dissertation explicitly addresses all admirers of German antiquities. Needless to say, neither God as a supernatural facilitator of the disputation nor Professor Gerhard von Mastricht as the earthly president is forgotten. The title page of the legal disputation De reticentia names Benjamin Schneider as the one who will publicly present the theses ‘legitimè’ to obtain honours and doctoral degrees in both laws. The Faculty of Law appears as an institutional framework which, through its decrees and approval, enables this intention to be realised.15 It is striking that God himself appears in the role of 11  Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – a Woringen Arnold Augustinus (Resp.), Disputatio Medica De Phthisi (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1671). 12  Andreae Tobias (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis Explicans Casum Epilepticum (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1659); for a biographical sketch see Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 263–264. 13  Andreae Tobias (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica Inauguralis Explicans Naturam et Phaenomena Cometarum (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1659). 14  Mastricht Gerhard von (Pr.) – Wasserbach Ernst Casimir (Resp.), Dissertatio Historica De Origine Vetustissimi Lippiensis agri Monumenti Hermiensburgk Et Hermiensul, Veterum Saxonum Idoli (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1686). 15  Schneider Benjamin (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis, De Reticentia (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1671).

484

de Boer

the praeses on the title page. Similarly, the legal disputation De Mora states that Zacharias Löbbecke from Dortmund will submit it to public examination by the scholars ‘Deo ter optimo maximo praeside’ for obtaining the doctorate in both laws. Once again, the university is explicitly named as the institutional framework of the disputation.16 Balthasar Kloeckhof’s disputation De Casu Fortuito follows the same pattern: according to the title page, it is a ‘Disputatio juridica inauguralis’ published to acquire the honour and privileges of a doctor of both laws under the protection of God.17 To this end, Kloeckhof submitted it to public examination of the learned. The disputation will take place in the large auditorium18 of the university in March 1700. A gap is left for the appointed day, which could be filled in by hand. Actually, Kloeckhof’s theses were disputed on March 20. The print of the theological disputation De Messia, Eiusque Negotio, held in 1698 under the presidency of Johannes Gottfried Bachmann, staged the legitimacy of the act of speaking in the same way: Bachmann was introduced as a doctor and a professor.19 The respondent was Friedrich Wilhelm Hanstein. The public examination by the scholars was going to take place on 6 March ‘horis locoque solitis’. It was specifically pointed out that the disputation would take place under the auspices of God. The disputation De Turpi Idololatria takes a combative stance, as the title suggests. As the reader finds out, the theses would be publicly disputed for the glory of God under the chairmanship of Dr Martin Hund on 1 June 1661. Respondent and author of the theses was Johannes Südeck, who had once been a lecturer of moral theology at the Dominican convent, but now distinguished himself as a confessor of a true and purer theology. These comparatively unusual biographical statements explain the sharp anti-Catholic thrust of the title and mark the event as theologically remarkable. According to the title pages, the authorisation to perform a disputation depended on several entities. First, this is the institutional framework provided by the university and the respective faculty. Second, these institutions legitimise the professor acting as praeses, who, as is often emphasised, has the 16  Löbbecke Zacharias (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica, De Mora (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1674). 17  Kloeckhof Balthasar (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis, De Casu Fortuito (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700). 18  Cf. Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 118–120. 19  Bachmann Johannes Gottfried (Pr.) – Hanstein Friedrich Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Theologica De Messia, Eiusque Negotio (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1698); Bachmann was professor for theology in Duisburg from 1696 to 1702; cf. Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 244.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

485

necessary qualifications and is recognised as an expert. Third, God can be invoked as a being that should accompany the events with his favour. Fourth, it is necessary to adequately locate the oral disputation in time and space in order to accomplish the intended perlocution. Fifth, a printer in Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden at first, and later Franz Sas and his sons Johann and Alexander, must publish the theses so that they can be read beforehand and used for the oral disputation. Franz Sas, in particular, reminds his readers that he is the official university printer, which entitles him to publish disputation theses. Sixth, the theses have to be submitted to the learned public, i.e. the readers of the printed theses as well as the participants in the oral disputation. In some cases the respondent is presented as the author of the disputed theses, sometimes as an actor in a future event, tasked with the defence of the theses written and published by his professor in the oral disputation. 2

People

While the title page referred to the protagonists by naming presidents and respondents and giving brief information about their respective position and origin, the author’s person is usually profiled in more detail in the subsequent dedication. Hermann Johannes Severini, Johann Stephan Speckmann or Balthasar Kloeckhof represent exceptions, as they dedicate their disputations to God, the Fatherland, their patrons and friends.20 More commonly, authors decided to highlight individuals by name or to thank their supporters individually. They hoped that this would be of benefit to their future careers. The dedication can be designed as a simple naming of the dedicatees on the back of the title page, but also as a detailed letter comprising several pages. Among the recipients of dedications, princes and other noblemen dominate. It was obvious that a disputation about the Hermannsburg and the Irminsul had to be dedicated to the Count of Lippe-Brake.21 In addition, as the respondent Ernst Casimir Wasserbach proudly pointed out, the Count was the one who had once raised the boy Wasserbach from the baptismal font and had given him his middle name. Wasserbach’s elaborate dedication letter first questioned to what extent it was appropriate to write about Germanic antiquities 20  Severini Hermann Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis De Colica Passione (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1699), fol. a1v; Speckmann Johann Stephan (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica De Condictione Indebiti (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700), fol. a1v; Kloeckhof, De Casu Fortuito, fol. a1v. 21   Mastricht – Wasserbach, Dissertatio Historica, fol. a1v.

486

de Boer

in the language of the Romans, which the Germans of that age purportedly had hated. Count Casimir is then literally placed in the tradition of the Germanic princes and especially Arminius since he reigned mildly and justly.22 Johann Wilhelm Kirberg dedicated his legal disputation to Friedrich Moritz, Count of Bentheim, in gratitude for the many favours he had received from him. Accordingly it was his intention to honour the Count, whom he considered a most holy man, by dedicating the first fruit of his studies to him.23 The Margraves of Brandenburg, to whose territory Duisburg belonged, were particularly favoured dedicatees. For example, Johann Theodor Rhamacker,24 Caspar Theodor Summermann and Johannes Koch dedicated their dissertations to Frederick III, Margrave of Brandenburg. The latter expressly asked the prince to read his work and advised him to consider carefully the arguments put forward. Koch was optimistic that Frederick III would be happy to study the dissertation since he was generally known for his great longing for the sublime and the divine truth.25 Summermann was more modest in his legal disputation about the composition of the Imperial Chamber Court at Wetzlar. Many would probably be sceptical about his wish to dedicate his work to the Margrave. Also, he did not dare to hope to create a worthy gift with his little talent. But in the end, the importance of the topic and the quality of the arguments had strengthened his intention.26 In the following year, he addressed Frederick III again when he published the dissertation De Vera ac Genuina Iurisdictionis Cameralis Indole. Summermann took this opportunity to thank the Margrave for his appointment as professor of law. Now he himself acted as praeses, but the demonstrative modesty remained: once again he declared his work to be inadequate, but nevertheless recommended it to Frederick III, as the topic was extraordinarily relevant.27 Wilhelm Holtman directed his dedication to the West. In his dedication letter, he extensively praised William 22  Ibidem, fol. a2r–v. 23  Kirberg Johann Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Theoretico-Practica Inauguralis, De Oblatione, Obsignatione et Depositione Pecuniae debitae (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1690). 24   Rhamacker Johann Theodor (Resp.), Dissertatio Inauguralis Iuridica, De Homicidio (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1697). 25  Hulsius Heinrich (Pr.) – Koch Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio Theologica Paradoxa De Desiderio Mulierum, et Deo Mausim, ad locum Dan. XI: vs. 37. et 38 (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1694), fol. *2v–*3r (ULB Halle Id 5971; VD 17 3:316621W). 26   Summermann Caspar Theodor (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica De Paritate Religionis In Augustissimo Camerae Imp. Iudicio Observanda (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1699) 4–5; Summermann became professor for law in 1700, he died 1752; Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 256. 27  Summermann, Caspar Theodor (Pr.) – Severin, Theodor Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio Iuridica De Vera Ac Genuina Iurisdictionis Cameralis Indole (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700) 5–6.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

487

Henry of Orange-Nassau, the governor of the Netherlands and later King of England. In rhetorical exuberance, he resorted to bold images to express his gratitude: just as it was impossible for a vessel filled with water not to spill over when it was pushed, it was impossible for him to remain silent because of his love to William Henry. He believed that there was no more fitting way to explain his devotion than to dedicate this document to him.28 Sometimes the respondents also dedicated the printed disputation to the city fathers of Duisburg. Tobias Andreae, for example, devotes his disputation about epilepsy to the city councils, syndics and senators without naming them.29 All the more enthusiastic, Samuel Diest thanks the city fathers of Duisburg for their hospitality. The doctors and professors working here would spread the city’s fame throughout the world. He himself wanted to show his gratitude with a literary work. Therefore, he offered a text written down on paper in a hurry, which nevertheless would be of considerable use to the university (‘in usum collegii nostri disputatorii’).30 Occasionally the authors also dedicated their work to councillors of other cities. Koch’s disputation was printed with two different dedication letters by the author: the copy of the Halle University Library contains the aforementioned dedication to Frederick III, while the copy of the Rostock University Library is dedicated to the city council of Wesel.31 In several cases the authors reveal why they decided to publish theses on a certain topic. In doing so, they explain their self-understanding and justify the fact that they put their considerations up for public discussion. By recourse to their preliminary considerations, they thus underscore their entitlement to become active as authors. To this end, criticism is anticipated and refuted as far as possible. The degree of individuality of these self-statements varies greatly. It is topical when Johannes Clauberg pointed out that some of his friends found great pleasure in reading his first disputation on the resurrection. Urged by them, he decided to publish another disputation on a similar subject.32 28  Holtman Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis, De Hemitritaea (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1680) 4. 29  Andreae, Disputatio Medica, fol. a1v. 30  Diest Samuel (Pr.) – Cursius Johannes, Leschen Theodor, Wasmunt Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertatio Historico-Irenica. De Lite et Pace Religiosa Evangelicorum: Tribus distincta segmentis (Arnheim, Hagen: 1663), fol. 3r. Diest was professor for theology from 1657 to 1664; Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 241. 31   Hulsius – Koch, De Desiderio Mulierum et Deo Mausim, fol. a1r–v (UB Rostock, Fa1092(93).26; VD 17 28:733018N). 32   Clauberg Johannes, “De resurrectione disputationes”, in idem – Hund Martin, Disputationes selectae, quibus controversiae fidei adversus omnis generis adversarios, praecipue Socinianos et Pontificios (speciatim novos Methodistas Veronianos) explicantur: et non

488

de Boer

Benjamin Schneider’s captatio benevolentiae has a more personal tone. He explains that he had suffered from lack of time during his work, as other tasks had required his attention As a result, he had dealt with his topic only briefly and without detailed justifications and questions.33 Friedrich Gottfried Barbeck reports, that his student Bernhard Heinrich Brauns had asked him to prove his intelligence in a disputation on the difficult subject of fever, a wish he had gladly complied with.34 By their own admissions, some did not find it easy to choose the topic of the disputation. Johann Arnold Schwackenberg reports why he decided to publish the fruits of his legal studies in the present form. At first, he had wanted to deal with a topic that had not yet been studied by anyone, ‘ne acta egisse et Iliada post Homerum scripsisse videar’ (‘so that I didn’t seem to be studying what had already happened and writing the Iliad after Homer’).35 However, he soon realised that there was hardly any legal issue that had not yet been thoroughly discussed. That is why he had come to the conclusion that he could not find a topic to discuss that others had not written about before.36 His doubts as to which topic he should choose for his inaugural disputation had become ever greater. He continued to look for a subject that was suitable both in terms of its rarity and its usefulness. In the end, he had taken to heart the advice that the law should not deal with very rare occurrences, but rather with what happens frequently and easily. That is why he came up with the topic of transfer of property since this was an everyday subject, the knowledge of which would one day be very useful to him in court.37 Samuel Diest reports in some detail about the genesis of his Dissertatio Historico-Irenica. At first, he did not want to publish his arguments on how to paucae in ecclesia recens motae quaestiones enodantur (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1665) 1–13, at 5. 33  Schneider, De Reticentia, fol. a2r. ‘Destinaveram hanc materiem in plures paginas: Sed tempore praeventus et aliis destitutus fui. Ideo jam vix praelibamenta sine allegatis, praejudiciis et quaestionibus trado, et ut ea inter proximam uberioremque amplissimae segetis hujus spem boni consulas, oro’. 34  Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Brauns Bernhard Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio Medica, De Febrium Differentia Ac Natura (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1696) 35. In a similar way Barbeck explains the choice of topic in Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Becher Johannes Bernhard (Resp.), Disputatio De Sanguinis Corporis Humanis Purificatione Nec Non Rectificatione, Humorumque Excretorum Usu (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1686) 19. 35  Schwackenberg Johann Arnold (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis De Immissionibus (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1698) 1. 36  Ibidem. ‘Verum studiose in ejusmodi inquirens argumentum praeter spem deprehendi nullam pene juris materiam superesse, quae, si non tota, magna tamen ex parte, jam tum in aliorum non transierit labores, vixque de ulla juris parte quicquam dici posse quod non sit dictum prius’. 37  Ibidem 1–2.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

489

establish peace and understanding among Christians, as he had come to the conviction that all theologians hated each other and wished their colleagues to go to hell.38 There were numerous examples of those who had called for peace, yet attracted hatred from all sides. Only after the religious discussion held in Kassel in 1661 and at the insistence of the Reformed theologian Johannes Mellet did he find new courage. As a result, he had gained more certainty about the will of God in this matter. So he tried to heal the wounds of the church. By devoting himself to this topic, he had gone from being a theologian to a physician. Now he wondered if he could not indeed come up with a cure for the hatred among the body of Christ. This leads Diest to imagine the great joy he would experience if he was able to assemble the injured limbs and restore the body so that all the limbs would support one another and Christ would be the head. For a long time, he thought about the form of the disputation he should choose. But after Mellet had put several questions to him, he got to work and finally had the result printed.39 3

Media

Only some of the Duisburg prints dealt with their status as books or as media through which the authors communicate their findings. In most cases, they emphasised that the printed book made it possible to communicate information and theses to a larger audience. Furthermore, it represented the intellectual achievements of the author. The medial dissemination of printed disputations thus enabled two things: it distributed knowledge and staged the abilities of scholars. In this way, it ensured that the latter were entitled to submit theses and to participate in a disputation. Hermann Honn, who held the office of vice-chancellor at that time, praised Augustinus Arnold von Woringen in a German-language poem that was added to his medical disputation. The fact that Woringen was able to teach on the existent remedies for tuberculosis was made possible by God’s favour and the author’s wisdom. According to Honn, the book documented the wealth of Woringen’s mind and predicted a bright future for the young scholar.40 Two eulogistic poems praised Hanstein’s disputation on the Messiah. To deal with this topic, which was bigger than all others, promised great fame and was the first step towards a successful career. 38   Diest – Cursius, De Lite et Pace Religiosa Evangelicorum, fol. †5r. 39  Ibidem, fol. †7r. 40   Barbeck – a Woringen, De Phthisi, fol. c4r. ‘Daß hat Herr Woringen gelernet zu ergruenden; Und lehret uns dafuer ein heilsam mittel finden / Durch Gott und seinen Witz. Diß zeuget diß Papyr; Diß zeuget sein verstand / den er uns zeiget hier’.

490

de Boer

Hanstein had already excelled with his writing, according to a poem by his commensals. If he were to be let to pursue his writing further, he would ‘ein grosses Lob und Ehre davon haben’ (‘have much praise and honour from it’).41 It was the task of the theologian to give testimony. He fulfilled his duty, among other things, by artfully proclaiming the Word of God in his disputation. Among the disputations examined here, Clauberg’s works referred to the medium of the book in the greatest detail by far. Thereby, his book was readable as a publication of reflections on the book as means of gaining, defending and distributing theological knowledge. Medium and content, the printed disputation and its insights became closely linked in this way. In his three disputations De resurrectione he had come up with the idea of explaining the theological dogma of the resurrection by using the book as an analogue. In doing so, he chose an object of comparison that the readers of his writing would be holding in his hand, enabling them to follow his thoughts on the basis of their own experiences. The famous theologian asked how the numerically identical human body could be resurrected in the Last Judgement. To make this wonderful event comprehensible to reason, he compared it to a book whose binding was damaged: ‘Corpus idem humanum, quod resurgit et glorificatur, cum eodem libro rursus elegantiore forma compacto, novo glutine roborato, pulcherrime denique inaurato contendemus.’42 As Clauberg explained, most critics rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body as practically impossible by highlighting that mortal remains were scattered and damaged. But the example of the book showed that it was indeed possible to put scattered parts together: a teacher could divide it into several sheets so that his students might copy it. Later, however, the sheets could be put back together again. Even if individual pages were torn, it was always possible to restore them. Since God lacked neither knowledge nor power, he could just as well reassemble the limbs of the human body.43 As a further objection to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, Clauberg raised the problem of the varying periods of time between death and resurrection. How could all constituent particles of the human body ever be reunited, especially if centuries or even millennia had passed since death? The Duisburg theologian was quite optimistic. Even the pages of a book, especially if they consist of skin or parchment, were found in monasteries

41   Bachmann – Hanstein, De Messia, Eiusque Negotio 36. 42  Clauberg, De resurrectione 1. ‘We want to compare the identical human body in which he rises and enters into the glory of the Lord with a book that is rebound into a more elegant form, is then glued and finally very beautifully gilded’. 43  Ibidem 2.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

491

today, although they had been separated many centuries ago. Furthermore, some critics claimed that parts of the body were present in various forms, such as dust or ashes, and therefore could not be restored. But the pages of a book could also take on different forms. For example, someone could fold them like a letter. Nevertheless, it was still possible to return them in their previous form and bind them into a book in the end.44 Incidentally, Clauberg preferred not to discuss what happened when a page was burned and turned to ashes. Despite all the difficulties, he continued his analogy unabatedly in the following paragraphs. It was possible that limbs and parts of corpses were mixed with the remains of other human bodies. This was the case when a person was devoured by an animal, or cremated, or drowned in the sea. Likewise, the pages of several books could be mingled in a similar fashion. Nevertheless, the characters gave hints on how to sort them. Come the resurrection, God will set everything in proportion and free the human body from all its faults and limitations. Analogously, the binder processed a book’s raw and uneven surface to eliminate all imperfections. If a body received clarity and light during resurrection, it remained numerically identical. In the same way, a book that is polished and decorated remained unchanged.45 A book is opened and closed; the pages turned over; damaged pages handled with care. By analogy, Christians believed that their body would one day be endowed with agility and freed from the burden of earthly weight through God’s will. In the introduction to the second disputation, Clauberg showed himself satisfied with his method of argumentation.46 Since his comparison had apparently been convincing, he now decided to explain the relationship between soul and body by analogy. For a start, he referred to the papyrus that made up the book and the writing that gave it a certain shape. Already the Bible spoke of something being written in the heart (Rom 2:15; Jer 17:1). Like writing to paper, so the soul related to the body. Just as a noble soul could live in a sick and weak body, so it was possible to write an excellent text on stained paper. However, the harmony that arose from writing with an elegant hand on a fine material was particularly pleasant. In the same way, it was beautiful when virtue originated in a beautiful body. By comparing the soul to a book, Clauberg could also solve the much-discussed problem of what happened with man-eaters during resurrection: if a bookbinder trimmed the book’s edge, he left the block of the

44  Ibidem 3. 45  Ibidem 4–5. 46  Ibidem 6.

492

de Boer

book intact. Likewise, God would be able to restore the body of the victim of a man-eater without having to take anything away from him.47 Clauberg continued his comparison in a third disputation, this time choosing to explain the miracle of the immaculate conception. He explained that a book could be condemned for its bad content. However, a scribe could use the parchment as material for a new book, which contained only sacred things according to the royal laws. This new book should not be condemned for its bad content that was written in it before, because even if the material had been taken from it, it had not retained the former content. In the same way, Christ emerged from Mary completely immaculate.48 If one prepares the paper with glue, the writing could no longer be erased. Dirt could also settle much more easily on a simple piece of paper. The virginal body of Mary could be compared with that strengthened paper, for just as dirt could not settle on it, so in her body the effect of sin did not reach the seed through God’s providence.49 Even though Clauberg’s excessive comparison may have confused some contemporaries, in his disputations, he demonstrates a close connection between theological content and the media through which it is distributed. Clauberg endowed the book with a special dignity. To him it was not simply a medium, but a representative of theological truths. Those who knew how to look at it correctly, namely in the mode of comparison, would gain just as deep insights as those who, as trained exegetes, uncovered hidden layers of meaning in the Bible. Well-informed reading and the production of analogies thus ensured the theologian’s right to interpret Scripture and to teach the truth. 4

Texts and Authorities

References to authorities to strengthen one’s own position were already constitutive of medieval disputations.50 Despite all the differences in detail, only little changed until the 18th century. Such textual references reflected the 47   Ibidem 7. ‘Inde etiam discitur, quomodo Deus resuscitando mortuos hominis ab Anthropophago fortassis devorati partes (quo exemplo utuntur qui ejusdem numero carnis resurrectionem impugnant) devoranti adimere eundemque nihilominus integrum conservare valeat. Nempe si vel omnibus devorantis membris ex devorato aliquid accesserit, quid ni facilius Deus inde illud eximat, integro manente devorante, quam forte bibliopegus aliquis libri marginem quadantenus resecando, cunctis quidem ejus foliis aliquid detrahit, librum tamen nulla parte mutilat’. 48  Ibidem 10–11. 49  Ibidem 11. 50  de Boer J.-H., “Disputation, quaestio disputata” in de Boer J.-H. – Füssel M. – Schuh M. (eds.), Universitäre Gelehrtenkultur vom 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Ein interdisziplinäres Quellen- und

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

493

fruits of reading, which could be introduced both affirmatively and critically. Authoritative texts could support the developed theses, but they could also be refuted to support one’s own view. In this respect, the embedding of theses and positions in network of intertextual references always was also part of the content-related commitments that an author or respondent made. By expressing a certain opinion, he guaranteed to be able to relate it to authorities in accordance with the contemporary rules of expression. He fulfilled this promise by developing the theses argumentatively. His commitment linked the printed to the oral disputation. In formulating theses, the author implicitly committed himself to making further references to tradition and contemporary discussions in oral debates. According to Brandom, the commitment to give reasons for one’s own position is a permanent regulator of communication. The way in which this obligation becomes manifest varies across historical periods. As far as pre-modern academic science is concerned, it was fulfilled, among other things, by being able to cite certain authorities in order to support one’s own position, while naming others towards whom one had a more critical attitude. Referring to texts and authorities was an essential part of the communicative obligations that any author of disputation theses and their defenders undertook. But that was not all. In a more fundamental way, the reference to authorities and authoritative texts also provided evidence that the author or defender was entitled to take positions and thus to speak in a disputation. Only those who were in a position to establish interdiscursive references to tradition and recent scientific discussions could claim to be recognised as speakers in the Gelehrtenrepublik. For it was essential to have knowledge of texts and traditions that could be updated and illustrated with concrete examples when the speakers’ commitments were criticised. According to the rules of pre-modern science, content-related commitments were not possible without such knowledge. Therefore, before making any arguments based on logic, the authors and respondents were obliged to demonstrate that they had the necessary skills to correctly apply authoritative texts in a disciplinary context. Textual references were used to locate one’s own explanations both in traditional and in contemporary scholarly work. In this way, they received a specific disciplinary imprint that could easily be recognised by readers and participants during the oral disputation. Thus, textual references created disciplinary clarity, demonstrated specialist knowledge and directed audience expectations

Methodenhandbuch (Stuttgart: 2018) 221–254; Weijers O., In Search of Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times (Turnhout: 2013) 142–143.

494

de Boer

and subsequent speech acts. References to the Bible were of course of paramount importance in theological disputations. In his disputation De verbo Dei, for example, Martin Hund consistently relied on the Bible in the form of numerous quotations and references. Already in the first sentence of the disputation, which fills nineteen lines in the print of 1661, Hund refers to six passages from the Old and New Testaments to prove that God created man in his image. To enable man to recognise and worship his Creator, God endowed him with the necessary intellect, willpower and judgement.51 Obviously, this thesis, which came as little surprise, needed no detailed justification within theology; even between Catholics and Protestants, it was undisputed. More important was the subsequent argumentative unfolding, in which Hund laid the terminological foundations for his further remarks, and also placed his theses firmly in a biblical frame of reference. The exegetical work of the following sections offered an opportunity to call up further passages from the Bible, especially from Genesis and the Epistles of Paul, without quoting them in detail. At the same time, Hund could demonstrate his mastery of Greek by repeatedly interspersing some Greek phrases into his exegesis. He did not leave it at that but reflected on the appropriate use of authority within his discipline, which first and foremost enabled substantive determinations and guarantees their truth. The Word of God as the principle on which all theology was based could be recognised by natural reason.52 As evidence, Hund referred to the founders of other religions who relied on divine revelations, inspirations and oracles.53 But although the Jews, Numa Pompilius and Mohammed were convinced to speak the truth, for the theologian this was an empty claim. Therefore, it was forbidden to take knowledge about the Word of God from Aesop’s fables, the history of Titus Livius or the Koran. In order not to mislead men, God had given his Word to men in a way that enabled them to recognise its divinity. The divine authority did not exist only for itself, but in relation to us. This is the reason why knowledge directed towards transcendence

51  Hund Martin, “De verbo Dei disputatio”, in Clauberg – Hund, Disputationes selectae 98–145, at 98. Hund became professor for theology in 1655, he died in 1666; Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 241. 52  Hund, “De verbo Dei disputatio” 99. ‘Quare Principium omnis, maxime vero illius, quae est post peccatum, Theologiae esse Verbum Dei […] et ratio sana agnoscit et vix ulla unquam gens negavit’. 53  Ibidem. ‘Nam inde est, quod universi cuiuscunque religionis conditores divinas revelationes, apparitiones, inspirationes, oracula, enthusiasinos et cetera semper praetexuisse leguntur et comperiuntur’.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

495

was possible at all. The authority, which alone justified the theological truth, remained with God. As a consequence, it was futile to seek truth among men. i.e. the pope, the church or a council.54 Hanstein’s disputation De Messia also practices biblism. To the author, the Biblical text was the primary basis of all theological knowledge. It secures the truth of the statements and determines those things of which there can be no certainty of knowledge. The first thesis, for example, stated that it was problematic to determine the exact day of Christ’s birth since the Bible did not make any clear statements about it.55 The second thesis argued that there was already dissent among the Fathers of the Church on this question. However, since the Bible did not provide precise information, this question could hardly be answered. The Jewish chronology failed as an alternative authority because it was very unreliable.56 After these fundamental reflections on how theological knowledge was dependent on the textual authority of the Bible, the author felt prepared to confront his contemporary opponents: ironically, the accuracy with which Joseph Justus Scaliger and John Lightfoot addressed this question of Christ’s birth was declared remarkable.57 Heinrich Hulsius also highlighted the superiority of biblical authority in his inaugural dissertation, the core of which he dedicated to an interpretation of Dan. 9:37–38. On this occasion, Hulsius took a closer look at the value of Daniel’s prophecies. On Dan. 11:36–39 he noted that this text, besides the Apocalypse, best depicted the order of human destiny and the course of time. The biblical statements were so exact that even Porphyrius had recognised them as a historical source in his books directed against the Christians.58 In his twelve disputations De SS. Trinitate, Clauberg accused his Catholic opponents of not paying sufficient attention to the testimony of the Bible, which had to be the starting point of any theological thesis. If one encountered apparent contradictions, it was the theologian’s duty to establish between them ‘consensum et harmoniam perpetuam cum diligentia ac reverentia’ (‘consistency and lasting harmony with care and reverence’).59 Clauberg accused the Catholics of tending to rely on their own reason and thus to carry foreign principles into the discussion. Therefore, they were not able to understand how the unity of God 54  Ibidem 99–103. 55   Bachmann – Hanstein, De Messia, eiusque negotio 1–2. 56  Ibidem 3. 57  Ibidem 2–3. 58   Hulsius – Koch, De Desiderio Mulierum 3. 59  Clauberg Johannes, “De SS. Trinitate disputationes”, in idem – Hund, Disputationes selectae 13–97, at 15.

496

de Boer

and the Trinity breathe together in a friendly way. Former Dominican Johannes Südeck wanted to defeat Catholic theology with its own weapons. After quoting in his first thesis the definitions of idololatria from Deut. 26:64 and Rom 1:25, he also referred to the Tridentine Catechism and Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. The second thesis then maintained that all papal followers committed idolatry in the very sense determined by Catholic theologians when they worshipped the host.60 Even if the other disciplines did not have such an irrefutable authority as theology, they also routinely operated with references to authoritative texts. In his medical disputation De Hemitritaea, Wilhelm Holtman quoted the definition of fever by Hippocrates for his argumentative basis, also providing Latin translations of the Greek text.61 Tobias Andreae introduced his first thesis on the nature of comets with a quote from Senecas Quaestiones naturales.62 In his legal disputation De Reticentia, Benjamin Schneider proved that it could be legitimate to conceal certain information by referring to antique examples. For military reasons, Ulysses, Themistocles or Hannibal did not share their knowledge with the enemies, which was a moral and legal norm.63 Of particular argumentative importance was the convergence of different traditions. Thus, not only did reason show that suicide was a deplorable crime. The Old Testament and Roman law adopted this view as well, as we learn from Rhamacker.64 Another example is Wasserbach who was struggling with a source problem in his historical dissertation. In order to be able to classify the surviving monuments, which documented the wars between the Romans and the Germans, one had to rely on Roman historians, since these monuments were erected in times ‘quibus Germani facere fortia, quam scribere malebant’ (‘in which the Germanic tribes preferred to perform brave deeds rather than write’) – as Wasserbach notes with an allusion to Tacitus.65 Contemporary authors were also regularly referred to, both affirmatively and critically. When Kloeckhof approvingly refers to a treatise by Professor Christian Wildvogel, he adds that he had once been his teacher in Jena.66 He 60  Hund Martin (Pr.) – Südeck Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Catholica De Turpi Idololatria (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1661), fol. a2v: ‘Idololatriam hanc ultro citroque ita descriptam, omnes et singulos Pontificios, diebus quoque per annum singulis uno Parasceve excepto (quo Missam non legunt ne cum Iudaeis tunc Christum crucifigant) in sua Eucharistiae adoratione committere, in praesentiarum ostendemus’. 61  Holtman, De Hemitritaea 6–7. 62  Andreae, Disputatio Explicans Naturam et Phaenomena Cometarum, fol. a2r. 63  Schneider, De Reticentia, fol. a3r. 64  Rhamacker, De Homicidio 1. 65  Mastricht – Wasserbach: Dissertatio Historica 1. 66  Kloeckhof, De Casu Fortuito 14.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

497

thereby confirms Wildvogel’s status as an authority and profits from this status ascription by staging himself as his student. In contrast, it was possible to strenghthen one’s own position through dissent. For example, Johann Masschop cited opposing doctrines on the question of the extent to which sons whose mother was known but whose father was unknown were entitled to inherit property.67 Having thus proved that he was familiar with contemporary debates, he could develop his own position. Masschop also proved himself well versed in quoting suitable authorities elsewhere. He offered various definitions of the term inheritance, including that of his relative and teacher Gerhard Feltmann.68 The intertextual reference network thus spanned the entire legal history from antiquity to the present day. As a result, the author of the theses proves his entitlement in two ways: on the one hand, he was familiar with all the relevant legal sources, and on the other, he was located in the network of authoritative texts by kinship. 5

Experience and Observation

If the knowledge gained from texts remained central in almost all of the disputations studied, many authors also referred to empirical knowledge and their own observations. These served either as additional authentication of learned knowledge or could be used to correct it. Medical disputations in particular often argued on the basis of empirical knowledge. In his medical disputation De Generatione, Heinrich Jacob Conte explicitly mentioned observations of medici practici which deviated from the learned knowledge handed down in books. There were several reports of medical practitioners who had found small worms in the pericardium of their patients. Conte interpreted their discovery as evidence against the opinion that procreation always took place through semen. He stated that it was impossible for a fly or other small animal to have laid eggs there. The explanation that the worms got there with the digested food was also absurd. Therefore, the only possible explanation was that these worms emerged spontaneously.69 Based on such observations, the widespread dogma that small organisms always originated from seeds became questionable, at least as applicable to a moist environment such as the 67  Masschop Johann (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis De Successione Ab Intestato Veteri Et Nova (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1666), fol. e2r. 68  Ibidem, fol. a2v. 69  Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Conte Heinrich Jacob (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Prima, De Generatione (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1691) 16–17; he became professor for medicine in 1704 and died in 1707; Rhoden, Universität Duisburg 266–267.

498

de Boer

pericardium. Conte even asked if the traditionally accepted view had to be discarded completely.70 Several authors explicitly referred to experience in order to explain why they chose a certain topic for the disputation. Conrad Hermann von Becker introduced his disputation with the observation that daily experience shows that purchase contracts were concluded very frequently. Becker described such experiential knowledge as a magistra which one had to follow.71 Wilhelm Holtman observed that fever is particularly common during the many diseases that affect people and may kill them. In the summer of the previous year many people fell ill with the so-called three-day fever ( febris tertiana), a fever that worsened in three-day cycles. This experience motivated him to choose fever as the subject of his inaugural disputation.72 Holtman also emphasised the benefits of empiricism in his further considerations. Again and again he mentioned his observations or those of others in order to challenge traditional knowledge. Many physicians claimed that bloodletting was helpful in every situation. However, Holtman’s professor Barbeck had shown that this treatment was of particular benefit only to famous physicians and less to patients.73 Experience and reason proved that the patient’s condition was aggravated if further blood was withdrawn from a bilious body that already had little blood. Arnold Schmedes gave a particularly detailed description of a real case in the medical disputation De chordapso, disputed in 1697. According to Schmedes’ report, a woman, obviously a beggar, brought her four-year-old, very emaciated child to his teacher Barbeck on 15 April 1697. The child could barely stand on its feet due to weakness. It had abdominal pain, muscle fatigue and a tumour on the right hypochondrium. Clearly there was no hope for a cure.74 As predicted, the child died soon afterwards. On April 23, Barbeck carried out an autopsy, as the title page of the print already points out. ‘Sicque primo observavimus maciem totius corporis; post cutim et musculos abdominis separatos ac peritonaei aperturam, aquam in ventre loturae carnis simillimam ad libram unam 70   Barbeck – Conte, De Generatione 17. ‘Itaque si non inficiaturi simus hoc dogma, quod nulla animalcula, nisi ex semine generentur, sumus saltem illud propter allata, et alia plura argumenta in dubium vocaturi’. 71  von Becker Conrad Hermann (Resp.), De Contrahenda Emptione (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700) 3. ‘Utilissima, imo et frequentissima contractuum materia emptionis et venditionis esse videtur, utpote cum quotidiana nobis hac in re experientia magistra testante hic contractus ubique frequentetur […]’. 72  Holtman, De Hemitritaea 5. 73  Ibidem 21–22. 74   Schmedes Arnold (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Medica. De Chordapso (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1697) 3–4.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

499

circiter invenimus […].’75 The report is printed in italics and thus highlighted as the basis for the subsequent argumentation. A resolutio casus praecedentis follows. In it, the observations made on the individual case were generalised. Schmedes knew that the weakness of the limbs often occurred in children.76 In the next step, the observed symptoms were assigned to a disease, namely intestinal gout (chordapsum). In the remaining theses, Schmedes also often argued by referring to experiences and his own observations. Thus, for example, we experience daily (‘quotidie experimur’) how sufferings of the mind (animi pathemata) influenced our body. An unexpected trauma strengthened the dark acid in our body, as was generally known. Menstruation could sometimes be triggered solely by fright. Likewise, the lochia, the circulation of the juices, could be hindered by a shock.77 In all disciplines references to one’s experiences were a means to justify the choice of the respective topic. Rhamacker introduced his legal dissertation with the remark that many people committed suicide in his homeland at the present time.78 The topic, therefore, had an urgency in everyday life, which was the reason why, according to the author, it was particularly suitable for a disputation. The situation was different with duels, which Rhamacker also discussed as a kind of suicide. In this regard, however, he emphasised that his statements had no practical use in the territory of Frederick III, because the Margrave had completely forbidden duels in 1688.79 Johannes Südeck knew from his own experience about the idolatry of the followers of the Roman church when dealing with events in nearby Cologne, whereas his knowledge of religious practices in Spain, however, was based on an eyewitness report.80 In his Disputationes physicae, Clauberg demonstrated that not every scholar was prepared to accept the recourse to experience and experiment as a central method of gaining knowledge. He approvingly quoted the famous English physicist Robert Boyle on the possibility of a vacuum. Boyle explained that ‘frustra illud impugnari experimentis Physicis, quod Metaphysica demonstratione fultum est’.81 His opponent was Isaac Vossius, who had stated that there could be a vacuum. 75  Ibidem 4. ‘And so at first we have observed a leanness of the whole body. After the skin and abdominal muscles were severed and the peritoneum opened, we found about a pound of putrid water in the abdomen’. 76  Ibidem 6. 77  Ibidem 11. 78  Rhamacker, De Homicidio 1–2. 79  Ibidem 36. 80   Hund – Südeck, De Turpi Idololatria, fol. a3r–v. 81  Clauberg, Disputationes physicae 62. ‘[…] it is futile to want to fight what is supported by metaphysical evidence through physical experiments’. How Clauberg understood the relation between metaphysics and hermeneutics is discussed in Savini, Clauberg.

500

de Boer

The Duisburg scholar thought little of this and asked rhetorically: ‘At quis tam parum est Metaphysicus, ut communem illam notionem, Non entis nulla esse accidentia, comprehendere nequeat?’82 According to Clauberg, all explanations of how a vacuum could be created ignored this principle. Not surprisingly, many authors referred to historical events according to the idea of historia magistra vitae. For Caspar Theodor Summermann, it was not only the history of ancient Rome that showed that the state of society depended on equality of law being practiced in all things.83 If harmony and equality were therefore of great importance for every civic society, this would apply in particular to the Holy Roman Empire which united different religious communities.84 After the unrest caused by the Reformation and the resistance of the Catholics, a more peaceful era had finally dawned with the peace of Münster and Osnabrück. Against this background, the Imperial Chamber Court in Wetzlar had the task of rejecting discord carried into the Empire from the outside world. The experience of historical change could also be used as an argument. In his legal disputation, Schwackenberg recalled that the statements of Roman law could only be transferred to present times to a limited extent because the legal powers of public officials had changed since the times of ancient Rome.85 The recent past as positioned between knowledge gained through personal experience and reading was often used in the disputations as an argument. Theological disputations repeatedly turned to recent church history as a frame of reference to justify their interpretations of the Bible. The recollection of how the Jewish exegetes disagreed about the interpretation of Dan. 11,36–39 had made it clear to Heinrich Hulsius that other sources of knowledge were necessary to understand the meaning of the prophet’s words.86 He himself suggested that the section in question was about the Antichrist. To justify his point, he related Daniel’s prophecies to more recent historical events. He did not content himself with the general history of the great empires from ancient Syria via Egypt to Rome, but enriched his argument with numerous details, especially on Roman and medieval history. The Reformation also found its place in his narrative. Hulsius described it as a struggle in the history of 82  Ibidem 61. ‘But who is such a bad metaphysicist that he cannot understand the notion that there are no accidents of the non-being?’ 83  Summermann, De Paritate Religionis 10. ‘Conditionem Rerumpublicarum paulo penitius consideranti, illud cumprimis ad illarum conservationem necessarium occurret, ut omnia in illis aequalitate juris exacte observata fiant procedantve’. 84  Ibidem 11. 85  Schwackenberg, De Immissionibus 8–9. 86   Hulsius – Koch, De Desiderio Mulierum 4–5.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

501

salvation between the Protestant and Catholic sides, leaving no doubt that the Catholics pursued the cause of the Antichrist. Even the founding of Protestant universities – like the University of Duisburg – became part of this process. For the new universities formed an elite which stood at the head of the church and held office in it. As proof the author quoted the prophet’s word, ‘the wise will teach many’ (Dan 11,33).87 Hulsius demonstrated that a successful exegesis presupposed knowledge of history that should not be limited to antiquity. Rather, ‘contemporary history’ was an essential component of theological knowledge which exegesis could not afford to ignore. In his Dissertatio Historico-Irenica, Samuel Diest tried to find a way to resolve the confessional conflicts that had brought such great misfortune upon Germany during the Thirty Years’ War. However, he did not fill most of the pages with a detailed proposal. Instead he summarised the history of confessional conflicts that broke out after Luther had challenged the Pope. In retrospect, Luther’s own time still appeared relatively peaceful, since at that stage the Reformation camp was largely united. Accordingly, Diest played down the differences between Wittenberg and Zurich that came to light in the 1520s. Instead, he highlighted the religious conversations as a means of resolving theological disagreements with arguments.88 After Luther’s death, harmony quickly gave way to discord. In Diest’s narrative, the main culprit was Matthias Flacius Illyricus whose conflict with Melanchthon and his followers plunged the Reformation movement into a schism. After Melanchthon’s death, the conflicts became even more heated.89 The author and his readers had experienced the devastating effect of the recent religious conflicts as eyewitnesses. For this reason, Diest took the events of the recent past as a central argument for his demand to establish harmony in the Protestant camp as a prerequisite for peace. 6

Argumentation

Many of the disputations examined did not limit themselves to justifying their theses with arguments. Their authors also explained which argumentative strategies they had used and why these could be seen as valid. They also 87  Ibidem 11. ‘A quo prudentes, in eo populo cognoscentium Deum, docebunt multos; Erigebantur enim in reformatione Academiae, in quibus formabantur ii qui Ecclesiis praeficerentur, Ordinabantur et Ministeria in quibus vigebat perpetua coetus instructio’. 88   Diest – Cursius, De Lite et Pace Religiosa Euangelicorum, fol. ††1v–3r. 89  Ibidem, fol. ††3r–4r.

502

de Boer

put a lot of effort into defining the terms used and giving reasons why their definitions were adequate. Explicating one’s way of argumentation was thus a further means of demonstrating that the author was entitled to draw up theses and to support them with arguments. Almost all the disputations analysed first tried to narrow down the respective topic using conceptual clarifications. Philipp Ludwig von Dahlen claimed in his medical disputation De Syncope that the topic had to be treated in four steps, namely definition, case, symptoms and healing method. Therefore, he organised his disputation theses according to this scheme.90 Many of Barbeck’s disputations followed this structure.91 The representatives of other disciplines usually shared Dahlem’s view that the first step in a disputation was to define essential terms. For example, Heinrich Jacob Conte defined generatio as the transformation of an existing being. In a narrower sense, procreation implied all processes in which something emerged from a small seed.92 He added that generatio in the narrower sense always referred to living bodies. In a broader sense, vita means ‘ex proprio internoque principio moveri’ (‘to be moved by one’s own and inner principle’).93 Not content with this, Conte diversified the term according to the prevailing doctrine. Physics distinguished between vegetative, sensitive and rational life. In the following sections, Conte set out to explain under which circumstances life was conceived.94 Johann Arnold Schwackenberg explained why precision was essential for scientific knowledge. Neglect of terminology inevitably led to uncertainty in the knowledge of things. Therefore, he discussed the origin of the words missio and immissio to ensure that there was no ambiguity. This undertaking was difficult because, as Schwackenberg notes, there was no uniform definition either in law or in philology.95 Schwackenberg then cited numerous proposals for definitions from the literature. Instead of checking them, however, he noted that it was impossible to follow them all. Instead, he suggested to distinguish between two meanings of immissio. It could either mean that an authorised magistrate put someone in possession of goods as a pledge, or that another magistrate defined the person who was put in possession in the first sense as

90  von Dahlen Ludwig Philipp (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Medica, De Syncope (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1680) 4. 91  See for example Barbeck – Brauns, De Febrium Differentia; the same structure is used in Severini, De Colica Passione. 92   Barbeck – Conte, De Generatione, fol. a2r. 93  Ibidem, fol. a3r. 94  Ibidem, fol. b1v–b2r. 95  Schwackenberg, De Immissionibus 3–4.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

503

the actual owner if the goods in question were stolen.96 This conceptual distinction enabled Schwackenberg to clarify the legal requirements as to when an immissio had to be executed. Tobias Andreae took a different approach in his medical disputation about epilepsy. He criticised those physicians who all too quickly treated a specific disease as something general in their disputations whereas the philosopher recognised that it was hardly possible to put each individual affect under a general definition. Anyone who turned ‘ad stupendum humani corporis automaton’ (‘to the amazing machine of the human body’)97 would quickly realise that it was composed of infinite parts and movements. Evidently, it was very difficult to determine causal relations between causes and effects in this microcosm. If one wanted to determine the causes of individual affects, one would have to proceed diligently. For a disease could be produced in innumerable different ways. Andreae believed that the human mind was not disposed to fully grasp such complexity. Who, he asked his readers rhetorically, were they to dare to put all phenomena under a general definition in this darkness?98 He, in contrast, was willing to acknowledge his own weakness. Consequently, at the beginning of his investigation, he refrained from conceptually determining the phenomenon of epilepsy in general, but instead discussed concrete cases.99 It is important for many authors to show that they do not act arbitrarily, but according to a rational scheme. This can be justified either epistemologically or metaphysically. Schwackenberg chose the latter strategy. He declared to have built his argumentation according to the ordo materiae. First of all, he dealt with the officials who were able to put someone in possession of foreign goods. He then turned to the creditors as persons who could be employed.100 Andreae chose Aristotle’s principle as the methodological basis for his reflections on the nature of comets: according to the Greek philosopher, natural

96  Ibidem 6. 97  Andreae, Disputatio Medica, fol. a2r. 98  Ibidem. ‘Quare cum unus idemque morbus tot et tam diversis modis produci possit, modis, inquam, quorum maxima pars se cogitationi hominum subducit, quique a minutissimis circumstantiis innumeris numeris variabilibus pendent, ac proinde humana mente indagari non possunt, quem, quaeso, esse putas, qui in tanta mortalium caligine hoc attinget, ut tot causarum farraginem aut sub una generali definitione, ut Iliadem in nuce, concludat; aut ad minimum ejus integram naturam unius disputatiunculae Gyaris concludat?’ 99  Ibidem, fol. a3r. 100  Schwackenberg, De Immissionibus 13.

504

de Boer

history was obliged to examine the birth and origin of things.101 For his investigation, this meant not being content with a superficial view but penetrating into the innermost nature of things. To explain his approach, Ludwig Philipp von Dahlen chose the image of a lapis lydius (tasting stone). He wanted to proceed in three steps: first, the nature of the flammable had to be investigated, then he had to determine which material was flammable, and finally which substances passed from the limbs through the veins to the heart. Fortunately, he could dispense with the first step since this topic had already been disputed under Barbeck’s presidency in 1678.102 Dahlen referred the benevolent reader to the remarks made at that time. Consequently, he limited his discussion to the second and third point. Only a few authors proceeded strictly syllogistically. An exception was Südeck who used a syllogism to prove that the popes worshipped the sacrament of the Eucharist: ‘Quicunque divinum cultum exhibent ei quod non est Deus, spiritualis scortationis seu idololatriae rei sunt, pontificii diuinum cultum exhibent ei quod non est Deus, ergo pontificii idololatriae rei sunt.’103 In other disputations, authorities assumed a similar function to the syllogisms used by Südeck. Thus, Johann Masschop in most cases quoted a legal source first, and then, after introducing his further remarks with the phrase ratio est, explained its validity in detail. In this form, he discussed how inheritance law has to be applied when a deceased had left several brothers and sons.104 Alternatively, he referred to a sentence and then added evidence and reasons to prove it.105 Clauberg reflected on the argumentative basis of his remarks in particular detail. In his disputation about the Trinity, he pondered whether it would be possible for man to recognise the Trinity with only natural reason if God had not revealed it to him. Clauberg’s answer was negative at first. However, he then explained what he considered to be the task of theology as science. Divine revelation enlightened the human mind. Therefore, he was able to find rational reasons which did not prove the Trinity but could nevertheless demonstrate

101  Andreae, Disputatio Philosophica, fol. a2r–v: ‘Ut autem praepositam metam felicius attingamus, arrisit nobis prae aliis methodus illa Aristotele L. I. de Rep. c. 2 tradita, qua res non ut ortas omnemque suam perfectionem adeptas, sed tanquam nascentes et orientes contemplamur’. 102  von Dahlen, De Syncope 6. 103   Hund – Südeck, De Turpi Idololatria, fol. a3v. ‘He who worships something that is not God commits spiritual fornication or idolatry. The followers of the popes do worship something other than God. So they are idolatrous’. 104  Masschop, De Successione Ab Intestato Veteri Et Nova, fol. e3r. 105  Ibidem, fol. f4r.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

505

the trinitarian structure of God to be logically and ontologically possible.106 In this way, they eliminated obvious contradictions and resolved further challenges that the opponents of the true doctrine pointed out. Clauberg strove to meet this demand with his disputations. The comparison between the resurrection and a book used natural reason to prove that the resurrection was not impossible. If this was true, then it could be brought about by God. For God could do everything that was not impossible. Clauberg’s tendency to make fundamental considerations about the status and systematics of science in his disputations was also evident in his Disputationes physicae. As the author reported, he wrote these ‘more in Scholis recepto’ (‘in the manner customary in schools’)107 so that it might be used in the teaching of younger students. In a series of disputations, he not only systematically dealt with the basic canon of physics such as body, space and movement. He also intended to prove that philosophy was the fundamental discipline in the system of sciences. To do this, he used the image of a tree. Just as the condition of the whole tree and all its parts depended on the roots, so medicine and jurisprudence depended on philosophy. Many pursued these disciplines without philosophy, e.g. when they derived laws from the will of a prince in jurisprudence or followed observations and experience in medicine. ‘[…] nemo tamen praeclarum et solidum quid in iis praestare novit, nisi Philosophiae praeceptis imbutus ante fuerit.’108 True jurisprudence was based on moral philosophy, moral philosophy along with medicine on physics, physics in turn on metaphysics. Only those who had sufficient philosophical knowledge were entitled to practice medicine and jurisprudence. According to Clauberg, theology was in need of philosophy. For philosophy provided argumentation techniques, rules for logical reasoning and conceptual precision. Theology, therefore, did not take its principles from philosophy, but rather they were provided by Revelation. However, with the help of philosophy, it was possible to eliminate contradictions and ambiguity and to refute critics of true 106  Clauberg, De SS. Trinitate Disputationes 25: ‘Sed quemadmodum Sole orto visus noster et plura attingit et longius penetrat, quam nocte possit solis adjutus lucernis: ita divinae revelationis radiis illuminatus animus atque ad investigandum excitatus videtur rationes quasdam adinvenire posse, quae si non demonstrent hoc mysterium, saltem illud probabile reddant, et a contradictione manifesta, quam perpetuo objiciunt adversarii, liberent, multoque difficilius, quam ipsorum argutiae, solvi possint; quae denique licet non afferant omnimodam assentiendi necessitatem, incutiant tamen haut levem dissentiendi pudorem’. 107  Clauberg Johannes, “Disputationes physicae”, in idem, Opera omnia philosophica, ed. Johann Theodor Schalbruch (Amsterdam, Daniel Elzevir: 1691) 160. 108  Ibidem 53. ‘No one can know what proves to be clear and firm in these disciplines if they are not first immersed in the rules of philosophy’.

506

de Boer

doctrine. Through his use of concepts and reasons Clauberg’s disputations demonstrated what an outstanding philosopher he was. He thus gained the right to judge the findings of the other disciplines, to critically evaluate their methods and to formulate expectations. In his disputations Clauberg did not content himself with reflections on their conditions of possibility. Such reflections did not just aim at ensuring the author’s authorisation to submit disputations. Rather, they reached far beyond the moment of communication by making use of a very broad spectrum of theoretical scientific arguments. Clauberg’s goal was to demonstrate and defend his entitlement to use Cartesian philosophy as a means to bring order to the entire system of science. Not only did he strive for an entitlement to take part in scientific disputes, but he also sought acceptance for his bid to establish rules of speech for the sciences as a whole. It was his belief that it was the philosopher’s task to examine both entitlement and commitment in any discipline. To this end, he not only committed himself to positions but also staged his entitlement as a philosopher and theologian to judge how good science could be done in general. This aim goes far beyond the more modest goal of this paper. To make claims about Clauberg’s philosophical system, to judge its contemporary relevance, and to relate it to the other concepts and ideas of the Duisburg scholars is not one of the commitments that the author of these lines would like to accept. Selected Bibliography Andreae Tobias (Resp.), Disputatio Philosophica Inauguralis Explicans Naturam et Phaenomena Cometarum (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1659) (VD17 14:072922R). Andreae Tobias (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis Explicans Casum Epilepticum (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1659) (VD17 14:692939V). Bachmann Johannes Gottfried (Pr.) – Hanstein Friedrich Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Theologica De Messia, Eiusque Negotio (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1698) (VD17 28:733013Z). Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – a Woringen Arnoldus Augustinus (Resp.), Disputatio Medica De Phthisi (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1671) (VD17 7:693931P). Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Becher Johannes Bernhard (Resp.), Disputatio De Sanguinis Corporis Humanis Purificatione Nec Non Rectificatione, Humorumque Excretorum Usu (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1686) (VD17 23:278417A). Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Conte Heinrich Jacob (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Prima, De Generatione (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1691) (VD17 32:669204V).

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

507

Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Schombart Johannes Theodor (Resp.), Disputatio Medica De Generatione Animalium (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1693) (VD17 547:650319C). Barbeck Friedrich Gottfried (Pr.) – Brauns Bernhard Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio Medica, De Febrium Differentia Ac Natura (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1696) (VD17 7:693930F). von Becker Conrad Hermann (Resp.), De Contrahenda Emptione (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700) (VD17 14:021563G). Clauberg Johannes, “Disputationes physicae”, in idem, Opera omnia philosophica, ed. Johann Theodor Schalbruch (Amsterdam, Daniel Elzevir: 1691) 53–160. Clauberg Johannes, “De resurrectione disputationes”, in idem – Hund Martin, Disputationes selectae, quibus controversiae fidei adversus omnis generis adversarios, praecipue Socinianos et Pontificios (speciatim novos Methodistas Veronianos) explicantur: et non paucae in ecclesia recens motae quaestiones enodantur (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1665) 1–13. Clauberg Johannes, “De SS. Trinitate disputationes”, in idem – Hund Martin, Disputationes selectae, quibus controversiae fidei adversus omnis generis adversarios, praecipue Socinianos et Pontificios (speciatim novos Methodistas Veronianos) explicantur: et non paucae in ecclesia recens motae quaestiones enodantur (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1665) 13–97. von Dahlen Ludwig Philipp (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Medica, De Syncope (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1680) (VD17 29:730149G). Diest Samuel (Pr.) – Cursius Johannes – Leschen Theodor – Wasmunt Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertatio Historico-Irenica. De Lite et Pace Religiosa Evangelicorum: Tribus distincta segmentis (Arnheim, Hagen: 1663) (VD17 23:646982A). Holtman Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis, De Hemitritaea (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1680) (VD17 7:683925K). Hulsius Heinrich (Pr.) – Koch Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio Theologica Paradoxa De Desiderio Mulierum, et Deo Mausim, ad locum Dan. XI: vs. 37. et 38 (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1694) (VD17 3:316621W and 28:733018N). Hund Martin (Pr.) – Südeck Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Catholica De Turpi Idololatria (Duisburg, Adrian Wyngaerden: 1661) (VD17 1: 08126G). Hund Martin, “De verbo Dei disputatio”, in Clauberg Johannes – Hund Martin, Disputationes selectae, quibus controversiae fidei adversus omnis generis adversarios, praecipue Socinianos et Pontificios (speciatim novos Methodistas Veronianos) explicantur: et non paucae in ecclesia recens motae quaestiones enodantur (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1665) 98–145. Kirberg Johann Wilhelm (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Theoretico-Practica Inauguralis, De Oblatione, Obsignatione et Depositione Pecuniae debitae (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1690) (VD17 3:694007V).

508

de Boer

Kloeckhof Balthasar (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis, De Casu Fortuito (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700) (VD17 1:004497H). Löbbecke Zacharias (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica, De Mora (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1674) (VD17 14:668621C). Masschop Johann (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis De Successione Ab Intestato Veteri Et Nova (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1666) (VD17 3:693910T). von Mastricht Gerhard (Pr.) – Wasserbach Ernst Casimir (Resp.), Dissertatio Historica De Origine Vetustissimi Lippiensis agri Monumenti Hermiensburgk Et Hermiensul, Veterum Saxonum Idoli (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1686) (VD17 14:080786U). Rhamacker Johann Theodor (Resp.), Dissertatio Inauguralis Iuridica, De Homicidio (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1697) (VD17 3:694091H). Schmedes Arnold (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Medica. De Chordapso (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1697) (VD17 7:690491N). Schneider Benjamin (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis, De Reticentia (Duisburg, Franz Sas: 1671) (VD17 3:693915F). Schwackenberg Johann Arnold (Resp.), Disputatio Iuridica Inauguralis De Immis­ sionibus (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1698) (VD17 23:625736B). Severini Hermann Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio Medica Inauguralis De Colica Passione (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1699) (VD17 7:693937K). Speckmann Johann Stephan (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica De Condictione Indebiti (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1700) (VD17 3:692324T). Summermann Caspar Theodor (Resp.), Disputatio Inauguralis Iuridica De Paritate Religionis In Augustissimo Camerae Imp. Iudicio Observanda (Duisburg, Johann and Alexander Sas: 1699) (VD17 3:694092R). Brandom R., Making It Explicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment (Cambridge, MA: 1998). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: the Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities 19, 2 (2004) 129–187. Geuenich D. – Hantsche I. (eds.), Zur Geschichte der Universität Duisburg, 1655–1818. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium veranstaltet im Oktober 2005 anläßlich des 350. Jahrestages der Gründung der alten Duisburger Universität, Duisburger Forschungen 53 (Duisburg: 2007). Komorowski M., Bibliographie der Duisburger Universitätsschriften 1652–1817 (Sankt Augustin: 1984). Komorowski M., “Duisburger Universitäts- und Personalschriften des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts”, in Garber K. (ed.), Stadt und Literatur im deutschen Sprachraum der Frühen Neuzeit, Vol. 1 (Tübingen: 1998) 156–181.

ON DISPUTATIONS IN DUISBURG IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

509

Komorowski M., “Zum Promotionswesen an der alten Universität Duisburg”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 187–194. Komorowski M., “Das Promotionswesen an den Universitäten Königsberg und Duisburg. Ein Vergleich”, in Müller R.A. – Liess H.C. – Vom Bruch R. (eds.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 303–318. Komorowski M., “Duisburger Medizinstudenten 1652–1704”, Duisburger Forschungen 58 (2012) 415–446. Marti H., “Dissertationen”, in Rasche U. (ed.), Quellen zur frühneuzeitlichen Universitätsgeschichte. Typen, Bestände, Forschungsperspektiven, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 128 (Wiesbaden: 2011) 293–312. Ring W., Geschichte der Universität Duisburg. Mit einem Lageplan (Duisburg: 1920). Roden G. von, Die Universität Duisburg. Mit einem Beitrag von Hubert Jedin “Der Plan einer Universitätsgründung in Duisburg”, Duisburger Forschungen 12 (Duisburg: 1968). Savini M., Johannes Clauberg. Methodus Cartesiana et ontologie (Paris: 2011). Searle J.R., The Construction of Social Reality (London: 1995). Trevisiani F., Descartes in Deutschland. Die Rezeption des Cartesianismus in den Hochschulen Nordwestdeutschlands, Naturwissenschaft, Philosophie, Geschichte 2 (Vienna – Münster: 2011). Verbeek Th. (ed.), Johannes Clauberg (1622–1665) and Cartesian Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century, Archives internationales d’histoire des idées 164 (Dordrecht et al.: 1999). Weijers O., In Search of Truth. A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times, Studies in the Faculty of Arts 1 (Turnhout: 2013).

Chapter 19

Forms of Disputation and Didactics: Examples from Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools in the 17th and Early 18th Century Stephanie Hellekamps and Hans-Ulrich Musolff Summary Disputation was practised in the early-modern period not only at universities, but also in the senior classes of grammar schools. Disputation served to identify what had been taught and what the pupil had learned. In our study of disputations which were held at Westphalian grammar schools we focus on the period between the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the first third of the 18th century. The disputation could take different forms. We will distinguish three here: (1) Theses nudae (short, concise theses), (2) partly explained theses which were interspersed with many bibliographical references to ancient and modern philosophical and theological authorities, and (3) essays which unfold their arguments in any detail. The following examines whether these forms are related to different didactic ideas and how a teacher understood himself philosophically. Did a philosophical preference for Aristotle or for Descartes on the part of the teacher influence his form of disputation and his didactic ideas? We will investigate this question by looking at the different didactic models of enactment used by teachers, which we will extrapolate in particular from the form of disputation that they favoured. These different didactic models can be described as follows: the call to explain, direct instruction, philosophical meditation, close textual reading. Regardless of their respective philosophical preferences, and regardless of their denominational differences, what united the teachers of the various Westphalian grammar schools was their desire to help their pupils assume a rational and theoretically informed attitude towards the world.

Disputation was practised in the early-modern period not only at universities, but also in the senior classes of grammar schools. Disputation served to identify what had been taught and what the pupil had learned. On the one hand, it helped the praeses to raise his academic and didactic profile before the city audience attending the disputation, thereby giving the school a certain prestige.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_020

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

511

On the other, it enabled the pupil to show his level of achievement, to continue his academic training at a university, and to recommend himself through dedications to possible patrons. The disputation could take different forms. We will distinguish three here, and investigate whether these forms are related to different didactic ideas and how a teacher understood himself philosophically. In doing so, we focus on the period between the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the first third of the 18th century. The forms of disputation cultivated at Westphalian grammar schools during this period were not new, and nor did they claim any originality. Firstly, there are examples of disputations in the style of theses nudae, which are prints of a few pages in a quarto format. The respondent apparently had the task here of explaining the academic background to the theses. Examples of such disputations have been passed down from the Catholic grammar school of Paulinum in Münster, as well as from the Lutheran grammar schools of Dortmund and Soest, and from the Reformed grammar school of Steinfurt. The second type of disputation is the most common. Here, partly prepared and explained theses could be interspersed with numerous bibliographical references to citation authorities and text passages from other authors. Such disputations are available in particular at the Lutheran grammar schools of Dortmund and Soest, but also at the Catholic Paulinum and the two Reformed grammar schools of Hamm and Steinfurt. The third form of disputation also orders its propositions into theses, and often numbers them. But these propositions are already explained in detail in the printed version, so that the entire text assumes the character of an essay with a clearly developed line of reasoning. The examples that we have of this form come from the grammar schools of Hamm and Soest. Our question is: did a philosophical preference for Aristotle or for Descartes on the part of the teacher influence his form of disputation and his didactic ideas? We will investigate this question by looking at the different didactic models of enactment used by teachers, which we will extrapolate in particular from the form of disputation that they favoured: the call to explain, direct instruction, philosophical meditation, close textual reading. In doing so, we assume an understanding of didactics that includes the goals, contents and methods of teaching. 1

The Call to Explain

Comparatively few disputations have been handed down from the grammar school Paulinum Monasteriense, the most important and largest grammar

512

Hellekamps and Musolff

school in the prince-bishopric of Münster (founded in 797).1 The 45 disputations preserved from the Jesuit period (1588–1773) are sometimes composed in the style of theses nudae, and sometimes represent the second type of the more detailed disputation.2 The type of theses nudae condenses its propositions in short theses on philosophical and theological issues. This type of text is clearly represented by the 1647 disputation Theses ex universa philosophia Aristotelica, by the Münster praeses Philipp Langenkamp (1611–1669).3 Langenkamp had himself been a pupil at Paulinum and been awarded a doctorate in theology from the University of Trier. The philosophy taught at Paulinum was inspired at least until the mid-18th century by Aristotle. Langenkamp and his six respondents discussed logical, physical, and metaphysical theorems of Aristotle, therefore by no means presenting theses from Aristotle’s entire philosophy.4 Instead, the disputation refrained from discussing political or ethical issues, although envoys at the Westphalian peace negotiations were present at the two-day oral disputation. By restricting itself to issues of theoretical philosophy, the disputation met the stipulations for the studia superiora laid down by the Jesuit Ratio studiorum. Condensed into 50 theses, the line of reasoning shows striking similarities to the Disputationes metaphysicae of Francisco Suárez (1548–1617).5 This becomes clear, for instance, in how the texts define the ens reale and in how they discuss the theory of possibles, or of possible being.6 Both authors emphasize 1  See Coenen J., “Die Bibliothek des ehemaligen Jesuitenkollegs in Münster”, in Oesterreich H. (ed.), Bibliothek in vier Jahrhunderten (Münster: 1988) 11–49. 2  On the differences, see Marti H., “Disputation”, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Vol. 2 (Tübingen: 1994) 866–880, see 870. See the overview provided by Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R., “Einleitung”, in Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), with help from Marti-Weissenbach K., Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800. (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017) 9–41, see 10–11. 3  Langenkamp Philipp (Pr.) – Thoreick Adolph Heinrich, Dröge Anton, Cörding Johannes, Hamicholt Johannes, Höfflinger Johannes Caspar, Reede zu Brandlecht Johann Heinrich von (Resp.), Theses ex universa philosophia Aristotelica (Münster, Raesfeldt: 1647). Cologne, Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek, signature: 1N541. 4  On the following, see also Musolff H.-U. “Das Ende des Schulhumanismus und die Wiederkehr der Metaphysik an westfälischen Gymnasien‟, in Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U. (eds.), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (Münster: 2009) 11–39, see 14–15. 5  See Musolff, “Das Ende des Schulhumanismus” 29–30. Konstantin Liebrand takes this up in his essay “Zur Rekonstruktion von Metaphysik-Unterricht und Suárez-Rezeption am Paulinum 1647”. We are grateful to him for allowing us to draw on his unpublished typescript. 6  See Liebrand, “Zur Rekonstruktion” 8. See also Suárez Francisco, “Disputationes Metaphysicae”, in Berton C. (ed.), Opera omnia XXV (Paris: 1866; reprint, Hildesheim: 1965), Thesis 31; see Thesis 45 in Langenkamp.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

513

that actual being has real essence, whereas merely possible being possesses real essence only if it has been created by God.7 However, while they concur here, the two authors differ when it comes to the question of the synonymy of essence and existence, with Suárez arguing against seeing the two terms as synonyms, and Langenkamp arguing for. But, despite this difference, it is clear from the style of Langenkamp’s line of reasoning that he was guided by Suárez’s train of thought. This is linked to Langenkamp’s ultimate teaching goal: namely, to use Aristotelian metaphysics as taught through the contemporary discussion of issues to open a conceptual horizon to his pupils where they could learn to understand themselves.8 For Langenkamp, all things and creatures that have real essence and whose existence is defined by this real essence have their place in a well-ordered, homogeneous space; the task of pupils is to recognize this, and to practise a contemplative attitude, an attitude of theoria. Langenkamp’s aim was not only to familiarize his pupils with metaphysics as a science, but also to help them develop an appropriate manner of living. Understood like this, Aristotelian metaphysics was for him a theory of wisdom. Langenkamp had with Suárez’s Disputationes metaphysicae a sophisticated overview to hand, one that was prevalent across denominations and was suited to opening an appropriate horizon of reflection. Suárez’s disputations were available in the library of the Jesuit College from 1621 at the latest.9 We can assume that Langenkamp presented and discussed with his pupils in class the explanations on the 50 theses in question also drawn from Suárez. The disputation exemplifies the fact that there was not yet the demand for these explications to be written.10 At the same time, the carefully formulated theses testify to the fact that ‘the printed thesis had gained independence from the oral disputation’.11 Contemporaries realized after all 7  On the following, see also Liebrand, “Zur Rekonstruktion” 3–8. 8  On the following, see also Musolff, “Das Ende des Schulhumanismus” 31–32. 9  We know this from the handwritten catalogue of 1794, which is stored in the University of Münster library and is also now available as a digitized version: http:sammlungen:// ulb.uni-muenster.de/hd/content/titleinfo/4082310 (accessed on 9 August 2017). Under “Pars inferior Bibliothecae”, no. 1391, there is the entry “Suarez Francisci opera omnia […] 1621”. See Liebrand, “Zur Rekonstruktion” 1. See Coenen, “Die Bibliothek des ehemaligen Jesuitenkollegs”. 10  See Marti H., “Disputation und Dissertation. Kontinuität und Wandel im 18. Jahrhundert”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur (Berlin – New York: 2010) 63–85, see 68–70. See also Marti H., “Die Disputationsschriften – Speicher logifizierten Wissens”, in Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin – Boston: 2015) 203–241. 11   Marti – Sdzuj – Seidel (eds.), “Einleitung” 10; our translation.

514

Hellekamps and Musolff

that if anything it would be the printed texts that survived. Nevertheless, it was the oral disputation with its speech performances that took centre stage on 6 and 7 June 1647. The task of the respondents was to explain the elliptical, terse and shortened theses with which they were presented, as well as their specific terminology; to place each one in its respective theoretical context; and to defend them through argument (or, in the case of those playing the opponent role, to attack them). Even if contemporaries sometimes criticized this oral act of disputation as a mere show in which praeses, respondents and opponents simply performed the roles with their speaking parts to which they had previously been allotted, there was nonetheless always the requirement to pass the oral situation of presenting. This requirement was particularly strong in this case, since foreign envoys of the Peace Congress were present. We know through the Diarium Wartenberg that Count Wartenberg and the Mainz envoy Dr Nikolaus Georg Raigersperger were at the grammar school on 6 June 1647.12 But the mere presence of the school audience and invited guests from the city also presented a challenge to the participants. The event could not take place without their understanding the issue at hand and without their presence of mind, at least not without causing embarrassment to all parties concerned. We can therefore assume that what was prepared in class was not only the main points of the disputation, but also the task of making explicit what was implicit in each thesis. Pupils will have been introduced to appropriate interpretation strategies, and to weigh the relatively abstract theses in terms of for and against. It therefore appears that the demand on pupils to explain theses nudae was part of Langenkamp’s didactic concept. But we cannot conclude from the texts available precisely which methodological measures that he took were linked to this demand. Accordingly, the extent of pupils’ participation in explaining and defending theses remains unclear. Disputations in the style of theses nudae were not tied to the Aristotelian focus of a teacher, but could also be accompanied, for example, by a Ramistic preference. A striking example is provided by the Theses disputationis logicae on the theory of causes, which were presented at the Reformed Steinfurt grammar school of Arnoldinum in 1601. The Aristotelian theory of causes in its modified version proposed since 1565 by Pierre de la Ramée (1515–1572) was discussed in exactly 100 theses, some of which consist of only a single-line sentence.13 Petrus Ramus had already issued a warning in his Dialecticae that 12  See Foerster J. (ed.), Diarium Wartenberg. Part 2: 1647–1648, Acta Pacis Westphalicae; Series III Part C; 3 (Münster: 1988) 892. 13  Hausmann Hermann (Pr.) – Bruman Hermann (Resp.), Theses disputationis logicae doctrinam causarum rotunde et dilucide explicantes (Steinfurt, Caesar: 1601). Berlin,

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

515

would later return as a rule in Descartes’ Discours de la méthode: namely, to recognize nothing as true that has not previously been checked objectively for its truth.14 The headmaster of the Lutheran grammar school in Soest, Hermann Nicephorus (1555–1625), also followed Ramus in formulating his own logical theses, and Nicephorus also tended to present rather terse theses.15 With its numerous references to Biblical passages, as well as to old and contemporary authors, this disputation also marks the transition to the second kind of disputation. 2

Direct Instruction

The type of disputation most often handed down already differs from theses nudae in its printed image. Unlike theses nudae, this type offers a sequence of theses that are mostly organized into coherent sections. These theses often refer to contemporary or ancient citation authorities. We can again ascertain that this type of disputation was used for both philosophical and theological theses, and it was apparently strongly in use at the Lutheran grammar schools in Soest (founded in 1534) and Dortmund (founded in 1543).16 Fifty of these disputations come from the Soest headmaster Johann Wilhelm Harhoff (1643–1708), who professed his appreciation for the philosophy of the ‘ancients’, and 95 from the Dortmund superintendent Christoph Scheibler (1589–1653), who represented Lutheran orthodoxy. It is Harhoff’s successor, Justus Wesselus Rumpaeus (1676–1730), who interests us here. Rumpaeus had himself attended the grammar school in Soest, before studying and also teaching at the University of Rostock; he received his doctorate in theology from the University of Greifswald, and was then appointed headmaster in Soest in 1709. We have found 99 disputations by Rumpaeus, 72 of which are grouped

Staatsbibliothek, Haus Unter den Linden, signature: NI 7512; see Denningmann S., “Frühaufklärung in Steinfurt? Logik-Unterricht im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Hellekamps – Musolff (eds.), Schulhumanismus 77–101, see 83–84. 14  See Denningmann, “Frühaufklärung in Steinfurt” 86. 15  Nicephorus Hermann (Pr.) – Brojer Meinhard (Resp.), Theses theologicae et logicae cum quibusdam corollariis (Dortmund, Westhoff: 1605). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.42, 1; see Denningmann S., “Aneignung und Kritik des Ramismus in Soest. Logik-Unterricht im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Hellekamps – Musolff (eds.), Schulhumanismus 43–60. 16  Altogether, and without separating into different types of disputation, we have identified 318 disputations from Soest, and 438 from Dortmund.

516

Hellekamps and Musolff

into three disputation collections,17 with several respondents being involved in each collection.18 After his preface to the reader and before the actual theses, Rumpaeus lists in his collection Institutiones logicae sacrae (published in 1714) the names of the 32 pupils who over several years had been involved as respondents in bringing the volume into existence.19 Rumpaeus also indicates exactly which sections were assigned to a respondent. Thus, Eberhard Krede from Soest was responsible in 1709 for defending § 1: ‘De Usu et Abusu Logicae in Theologia’. This is kept particularly short with exactly 17 lines – too short to deal in any depth with the actual subject (the use and misuse of logic in theology). Instead, referring to among others the Dutch Calvinist theologian and professor of rhetoric and history Gerhardus Johannes Vossius (1577–1649), the thesis argues that logic is important in the ‘philosophical disciplines’, including the humaniora, and is the gateway (‘ianua’) to truth.20 That this was not a new insight is obvious; as is the fact that the respondent remained confined in his part to the preliminaries. He did not have to help shape a more complex train of thought, but rather merely to explain briefly an aspect leading to the theme, which could also have occurred in a different context than the one given. In this respect, it did not matter whether he had an overview of the theme, structure or context of the disputation. What the respondent was primarily required to do was demonstrate reproductive memory. That the retention of a text’s key statements actually was important to Rumpaeus is shown by his practice of dictation ad calamum (into the reed pen).21 In the school’s course catalogue (1709) he also announced that he would give his pupils versus mnemonicos (summarizing memory jingles) to help them interpret the New Testament.22 The pupils will have drawn on these memory 17   For further evidence, see Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U., “Zwischen Katechese und Cartesianismus. Didaktik und Methodik am Soester Gymnasium zur Zeit der Frühaufklärung”, in Musolff H.-U. – Hellekamps S. (eds.), Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien in der frühen Neuzeit. Neue Studien zu Schule und Unterricht 1600–1750 (Münster: 2014) 199–224, see 201–202. 18  Such collections have been handed down also from the school in Dortmund. On the question of authorship, see most recently Philipp M., “Konstellationen und Kontexte”, in: Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 87–144, see 92–95. 19  Rumpaeus Justus Wesselus, Institutiones logicae sacrae Latino-Germanicae, recentiorum menti accommodatae (Frankfort on the Main, Joh. Adolph Stock: 1714). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 5 133. 20  Rumpaeus, Institutiones logicae sacrae 1–2. 21  Ibidem 2 v. 22  Series lectionum trium superiorum classium archi-gymnasii Susatensis. Soest 1709. [1] Bl. Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.52, 38; see Hellekamps – Musolff, “Zwischen Katechese und Cartesianismus” 206.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

517

jingles, if Rumpaeus, as announced in the course catalogue, checked the learning contents of his logical-theological colloquium on a monthly basis.23 The typographical form of Rumpaeus’ textbooks was also intended to help his pupils memorize and retain the content. Important doctrines in his collection of disputations, Institutiones logicae sacrae, and his textbook Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae (1712),24 are set in bold and also translated into German, thereby breaking the continuous Latin text. The texts are written for pupils, and not for scholars, as Rumpaeus explained.25 Rumpaeus endeavoured to make his teaching materials effective. He used his textbooks, to which his disputation collections also by definition belong, in the classroom for propaedeutic purposes. And, in fact, his textbooks were used as books in teaching, as the signs of use in the surviving copies in Soest show.26 In their recurring question-and-answer structure, the textbooks presented a theme in such a way that the attention of pupils was directed to what the teacher considered essential. This apparently catechetical question-andanswer structure even marks the handwritten commentary that can be found in one of the two surviving copies of the textbook Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae. Pupil-friendly definitions and subdivisions with questions and answers, and in one place even denoted with a handwritten ‘Re.’ for ‘respondens’ or ‘responsio’, mark the annotated book that we are examining.27 Each empty right or left page of the book offered space for glosses and were probably written on by one of Rumpaeus’ pupils – namely, by Heinrich Dietmar vom Damm, who in 1725 identified himself as the owner of the book by writing his name on the title page. The comments are in terms of content coherent overall and are also written neatly. It therefore does not appear here as though a pupil had sat at his desk at home, pondering long and hard, making a few attempts, crossing out what he had written and starting yet again – before eventually posing the right questions and finding the appropriate answers. The second surviving copy of the Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae was also glossed very neatly and in a uniform handwriting.28 We can assume in this case, too, that the writer 23  Series lectionum. 24  Rumpaeus Justus Wesselus, Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae Latino-Germanicae, nova methodo adornatae (Frankfort on the Main, Joh. Adolph Stock: 1712). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: S z 1 ru 2. 25  Rumpaeus, Institutiones logicae sacrae 3 v. 26  On these distinctions, see Baldzuhn M., Schulbücher im Trivium des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Die Verschriftlichung von Unterricht in der Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der “Fabulae” Avians und der deutschen “Disticha Catonis” vol. 1 (Berlin – New York: 2009). 27  Rumpaeus, Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae, 3 left. (Here is meant the copy with the signature: S z 1 ru 2). 28  Rumpaeus, Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae (1712). (This second copy handed down and now in the Soest archive has the signature: S z 1 ru 2a).

518

Hellekamps and Musolff

was a pupil of Rumpaeus’. Each comment was presumably dictated in a lesson taught by Rumpaeus, probably in different courses. The handwritten commentary in the volume owned by vom Damm cites early Enlightenment works such as the Meletemata philosophica by Adrian Heereboord (1614–1661), who was close to Cartesianism and was friends with Descartes in Leiden. Extracts from the Meletemata philosophica are sometimes reproduced verbatim. However, the actually interesting corollaria of this text – which defend the theorems of the new philosophy – are not quoted in the handwritten commentary. A copy of the Meletemata philosophica in the improved edition of 1680 has been handed down from Rumpaeus’ library with a handwritten note of ownership.29 Also kept in Soest with a note of ownership is a volume belonging to the also cited Johann Franz Budde.30 Rumpaeus was apparently sympathetic to the contemporary philosophical discussion, professing himself not only to ‘Amicus Aristoteles, Amicus Plato’, but also to ‘Amicus Cartesius’.31 Did this affect how he understood teaching? It is noticeable that, from a didactic point of view, he favoured what was approved in Lutheran philosophy and also methods of direct instruction with a clear learning objective. He divided the object of teaching into manageable units, so that his pupils could understand them and retain them for a longer period of time. This implied a certain methodological narrowing with regard to his pupils. The prescribed structure tied them to the development of each line of reasoning envisaged beforehand by Rumpaeus. In addition, they were presented with model solutions that organized the knowledge that they had to learn into clear theses. That he was methodologically innovative in his teaching is suggested neither by his disputation collections, nor by the comments in his textbooks that he presumably dictated, and nor by the disputation exercises announced in the course catalogue. Disputation exercises were prescribed at the Soest grammar school from the beginning of the 17th century at the latest. The previously mentioned headmaster Nicephorus had submitted in 1620 a school mission statement in 29   Rumpaeus identifies himself on the title page as the purchaser of the book by Heereboord Adrian, Meletemata philosophica in quibus pleraeque metaphysicae ventilantur (Amsterdam, Henricus Wetstenius: 1680). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 11.6. 30  Budde Johann Franz, Elementa philosophiae instrumentalis seu institutionum philosophiae eclecticae (Glaucha-Halle, Typis et impensis Orphanotrophii: 1703). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: V C 12.5. 31  Rumpaeus had printed on the title page of his Institutiones logicae sacrae Aristotle’s motto adapted to the present day, and did not forget the addition: ‘sed magis tamen amica veritas’.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

519

which he also explained that, and how, disputations were to be held at the Archigymnasium. Nicephorus described the disputation as a concertatio (dispute) underpinned by arguments, a dispute in which the truth of a thesis is to be examined in the alternation of objectio (objection) and probatio (approval), oppositio (opposition) and responsio (reply).32 Disputation exercises should take place in classes every week; public disputations with invitations to all teachers and other scholars, every month. The Scholastica emphasized the orality of such a disputation in recurring terminology that foregrounded the speech performance. This corresponds to Rumpaeus’ apparent division of the disputations according to performance into manageable speech portions for the individual respondents, whose mental capacity he trusted to varying degrees. But Rumpaeus probably did not only tend in his teaching to favour instruction, but also allowed more open discussions and independent work on the part of his pupils. He repeatedly emphasized that his teaching would also have ‘freer discussion’ to provide a ‘more fruitful clarification’ of issues (‘uberiorem dilucidationem liberiori reseruaturus discursui’).33 In addition, the disputation De mente humana (1726), which Rumpaeus presided over and which was with Heinrich Dietmar vom Damm, also shows his willingness to grant considerable freedom to a gifted pupil.34 This text is very different from the thetical style that Rumpaeus otherwise adopted in other disputations. The disputation that vom Damm presented on the occasion of his philosophy exam, where he appeared as a ‘Responsurus Auctor’, offers a line of reasoning developed into a text of 26 printed pages.35 The text deals in a critical but non-polemical manner with a number of important early Enlightenment writers. Vom Damm probably benefited from the freer discussions announced by Rumpaeus. Before presenting his theses, he presumably also took part in that form of instruction-oriented teaching that his teacher Rumpaeus had used a few years earlier to prepare his pupils for their participation in the disputation collections. The step-by-step approach that (as far as can be reconstructed) his teacher adopted clearly did 32  Nicephorus Hermann, Scholastica sive scholae descriptio (Soest, Zeisenius: 1620). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: S z 1 nic 1; see Liber II, Ch. XVI. 33  Series lectionum. See also Rumpaeus: Institutiones logicae sacrae 2 v. 34  Heinrich Dietmar vom Damm (1706–?) gave a speech on Noah at the Soest grammar school on 14 September 1725, and disputed on the mens on 18 December 1726. He was a legation secretary in The Hague in 1740, and land judge in Dinslaken in 1753. 35  Rumpaeus Justus Wesselus (Pr.) – vom Damm Heinrich Dietmar (Resp.), Disquisitionem logicam de mente humana eiusque speciatim intellectu […] submittit […] (Soest, Hermann: 1726). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.44, 19.

520

Hellekamps and Musolff

vom Damm no harm, and did not prevent him from working independently. In any case, vom Damm’s disputation realized a type of disputation at the Soest Archigymnasium in the first third of the 18th century that had already existed 25 years earlier at this school and half a century earlier at the academic grammar school of Hamm. 3

Philosophical Meditation

Disputations in the form of discursively argumentative essays emerged especially in the context of a Cartesian-inspired didactics. When in 1667 the then 25-year-old Abraham Gulich (1642–1679) was called from Nijmegen, where he had held an extraordinary professorship in philosophy since 1666, to the Reformed grammar school Hammonensium (founded in 1657), he brought with him the idea of ​​libertas philosophica et christiana.36 Gulich’s academic career, where he had studied at the University of Leiden with scholars such as Johannes de Raey (1622–1702), Abraham Heidanus (1597–1678), and Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669), had brought him into contact with Descartes and Cartesianism. Although Descartes’ philosophy was banned at most universities in the old German Empire until the end of the 17th century, Gulich held disputations on themes related to the new philosophy at the Hammonensium at least twenty times.37 His teaching was not limited to teaching pupils the basic ideas of Cartesian philosophy, however. Rather, Gulich intended to challenge his pupils to embrace mental activities that are constitutive of philosophizing in the spirit of Descartes: clear and distinct concept formation, methodological doubt, and meditative thinking. There is an explicit demand for clearly defined terms in the Disputatio philosophica, de hypothesibus.38 This disputation on the use of hypotheses in physics presents its train of thought in 28 theses. The strict cohesion of the theses suggests that Gulich was the author. This is also supported by the fact that his pupil Fabricius explicitly presents himself as author in the corollaria 36  We can identify 239 disputations from Hamm. 37  On the following as well as for further evidence of Gulich’s disputations, which had previously been considered lost, see also Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U., “Die drei Seiten der Aufklärung in Hamm 1669–1677”, in Hellekamps – Musolff (eds.), Schulhumanismus 126–154. 38  Gulich Abraham (Pr.) – Fabricius Johannes Bernhard (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica, de hypothesibus, more geometrico, in physica, adhibendis (Hamm, Wolphardt: 1669). Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 12.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

521

attached to the 28 theses. Unlike the main text of the disputation, this paratext (Gérard Genette) consists of 14 sometimes very brief theses nudae, which the respondent was evidently tasked with explaining in the oral act of disputation.39 Gulich argues in the main text that hypotheses should be applied more geometrico in physics.40 Instead of the Aristotelian-inspired inductive method, Gulich prefers the mathematically-oriented deductive method of the earlymodern natural sciences. Hypotheses must be formulated clare ac distincte (clearly and distinctly) if they are to be employed and open to verification in terms of their correspondence to reality.41 Fabricius supports the demand for and method of the new science. Besides perspicuitas (perspicacity), he emphasizes brevitas (brevity), and thus the conciseness of expression as the premise and criterion of conceptually sharp thinking.42 He himself demonstrates what he means by this when, referring to Descartes’ Discours, he presents his twelfth thesis thus: Axioma illud: Nihil potest dici quod non dictum sit prius, non est verum. (The axiom: Nothing can be said that has not been said before is not true.)43 Going against the ‘old’ philosophical opinions, which state that only what has already been formulated ‘before’, and preferably in the Aristotelian tradition, can claim to be true and correct knowledge, Fabricius brings to bear new knowledge of the new method – and this clearly and succinctly. He thereby satisfies the stylistic norms of novitas (originality) and brevitas of the early Enlightenment.44 39  On the concept of paratext in disputation, see, for example, Gindhart M., “Erhard Weigels pro-loco Disputation in Jena über den Kometen von 1652. Ein Paradigma für die Polyfunktionalität frühneuzeitlicher Disputationen”, in Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur. Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 482–510, see 486; van Hoorn T., “Geselligkeit im Paratext, Friede im Zitierkartell? Was Heinrich Friedrich Delius zu hören bekam, als er am 31. Oktober 1743 in Halle zum Doktor promoviert wurde”, in: Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur (Berlin – New York: 2010) 269–287. 40   Gulich – Fabricius, Disputatio philosophica, XXVIII. 41  Ibidem XXVI; see also VIII. 42  Ibidem, Cor. 7. 43  Ibidem, Cor. 12. See Descartes René, Discours de la méthode, transl. and ed. L. Gäbe, Philosophische Bibliothek 261 (Hamburg: 1997) 69. (Page number in Adam – Tannery). 44  See Marti, “Die Disputationsschriften” 208.

522

Hellekamps and Musolff

The disputation refers to the forms in which Gulich’s teaching was realized. Where, as in the present disputation and its Corollaria, the criteria of clarity and distinctness are repeatedly demonstrated as being important to conceptually precise thinking and methodologically controlled procedures, the procedure and language of teaching will also have been determined by these criteria. For, at the transitional end of teaching was the disputation, when not only the respondent, but also the (usually unnamed) opponent had to present what they had learned. As a performative act, the disputation functioned as a visible proof of the line of reasoning presented and previously practised in lessons. Gulich and his pupils presented in their disputation De hypothesibus not only the explicit programme of the new science. Also articulated in the disputation, almost as a subtext, is the Enlightenment self-confidence of human understanding, which can explain the mechanism of the world rationally. With its demand for clarity and distinctness, the teaching of philosophy at the Hamm grammar school was designed to train pupils in methods for making use of their own minds. In doing so, Gulich’s didactics repeated the gesture and tone of the Discours de la méthode (1637). As in the Discours, the disputation De hypothesibus also lacks the argument of a deceiving demon that would shatter Enlightenment self-confidence. The didactic staging of the disputation matched the enlightened and optimistic self-image articulated in the disputation. Precisely the same methodological awareness of the new philosophy was demanded of the pupils, with pupils having to speak about, and prove their enlightened mind through, this philosophy. Gulich’s didactic emphases shifted in the years between 1670 and 1674. The Enlightenment confidence expressed through the disputation De hypothesibus had given way to an attitude of scepticism: Gulich could not simply assume that even his pupils were not trapped in the prejudices acquired from childhood without examining these prejudices critically.45 Therefore, in a series of disputations, Gulich made methodological doubt as a condition of possibility of gaining knowledge even more the centre of his reflections. Methodologically controlled conceptual thinking presupposes the willingness to concentrate on the subject of the lesson without being misled by prior opinions, to proceed in a systematic manner, and not to be distracted by anything. Thus, Gulich links independent thinking to a certain attitude and to the intention to arrive at insights. The wish to think independently is stylized into a virtue to be practised.46 45  See the disputation of 2 September 1673. Gulich Abraham (Pr.) – Engelen Gerhardus (Resp.), Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, postulati I, quod est de dubitando scholium (Hamm, Wolphardt: 1673). Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 18; in particular sections VI, X. 46  Gulich Abraham (Pr.) – Schalbruch Johann Theodorus (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de natura, dignitate et utilitate verae philosophiae tum in genere; tum nominatim Cartesianae:

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

523

How can the teacher of philosophy work in such a way that his pupils develop the virtue of wanting to think independently? For Gulich, presentations and discussions between pupils and teacher in the classroom are not enough. Promoting the doubt that questions previous opinions requires the solitude and freedom to reflect, since such doubt can only be achieved by the individual pupil himself. Only he can keep making himself mistrust knowledge that is simply alleged. The teacher can only support, remind and exhort. In order for the pupil to hear the voice of the teacher and not always forget what he has said, Gulich made his voice remain present for the pupil by expanding the didactic space and addressing his pupils not only in class, but also and especially in their own reading. The teacher had certain expectations of the reading pupil: Gulich expected a parte lectorum (of the reader) intellectual abilities such as the power of comprehension, attention, and the capacity for memory and conceptual discernment.47 At the same time, these abilities were to be produced and promoted in the act of reading. Thus, Gulich expressly addressed less the listening audience during the act of disputation and more the individual pupil reading. His disputation with Gerhardus Engelen deals with doubt according to the Cartesian Meditationes de prima philosophia.48 In this disputation, the idea of ​​a deceiving demon is no longer excluded.49 Each section of this disputation begins with the appeal moneo: Moneo, non leviter ac perfunctoriè, sed magno studio tractandam esse hanc Dubitationem. (I warn that this doubt must be practised not casually and perfunctorily, but with great zeal.)50 With his recurring moneo, Gulich wanted to direct his pupils’ reading. At the same time, he addressed his pupils indirectly by presenting them with long (Quae sunt prolegomena in synopsin eiusdem philosophiae) (Hamm, Wolphardt: 1674). Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 11 (Ibidem V). 47  Gulich Abraham (Pr.) – Mettegang Johannes Friedrich (Resp.), Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, definitiones, et postulatum primum, quod est de dubitando (Hamm, Wolphardt: 1673). Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 17 (ibidem, A 2 v). 48  See Gulich – Engelen, Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, postulati I, see in particular VI; see also Gulich Abraham (Pr.) – Westhoff Johannes Hermann (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica, quae est continuatio scholii in postulatum de dubitando, ubi agitur de necessitate atque utilitate dubitationis postulatae, prima (Hamm, Wolphardt: 1674). Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 19 (ibidem II). 49  See Gulich – Engelen, Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, postulati I, X. 50  Ibidem I, IX.

524

Hellekamps and Musolff

quotes from Descartes’ Meditationes and Responsiones (i.e., Descartes’ answers to his critics), and allowing them to speak for themselves. It remained the task of the meditating pupil to decide how long he wanted to ponder on a thought, when he was ready and mentally capable of taking the next step in thought, and the degree to which he had already achieved the required attitude and virtue of independent thinking. The textual form of this disputation served as a medium for the realization of its content, with the text itself becoming the object of meditation. This points to a shift in weight in the practice of disputation: it was no longer the oral act of disputation that was the essential element, but the disputation in its written form. The disputation text should be read by the pupils. By reading and rereading this text, they were to acquire the stoic attitude of reflexive self-distance in the act of practising this attitude. Learners could achieve a state of radical selfexamination only through their own deliberative work on the text. The slowly reading pupil should reach a state of suitable maturity for the cogito argument, which the teacher finally presented to him in a negative formulation: Quis enim unquam non agnovit, Eum qui cogitat, non posse non existere, dum cogitat […]? (Who has indeed never once realized that he who thinks can by no means not exist while he thinks […]?)51 For Gulich (and Descartes), it is only by making this argument his own that the pupil can attain a stable and secure starting point for further reflection. Gulich’s didactic intent was not only to help his pupils free their minds of all errors of opinion and false doctrines of tradition. Rather, it was also to produce precisely that independently thinking and critical individual that the new science required. A science that formulates the conditions of validity for its own propositions and itself establishes the criteria for its claims to truth requires a distanced actor who can argue rationally, one who is willing to commit himself to a way of living that is devoted to the true philosophy. The repeated moneo of the teacher is intended to provoke the self-development of the pupil as a thinking person in the act of reading, as someone who is sceptical towards opinions and trusting towards this true philosophy. The goals, content and methods of Gulich’s teaching were designed to shape this actor. He nonetheless became dogmatic when he tried to impose his truth – or, rather, Descartes’ truth – on 51   Gulich – Schalbruch, Disputatio philosophica de natura, dignitate et utilitate verae philosophiae XII.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

525

his pupils, who had after all learned to doubt everything. He who is encouraged to learn to think for himself cannot be tied to a prescribed truth, and nor to the truth of a philosophy that teaches doubt. Gulich’s didactics therefore did not escape the danger of performative self-contradiction. 4

Close Reading of the Text

A didactic concept based on Descartes implied close reading of the text. By reading a text word-for-word, pupils were to be stimulated to reconstruct the text’s meaning and therefore to think independently. Such philological conclusions arising from a Cartesian didactics were drawn by the Soest deputy headmaster Johann Gottfried Marci (1666–1729). Appointed in 1697 to the Lutheran grammar school in Soest, he filled this post until his death, with everything pointing to the fact that the clerical school authorities prevented this Cartesian from ever being promoted to headmaster.52 For, Marci, who had studied at the University of Jena and attended the Knights’ Academy in Halle where the French emigrant Jean Sperlette (1655–1724 or 1740), a Cartesian, had taught philosophy and mathematics since 1695, did not remain in his teaching within the framework of what Lutheran philosophy considered proven. Rather, he read and discussed with his pupils Descartes’ Passiones animae. As we know from several works by Descartes that have been handed down in Soest, Marci worked very closely on the text. He wrote numerous explanations and comments on the copies that he used.53 This provides us with an insight into his didactic intentions and his methodological approach in the classroom. Thus, the copy of the Passiones animae annotated by Marci testifies to the hermeneutical aspiration of his teaching. Since the Latin edition of this last work by Descartes is a translation from 1650, and did not originate from the author himself and was probably not authorized by Descartes, Marci compared the text form and wording of this Latin version with the original French text. This is shown, for example, by Marci’s expositio ad litteram in the 24th article of the

52  See Musolff H.-U. with the cooperation of Bermges S. and Denningmann S., “Die Säkularisierungsphasen der Oberstufen protestantischer Gymnasien 1660–1708”, in Hellekamps – Musolff (eds.), Schulhumanismus 211–243, see 214–220. 53  That Marci furnished the Passiones animae and other works by Descartes with marginalia becomes clear when we compare handwriting. On the following, as well as on the evidence in the works of Descartes in the Soest city archive, see Hellekamps – Musolff, “Zwischen Katechese und Cartesianismus” 209–218.

526

Hellekamps and Musolff

Passiones animae, which points to the wording ‘in Gall.[ico]’.54 Marci provided more detailed comments on article 17, which deals with the human passions, with the passions, as is written in the French text. In contrast, the Latin translation offers an addition: ‘Passiones sive Affectus’. Marci criticized this addition in an interlinear gloss: additum est hoc ab interprete; sed male, quia Auctor passionum vocabulum hic latius accipit. (This [the addition ‘sive affectus’] was added by the interpreter; but badly, since the author understands the concept of the passions in a broader sense here.)55 For Marci, the interpreter (i.e., the translator) is obscuring in this context the fact that Descartes, the author, is emphasizing the passive element of the passions, the suffering of the soul from its passions. Indeed, Descartes makes an explicit distinction between this passive element of the emotions of the soul and its activities, which are controlled by the will.56 In this context, Descartes is therefore accentuating precisely the element of enduring and suffering that is involved with the passions, in contrast to the wilful acts of the soul. This, Marci complained, is weakened by the addition ‘sive affectus’. What consequences does Marci’s philologically precise textual work have for his teaching? First of all, the three disputations De affectibus that he held in the years between 1700 and 1702 deal with their subject matter in essay form, and thus correspond to the type of disputation that Gulich practised in Hamm. In § 1 of the first disputation, which deals with the physical sides of the affects, Marci takes up the motif of the suffering of the soul from its passions. Passions, he argues, are referred to especially by the Stoics as perturbationes (confusions).57 By confusing man, they diminish his rationality; they befall him. In this respect, they cause ‘body and soul to suffer something’. (‘Item 54  Interlinear gloss provided by Marci in: Descartes René, Passiones animae (Amsterdam, Daniel Elzevir: 1672). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 12.7. 55  Interlinear gloss provided by Marci in: Descartes, Passiones animae, Art. 17. 56  Descartes René, Die Leidenschaften der Seele. French-German, ed. and trans. K. Hammacher (Hamburg: 1996), Art. 17. 57  Marci Johann Gottfried (Pr.) – Wenckbach Johannes Christoph (Resp.), Disputatio de affectibus (Soest, Antonius Utz: 1700). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 167; see Hellekamps – Musolff, “Zwischen Katechese und Cartesianismus” 213, and Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U., “Aufgeklärter Unterricht und cartesische Affektenlehre in Soest um 1700”, in Hellekamps – Musolff (eds.), Schulhumanismus 155–173.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

527

passiones, quia faciunt et corpus et animam pati’.)58 As Marci and his respondent emphasize, this motif returns in the Greek term πάθη (sufferings), too. The conceptual distinctions that Marci made in the close textual reading of § 1 of the first disputation on the affects correspond to his thoughts when he was preparing his lessons. Marci clearly tried to convey to his pupils his own practices of close reading and his manner of travail du texte. The first disputation on the affects testifies to his aspiration that pupils refer to Descartes’ definitions and interpret them in their context in a precise philological manner. Marci’s didactic concept included a hermeneutic approach to the philosophical text. However, we can only speculate about the effects that his hermeneutic exigencies had on actual learning. The style and argumentative structure of the print version of the first disputation De affectibus suggest that Marci was the author of the text, and that his pupil Wenckbach was at all events involved in writing the text. This is similar in the third disputation on the affects, but the second differs stylistically, gives a rather disparate impression, and lacks a consistent conceptual structure.59 We can conclude from this that the respondent’s involvement in the written version of the theses was considerable in this second disputation. Whether and to what extent the didactic demand of close textual reading was met by Marci’s pupils and led to a deeper understanding varies from case to case. 5

Types of Disputation, Philosophical Schools, Didactic Self-Understanding

Although teachers in the 21st century may perhaps be more sympathetic to the practices of a Cartesian didactics than to the methodological narrowness of a lesson structured in a more catechetical way, the question remains as to how effective a Cartesian-inspired lesson actually was. The second Soest disputation on the affects that we quoted is not convincing in this respect. On the other hand, the methods of direct instruction that we can also observe in Soest led to an independent piece of work such as that written by the pupil vom Damm (very probably on his own). But, beyond the question of what effect on learning was exercised by the didactic approach and the methodological 58   Marci – Wenckbach, Disputatio prima de affectibus § 1. 59  Marci Johann Gottfried (Pr.) – Hecker Heinrich Bernhard (Resp.), Disputatio de affectibus (Soest, Antonius Utz: 1701). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 169; and Marci Johann Gottfried (Pr.) – Neuhaus Johannes Christian (Resp.), Disputatio de affectibus (Soest, Antonius Utz: 1702). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 173.

528

Hellekamps and Musolff

decisions of a teacher, we should also address the question posed at the outset: What relationships are there between the philosophical self-understanding of a praeses, his form of disputing, and his didactics? The findings that are available do not allow us to give an unambiguous answer; that much should have become clear. All in all, we can state that theses nudae were predominant at the Westphalian grammar schools that we studied in the first half of the 17th century, and that they could accompany different philosophical orientations on the part of the praeses. We are also unable to identify with any certainty the didactic concept associated with this type of disputation. The type of disputation of theses nudae, as practised by the Catholic praeses Langenkamp,​​ whose Aristotelian manner of thought is already apparent in the title of the disputation, may point both to a step-by-step, guided type of instruction, as well as to open discussions and interpretive freedoms on the part of pupils, at least within a certain frame. The type of theses nudae could also be ascertained among teachers inspired by Ramus (namely, the Lutheran Nicephorus and the Reformed Hausmann); what must also remain unclear is the extent to which their teaching was pre-structured or focused more on the unguided, independent activity of the learners. The only certainty is that theses nudae were to be explicated; it is likely that pupils were faced with the demand to do so in the classroom. It is also difficult to assign the second type of disputation practised at Westphalian grammar schools (i.e., that of partially elaborated theses) to a particular philosophical orientation and to a particular understanding of didactics on the part of the teacher. The evidence cited sometimes fails to disclose a clear preference on the part of the praeses and his respondents for either the ‘old’, more Aristotelian, or for the ‘new’, more Cartesian, philosophy. Occasionally, the author or authors also stress that they are friends of both directions and their protagonists. The theses are located mostly in the context of less vulnerable currents of schools of philosophy, as they were represented at the university centres of the respective denominations. This type can be detected for the entire period studied, and was maintained also in the first half of the 18th century. This is shown by the example of headmaster Rumpaeus, who valued ancient philosophy while at the same time reading more recent and early-Enlightenment authors in a non-polemical way. On the one hand, he used more instructive methods in his teaching and certainly did not limit ‘mnemonic aids’ to the elementary level, but also used them in his senior-level courses.60 On the other, he at least announced freer discussions. Even though 60  It is precisely this restriction that Sigmund Jakob Apin recommends in his didactic reflections (1731), which Marti refers to in “Die Disputationsschriften” 216–217.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

529

there were such discussions, the ratio between open and directed lesson phases remains unclear. At the same time, his example shows that an experienced teacher decided according to the pupil’s situation and level how directive he had to make his teaching, and what freedoms he could grant to his pupils in their own work. In the vast majority of his disputations, and especially in the disputation collections, however, his restriction in terms of content to what was recognized in Lutheran philosophy corresponds to a traditional, teachercentred, methodologically gradual approach. This claim is also confirmed with regard to his predecessor Harhoff.61 The oral act of disputation played a crucial role both in theses nudae and in theses of the second type, with teachers and pupils regularly discussing an issue with each other before an audience. In contrast, the teachers inspired by Descartes presented their disputations as essays that required and demanded an in-depth reflection on complex theoretical relations. This was accompanied by efforts to create new didactic and methodological models. These teachers wanted to meet the demands of the new philosophy in their own teaching practice, too. This is shown by Gulich’s attempts to direct the reflections of his pupils; it is shown also by Marci’s didactics of close textual reading. Thus, both teachers were in tune with contemporary discussions about a Cartesian didactics. As we know, it was primarily discourse participants inspired by Descartes who recommended the written elaboration of a disputation. The Leiden professor of philosophy Arnold Geulincx (1624–1669) and the Basel theologian Samuel Werenfels (1657–1740), both of whom were close to Cartesianism, advocated a type of disputation that saw a train of thought being stringently developed and codified. Concentration on the matter at hand, careful reading, and meditation on the text should take place in the solitude and freedom of reflection. Gulich and Marci tried to design their lessons accordingly. Both saw the didactic challenge as lying in enabling pupils to carry out text work independently. The philosophy teacher Marci clearly looked beyond the Lutheran grammar school Susatensis and across the denominational divide, towards his older colleague from the Reformed grammar school Hammonensium. Marci’s reading of Gulich’s Cartesian didactics is shown by a marginalia in which he refers explicitly to a ‘disputatio Dni. Gulichi’.62 The didactic aspiration that he had developed in his preoccupation with Descartes was formulated by Marci in a marginal gloss to the latter’s Meditationes almost as a programme: 61  See Hellekamps – Musolff, “Zwischen Katechese und Cartesianismus” 220–222. 62  Marginal gloss by Marci on Descartes René, Meditationes de prima philosophia […] cum responsionibus auctoris (Amsterdam, Daniel Elzevir: 1670). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 12.7, Meditationes 6 top right.

530

Hellekamps and Musolff

ita n[empe] docendus est discipulus ut q[ui]s ipse scientiam ex semet ipso inveniat et nihil credere habeat necesse, quod non intelligit. (Therefore the pupil has to be taught in a way that he himself invents knowledge out of himself, and that he does not need to believe anything that he does not understand).63 The praesides of the disputations inspired by Descartes relied on specifying the matter at hand in writing – whether they did the writing themselves to encourage their pupils to read and reread, or whether the writing was the task of the pupils, who would thereby develop their understanding. But the reverse conclusion that the written disputation points to a Cartesian preference would be wrong: the disputation written in essay form can also be proven (besides the already cited text of Rumpaeus’ pupil vom Damm) with regard to Rumpaeus’ pietistic successor as headmaster, Georg Friedrich Movius (headmaster in Soest from 1731–1754) in the 1730s and 1740s.64 A major difference in terms of how teachers thought about their teaching was probably with regard to what they emphasized more: that their pupils went as far as possible into, and internalized, what they learned so that they knew it almost by heart and therefore had command over it in argument; or that they found, or even discovered, a thought through their own reflections. Both the more Cartesian-inspired teachers and those more inclined towards Aristotle and the ‘old’ philosophy, as well as those who did not position themselves clearly in their texts, but instead tried out different possibilities accepted by the respective schools of philosophy, wanted to teach their pupils certain things that they, the teachers, prescribed. Regardless of their respective philosophical preferences, and regardless of their denominational differences, what united the teachers of the various Westphalian grammar schools was their desire to help their pupils assume a rational and theoretically informed attitude towards the world. This applies to Langenkamp’s theses nudae 63  Marginal gloss by Marci on Descartes, Meditationes, at the end of “Praefatio ad lectorem”. 64  For example: Movius Georg Friedrich (Pr.) – Schotte Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Exercitatio theologica de miseria hominum a Deo expiato levanda (Soest, Johannes Georg Hermann: 1739). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: G 12.3, 38; in contrast, another disputation of Movius begins in the style of theses nudae (§§ I–X), which become increasingly more extensive in order to be worked out from § XXIV into sections with a continuous line of reasoning of one printed page each: Movius Georg Friedrich (Pr.) – Justi Philipp Conrad (Resp.), De hominibus Christianis fortibus fortioribus exercitationem ordini erudito pensitandam exhibet (Soest, Johannes Georg Hermann: 1747). Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: G 12.3, 41.

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

531

on the ens reale as well as to Rumpaeus’ logical-theological-metaphysical propaedeutics, Gulich’s training of meditative thinking, and Marci’s hermeneutic understanding of textual work. This rationally founded attitude towards the world required not a type of teaching that was pragmatically grounded, tied to the situation, and related to action and application, but rather a type that was oriented towards theory. Training in philosophical reflection implied not least distancing oneself from the differences and disputes between the denominations. It is no coincidence that the didactics of the grammar-school teachers discussed here were developed at the time of the Peace of Westphalia and by the first post-war generations. These teachers knew that a specific reflective and detached attitude to the perturbations of life was the condition of possibility for a reflexive way of living – one in which the actors, when faced with conflict, favoured discourse. These teachers were also united in having learnt the lesson of the peace agreement of 1648. Selective Bibliography Sources*

*The bibliography of sources is given in accordance with Regeln für die alphabetische Katalogisierung in wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken (Rules of alphabetical catalogization in scientific libraries).

Budde Johann Franz [Elementa philosophiae instrumentalis seu institutionum philosophiae eclecticae] Elementa Philosophiae Instrvmentalis seu Institvtionvm Philosophiae Eclecticae. – Glaucha-Halensis: Typis et impensis Orphanotrophii, 1703. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: V C 12.5. Descartes René [Meditationes de prima philosophia] Meditationes De Prima Philosophia […] Cum Responsionibus Auctoris. – Amstelodami: Apud Danielem Elzevirium, 1670. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 12.7. Descartes René [Passiones animae] Passiones Animae, Per Renatum Des Cartes. – Amstelodami: Apud Danielem Elzevirium, 1672. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 12.7. Gulich Abraham [Praeses], Engelen Gerhard [Respondent]: [Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, postulati I, quod est de dubitando scholium] Primae Philophiae [sic!], More Geometrico Dispositæ, Postulati I, Quod est De Dubitando Scholium: Quod […] Sub Praesidio […] Abrahami Gulichii, Philosophiae et Eloquentiae ordinarii, SS. Theologiae Extra-Ordinarii, in […] Hammonensium Gymnasio, […] defendendum suscipiet Gerhardus Engelen,

532

Hellekamps and Musolff

Groninganus. – Hammonae: Wolphardt, 1673. – [9] Bl.; 4-o. – Hamm, Gymn., Diss., 2.9.1673. – Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 18. Gulich Abraham [Praeses], Fabricius Johannes Bernhard [Respondent]: [Disputatio philosophica, de hypothesibus, more geometrico, in physica, adhibendis] Disputatio Philosophica, De Hypothesibus, More geometrico, In Physica, Adhibendis: Quam […] Sub Praesidio […] Abrahami Gulichii, Philosophiae et Historiarum Ordinarii, SS. Theologiae Extra-Ordinarii, in […] Hammonensium Gymnasio Professoris Publici […] defendere conabitur Johannes-Bernhardus Fabricius, Rheda-Tecklaeburgensis Guestphalus. – Hammonae: Wolphardt, 1669. – [8] Bl.; 4-o. – Hamm, Gymn., Diss., 1669. – Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 12. Gulich Abraham [Praeses], Mettegang Johannes Friedrich [Respondent]: [Primae philosophiae, more geometrico dispositae, definitiones, et postulatum primum, quod est de dubitando] Primae Philosophiae, More Geometrico dispositae, Definitiones, et Postulatum Primum; Quod est De Dubitando: Quae […] Sub Praesidio […] Abrahami Gulichii, Philosophiae et Eloquentiae ordinarii, SS. Theol. Extra-Ordinarii, in Illustri […] Hammonae, Gymnasio […] defendenda suscipiet Johannes-Fridericus Mettegang, Marco-Bochumensis. – Hammonae: Wolphardt, 1673. – [5] Bl.; 4-o. – Hamm, Gymn., Diss., 18.01.1673. – Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 17. Gulich Abraham [Praeses], Schalbruch Johannes Theodor [Respondent]: [Disputatio philosophica de natura, dignitate et utilitate verae philosophiae tum in genere; tum nominatim Cartesianae: (Quae sunt prolegomena in synopsin eiusdem philosophiae)] Disputatio Philosophica, De Natura, Dignitate et Utilitate Verae Philosophiae, tum in genere; tum nominatim Cartesianae: (Quae sunt Prolegomena in Synopsin ejusdem Philosophiæ): Quam […] Praeside […] Abrahamo Gulichio, Purioris Philosophiae et Eloquentiae Ordinario, SS. Theologiae Extra-Ordinario, in […] Hammonensium Athenaeo, Professore […] subjicit Johannes-Theodorus Schalbruch, Teutoburgo-Clivus. – Hammonae: Wolphardt, 1674. – [11] Bl.; 4-o. – Hamm, Gymn., Diss., 1674. – Senden-Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 11. Gulich Abraham [Praeses], Westhoff Johannes Hermann [Respondent]: [Disputatio philosophica, quae est continuatio scholii in postulatum de dubitando, ubi agitur de necessitate atque utilitate dubitationis postulatae, prima] Disputatio Philosophica, quae est Continuatio Scholii In Postulatum De Dubitando; Ubi agitur De Necessitate atq; utilitate Dubitationis postulatae, Prima: Quam […] Abrahamo Gulichio, Philosophiae ac Eloquentiae Ordinario, SS. Theol. Extraordinario, in […] Hammonaeo Gymnasio, Professore […] asserendam tuendamque proponet […] Johannes-Hermannus Westhoff Hammona-Marcanus. – Hammonae: Wolphardt, 1674. – [5] Bl.; 4-o. – (Disputatio Philosophica, quae est Continuatio Scholii In

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

533

Postulatum De Dubitando/Abraham Gulich; 1) – Hamm, Gymn., Diss., 1674. – Senden – Bösensell, von und zur Mühlensche Bibliothek, signature: Gb 390, 19. Hausmann Hermann (Praeses), Bruman Herman (Respondent): [Theses disputationis Logicae doctrinam causarum […] explicantes] Theses Disputationis Logicae Doctrinam Causarum […] explicantes.] […] Sub Praesidio […] Dn. Hermanni Hausmanni […] respondere adnitar Hermannus Brumanus. – o.O.: Caesar, 1601. [8] Bl.; 4-o. – Steinfurt, Gymn., Diss., 1601. – Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Haus Unter den Linden, signature: NI 7512. Heereboord Adrian: [Meletemata philosophica in quibus pleraeque metaphysicae ventilantur] Meletemata Philosophica in quibus Pleraeque Metaphysicae ventilantur, tota Ethica […] explicatur, universa Physica […] exponitur, summa rerum Logicarum per Disputationes traditur. – Amstelædami: Henrici Wetstenii, 1680. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 4 C 11.6. Langenkamp Philipp [Praeses], Thoreick Adolph Heinrich, Dröge Anton, Cörding Johannes, Hamicholt Johannes, Höfflinger Johannes Caspar, von Reede Johannes Heinrich [Respondenten]: [Theses ex universa philosophia Aristotelica] Theses Ex Vniversa Philosophia Aristotelica, Publicae Disputationi propositae, In […] Gymnasio Paulino […] a [...] Metaphysicis emeritis. Adolpho Henrico Thoreick Monast. Antonio Dröge Werlensi. Ioanne Cördingh Monast. Ioanne Hamicholt Monast. Ioanne Casparo Höfflinger Monast. Ioanne Henrico a Reede ex Brandtlecht, Cathedralis Ecclesiae Monasteriensis Canonico Domicellari. Praeside R.P. Philippo Langencamp. – Monasteri Westphaliae: Raesfeldt, 1647. – [7] Bl.; 4-o. – Münster, Gymn., Diss., 1647. – Köln, Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek, signature: 1N541. Marci Johann Gottfried [Praeses], Hecker Heinrich Bernhard [Respondent]: Disputatio De Affectibus: Quam Praeside M. Joh. Gottfried Marci Susatens. Lycaei Con-Rect. […] exponit Respondens Henricus Bernhardus Hecker Vesalia Cliviacus. – Susati: Utz, 1701. – [7] Bl.; 4-o. – (Disputationes De Affectibus/Johann Gottfried Marci; 2) – Soest, Gymn., Diss., 1701. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 169. Marci Johann Gottfried [Praeses], Neuhaus Johannes Christian [Respondent]: Disputatio De Affectibus: Quam Praeside M. Joh. Gottfried Marci Susat. Lycaei Con-R. [...] exponit Respondens Johannes Christianus Neuhaus Gummerspachio-Marcanus. – Susati: Utz, 1702. – [9] Bl.; 4-o. – (Disputationes De Affectibus/Johann Gottfried Marci; 3) – Soest, Gymn., Diss., 1702. Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 173. Marci Johann Gottfried [Praeses], Wenckbach Johannes Christoph [Respondent]: Disputatio De Affectibus: Quam Praeside M. Joh. Gottfried Marci Susatens. Lycaei Con-Rector […] exponit Respondens Joh. Christophorus Wenckenbach Wettera Hassus. – Susati: Utz, 1700. – [5] Bl.; 4-o. – (Disputationes De Affectibus/

534

Hellekamps and Musolff

Johann Gottfried Marci; 1). – Soest, Gymn., Diss., 1700. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.43, 167. Nicephorus Hermann: [Scholastica sive scholae descriptio] Scholastica, Sive Scholae Descriptio Nova Novandis Scholis et conservandis aptata. Librisqve Dvobus Comprehensa, Ab Hermanno Nicephoro, Rectore Scholae Susatensis. – Svsati: Zeisenii, 1620. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: S z 1 nic 1. Nicephorus Hermann [Praeses], Brojer Meinhard [Respondent]: [Theses theologicae et logicae cum quibusdam corollariis] Theses Theologicae et Logicae Cum Quibusdam Corollariis, […] disputandae […] Hermanno Nicephoro […] Respondente Meinhardo Brojero Lippiensi. – Tremoniae: Westhoff, 1605. – [10] Bl.; 4-o. – Soest, Gymn., Diss., 1605. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.42, 1. Rumpaeus Justus Wesselus: [Institutiones logicae sacrae Latino-Germanicae, recentiorum menti accommodatae] Institutiones Logicae Sacrae Latino-Germanicae, Recentiorum menti accommodatae [...] Francoforti ad Moenum: Apud Joh. Adolphum Stock, 1714. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: 5 133. Rumpaeus Justus Wesselus: [Institutiones metaphysicae sacrae Latino-Germanicae, nova methodo adornatae] Institutiones Metaphysicae Sacrae Latino-Germanicae, nova methodo adornatae. – Francoforti ad Moenum: Apud Joh. Adolphum Stock, 1712. – Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: S z 1 ru 2. Rumpaeus Wesselus [Praeses], vom Damm Heinrich Dietmar [Respondent]: [Disquisitionem logicam de mente humana eiusque speciatim intellectu] Disqvisitionem Logicam De Mente Hvmana Eivsque Speciatim Intellectv: Praeside Jvsto Wesselo Rvmpaeo […] submittit Responsvrvs-Avctor Henricvs Dethmarvs De Damm Susatensis. – Svsati: Hermanni, 1726. – 26 S.; 4.-o – Soest, Gymn., Diss., 1726. Soest, Stadtarchiv und wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, signature: P 22.44, 19.

Literature

Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010). Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Grunert F. – Syndikus A. (eds.), Wissensspeicher der frühen Neuzeit. Formen und Funktionen (Berlin – Boston: 2015). Hellekamps S. – Musolff H.-U. (eds.), Zwischen Schulhumanismus und Frühaufklärung. Zum Unterricht an westfälischen Gymnasien 1600–1750 (Münster: 2009).

Philosophy Lessons at Westphalian Grammar Schools

535

Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.). Unter Mitarbeit von Marti-Weissenbach K., Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissen­ schaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017). Musolff H.-U. – Hellekamps S. (eds.), Lehrer an westfälischen Gymnasien in der frühen Neuzeit. Neue Studien zu Schule und Unterricht 1600–1750 (Münster: 2014). Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Dichtung – Gelehrsamkeit – Disputationskultur. Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2012).

Chapter 20

Tradition, Synthesis, and Innovation: An Early Eighteenth-Century Dissertation on Dialects Presented in Wittenberg Raf Van Rooy Summary An important source type for the underexplored history of early modern dialect studies is the academic dissertation, of which the Disputatio de causis dialectorum, spe­ ciatim Graecarum (1702) constitutes a unique yet unstudied specimen. Presented in Wittenberg by the Hellenist Christian Gottlieb Schwartz (1675–1751; praeses) and the further unknown Abraham Helm (respondens), it was the first dissertation to systematically treat the topic. Its appearance must be framed within the tradition of Greek studies at Wittenberg university, where the Protestant reformer Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) was appointed professor of Greek in 1518. Yet Schwartz and Helm’s 1702 disputation relied on a much broader range of scholarship published in different parts of Europe. In several respects, it offered a synthesis of previous work. In addition, the dissertation made an original contribution to dialect studies by formulating new ideas; for instance, its author(s) proposed an entirely new definition of dialectus. I analyze in depth this complex interplay between tradition, synthesis, and innovation in Schwartz and Helm’s disputation while mapping out its position vis-à-vis the Wittenberg academic tradition as well as the broader scholarly interest in dialectal variation in early modern Europe. I also assess to what extent the Wittenberg fascination with dialectal variation can be said to correlate to confessional parameters.

Nemini equidem obscurum est, quanti pretii bonum sit articulate loquendi facultas, ab immortali Numine nobis liberaliter indulta, ut animi nostri sensa apte explicare, et cum aliis communicare, possimus. Neque enim alia re ulla, si a ratione discesseris, uel arctius inter se conciliantur homines, uel longius absunt a natura belluarum. Nec parum quoque utilitatis ad genus humanum redundaturum, arbitramur, si omnes omnino homines, quousque orbis terrarum patet, tum in tradendis rerum diuinarum humanarumque scientiis, tum etiam in quotidiana uita, eadem plane lingua uterentur.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_021

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

537

It is truly obscure to nobody what a valuable asset the ability to speak articulately is; it was generously granted to us by the immortal Divinity, so that we can aptly express the thoughts of our mind and communicate with others. For by means of no other thing, if you would leave reason out of consideration, are humans either more closely united among themselves, or farther removed from the nature of animals. We moreover believe that no little utility will redound to mankind, if all and every human, as far as planet earth stretches out, would clearly use the same language, as much in transmitting the sciences of things divine and human as also in daily life.1 Christian Gottlieb Schwartz and Abraham Helm opened their Disputatio de causis dialectorum (‘Discussion on the causes of dialects’), presented at Wittenberg, in a rather peculiar manner: by describing the utopia of a unitary language and the benefits that it would carry. They then deplored the existence of linguistic diversity and, as was customary in the early modern period, they tied it to the confusion of tongues at Babel.2 Indeed, the mutability of language, it was claimed, was almost boundless. This observation inspired Schwartz and Helm to present a discussion of the omnipresent phenomenon of dialectal diversity. Yet why were they interested in this subject at all? And how exceptional was their dissertation? The present article purports to answer these questions. More particularly, it aims to sketch (1) the intellectual context in which the author(s) was (were) active, (2) the structure and contents of this understudied dissertation, and (3) the way in which the author(s) moved between tradition, synthesis, and innovation. A brief final section is devoted to the Disputatio’s impact and legacy. In so doing, I intend to fill a lacuna which is part of a major blind spot: the largely underexplored early modern history of dialect studies. Even though a broad sketch of this history has recently been provided, it remains desirable to complement the existing generalising account by means of detailed case studies such as the one proposed in this paper.3 1  Schwartz Christian Gottlieb (Pr.) – Helm Abraham (Resp.), Disputatio de causis dialectorum, speciatim Graecarum (Wittenberg, Gerdes: 1702) A1v. Unless mentioned otherwise, I refer to the sigla of the copy held at Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Diss. 555. English translations are my own, unless indicated otherwise. Latin quotations have been normalized. I sincerely thank Ana Kotarcic for having corrected the English of the present article. 2  Cf. Borst A., Der Turmbau von Babel: Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Völker, 4 vols. (Stuttgart: 1957–1963). 3  I am referring to my unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, which I am currently turning into a monograph. See Van Rooy R., Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects: The

538 1

Van Rooy

From Greek Studies to the Phenomenon of Dialects

Why was the phenomenon of dialects at all on the intellectual agenda in early eighteenth-century Wittenberg? This question is all the more pressing since the systematic linguistic study of dialects only emerged in the form of Georg Wenker’s (1852–1911) dialect geography in the 1870s, several decades after historical-comparative, mainly Indo-European, linguistics was institutionalised.4 The answer can be retrieved in the Renaissance rediscovery of the Ancient Greek language and literature, which scholars found to be highly diversified in terms of both literary genre and dialect.5 In other words, the study of Greek dialects was inescapable for humanists enthused by the long-lost Greek heritage. At an early stage, it was hard enough to master the Greek language itself, let alone its different dialects. Therefore, the Byzantine scholars usually focused on the lingua Graeca when teaching their students in Italy. For them, ‘Greek’ prototypically coincided with a form of the koine in which Attic and Ionic features can also be found.6 It was only when Greek studies spread to other parts of Europe that the dialects received more attention. This process started in the second half of the fifteenth century but peaked only in the first half of the sixteenth. Many scholars from German-speaking areas were at the forefront of this development. The Pforzheim-born polyglot Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522) is a prime example, having composed a manuscript ‘booklet on the four differences of the Greek language’ (De quattuor Graecae linguae differentiis libellus) as early as 1477/1478. It was less original than Reuchlin wanted the scholarly community to believe, as it was nothing more than a poor translation of a bad manuscript copy of a Byzantine treatise on the Greek dialects.7 It was only in the early sixteenth century that more permanent results were achieved. Emergence and Transformations of a Conceptual Pair in the Early Modern Period (ca. 1478– 1782), Ph.D. dissertation (KU Leuven: 2017). 4  Chambers J.K. – Trudgill P., Dialectology, Second edition (Cambridge: 1998) 15–16; Kretzschmar, Jr. W.A., “Dialectology and the History of the English Language”, in Minkova D. – Stockwell R. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Topics in English Linguistics 39 (Berlin – New York: 2002) 79–108, at 79–80. 5  On this rediscovery, see e.g. Ciccolella F., Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 32 (Leiden – Boston: 2008); Botley P., Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1396–1529: Grammars, Lexica, and Classroom Texts, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge 100.2 (Philadelphia: 2010). 6  Cf. Ciccolella, Donati Graeci 123. 7  For a recent edition and brief discussion of this short treatise, see Van Rooy R., “A First Stumbling Step toward Ancient Greek Dialectology in Western Europe: An Edition and Brief

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

539

A tipping point was the year 1518, in which two major events occurred, both involving the praeceptor Germaniae Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560). This youngster, who thanks to his great-uncle Reuchlin was enthused about Greek studies, succeeded in publishing his Greek grammar in May 1518 as well as in becoming the first professor of Greek literature at the university of Wittenberg in August 1518. These positions allowed Melanchthon to spread Greek learning in Germany in a twofold manner: directly, by instructing many students in the Greek language and literature, and indirectly, through his grammar. This work, of which the Hellenist already published a revised version in 1520, enjoyed considerable success in the Protestant parts of the Holy Roman Empire and granted the dialects a prominent place on the verso side of its title page.8 Throughout his life, Melanchthon fought for the inclusion of Greek in the tri­ vium programme of university arts curricula. Wittenberg developed into one of the major early modern hubs for Greek studies. Since presenting a detailed history of the spread of Greek studies in Germany in general and at Wittenberg in particular would exceed the scope of this paper, I will limit myself to citing a number of landmarks relating to the study of the Greek dialects in Martin Luther’s city.9 In 1604, an influential handbook on the Greek dialects appeared in Wittenberg; it was composed by Erasmus Schmidt (1570–1637), a professor of Greek, Hebrew, and mathematics. His Tractatus de dialectis Graecorum principalibus (‘Treatise on the principal dialects of the Greeks’) was widely known, especially in Germany, and received three reprints: in Wittenberg (1621), Naumburg (1671), and Strasburg (1711).10 The work, as will be shown below, moreover proved to be a valuable source for Schwartz and Helm’s Disputatio. Publications of lesser impact include a ‘philological exercise on the pronunciation of the Greek language and its various dialects’ and a dissertation ‘on the origins and causes of Greek literature and the dialects of the same’, the praeses of the latter being the renowned polymath Georg Kaspar Kirchmaier (1635–1700), professor of Greek at Wittenberg university.11 Kirchmaier was also the praeses of a dissertation on ‘the most   Discussion of Johann Reuchlin’s De quattuor Graecae linguae differentiis libellus (1477/ 1478)”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance: Travaux et documents 76, 3 (2014) 501–526. 8  Botley, Learning Greek 45–47. 9  For a valuable but incomplete synthesis of the history of Greek studies in Germany, see Kazazis J. – Chairopoulos P., “History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany”, in Giannakis G.K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 3 vols. (Leiden – Boston: 2014) vol. 2, 162–174, especially at 166–167 for Melanchthon. 10  Schmidt Erasmus, Tractatus de dialectis Graecorum principalibus, quae sunt in parte λέξε­ ως (Wittenberg, Lorenz Säuberlich: 1604). 11  Schörling Ernestus Theophilus (Pr.) – Michaelis Georgius (Resp.), Exercitium philologi­ cum de Graecae linguae pronunciatione eiusdemque uariis dialectis (Wittenberg, Matthäus

540

Van Rooy

ancient tongue of Europe, the Scytho-Celtic and Gothic’ (1686), in which the term dialectus was defined in contrast to lingua in the footsteps of the Swedish scholar Georg Stiernhielm (1598–1672).12 Some twenty years earlier, another dissertation was presented at Wittenberg touching on matters of dialectal diversity: a ‘philological diatribe on the Galilean language’ in which the term dia­ lectus occupied a prominent position. It contended, among other things, that Galilaeorum dialectus praecipue consistebat in corrupta et confuse linguae ChaldaeoSyrae pronunciatione. the dialect of the Galileans consisted principally in the corrupt and confused pronunciation of the Chaldeo-Syriac language.13 Thus, scholars active in Wittenberg took a keen interest in the phenomenon of dialectal variation in the seventeenth century. They mainly concentrated on variation in the Greek language even though the concept of dialect featured in treatises on other languages too. There, this discussion could take on a very general form. But why Wittenberg? There is no simple answer to this question and there is always a risk of indulging wild speculation. I can nonetheless identify a number of factors that are likely to have contributed to this evolution. Apart from the expertise in the Greek language and its dialects which was firmly rooted in the city, there is one other key circumstance that I should briefly call to mind here. As the intellectual home of Martin Luther and his close collaborator Philipp Melanchthon, Wittenberg developed into a Protestant stronghold par excellence: the translation of the Bible into the vernacular is well-known to have led to significant linguistic consequences instigated by the Reformation. From a modern perspective, this seems simpler Henckel: 1678); Kirchmaier Georg Kaspar (Pr.) – Crusius Johannes (Resp.), De originibus et caussis literaturae Graecae eiusdemque dialectis (Wittenberg, Christian Schrödter: 1684). 12  Kirchmaier Georg Kaspar (Pr.) – Jäger Andreas (Resp.), De lingua uetustissima Europae, Scytho-Celtica et Gothica (Wittenberg, Christian Schrödter: 1686) 17: ‘Lingua quomodo a dialecto differat? exposuit in ad Vlphilam praefat. Dn Georg. Stiernhielmus. Linguae inter se substantia (ut ita loquar) differunt, sed dialecti tantum accidentibus. Nam lingua quaelibet uocabulis, radicibusque sibi propriis, et alienae linguae peregrinis, singulari quoque gaudet syntaxi; deflexus autem dialectus est unius eiusdemque linguae, in peculiare nationis alicuius idioma coiens, radicum et uocabulorum paritate minime, sed casuum, terminationum, accidentium formatione, literae praeterea aut syllabae mutatione, traiectione, ac similibus duntaxat differens’. Cf. Van Rooy, Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects 109. 13  Pfeiffer August (Pr.) – Martini Johann Georg (Resp.), Diatribe philologica de lingua Galilaea, per quam D. Petrus agnitus fuisse legitur (Wittenberg, Johann Haken: 1663) B1v.

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

541

than it sounds. In fact, at the outset, there was no such thing as a uniform, standardised vernacular, and the Reformers who wanted to spread the Word of God to as broad an audience as possible needed to search for, and even devise, a widely understandable German into which to translate the Bible. It is therefore not inconceivable that religious zeal raised the Protestants’ awareness of the obvious and wide-ranging dialectal diversity present within the German language. Indeed, the Reformation dovetailed with a revaluation of vernacular tongues, a development from which their dialects also seem to have partly benefitted.14 Perhaps, scholars working in the bulwark of Protestantism experienced this revaluation particularly strongly and transformed it, so to speak, from a primarily practical-religious concern into an intellectual endeavour. 2

The Disputatio: Authorship and Contents

In the early eighteenth century, the author(s) of the Disputatio de causis dia­ lectorum took matters to the next level, as will be argued in the following sections. First, however, another key question should be answered, namely who was (were) the author(s) of this work? As with the majority of early modern dissertations, the answer to this question is not straightforward.15 The first person plural used throughout the main text suggests that praeses and respondens co-authored it, even though isolated instances of first person singular occur too.16 For several reasons, it seems nonetheless reasonable to attribute the disputation to the praeses Christian Gottlieb Schwar(t)z (1675–1751) and not to the further unknown respondens Abraham Helm. It is, to start with, the prae­ ses who dedicated at least one copy of the work to two members of the noble Goldstein family: the young brothers Carl Gottlob (°1678) and Carl Christian (°1679) von Goldstein.17 At least one other copy was dedicated to Hermann von Wolfframsdorff (1630–1703), a Mügeln-born nobleman who held several high offices, such as that of prime minister in the Electorate of Saxony. In this 14  See e.g. Van Hal T., ‘Moedertalen en taalmoeders’: Het vroegmoderne taalvergelijkende onderzoek in de Lage Landen, Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Nieuwe Reeks 20 (Brussels: 2010) 64–67, with further references. 15  Cf. e.g. Considine J., “Did Andreas Jäger or Georg Caspar Kirchmaier Write the Dissertation De lingua vetustissima Europae (1686)?”, Historiographia Linguistica 35, 1–2 (2008) 13–22. 16  See e.g. Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum B1v: ‘nescio’. 17   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum A1r: ‘[…] DN. CAROLO GOTTLOB, ET DN. CAROLO CHRISTIANO, de GOLDSTEIN […] hanc tenuem exercitationem academicam d. d. d. PRAESES’.

542

Van Rooy

latter copy, however, the dedication appeared in the name of both Schwartz and Helm.18 Moreover, Schwartz was an excellent Hellenist. He probably studied Greek language and literature with the renowned scholars Adam Rechenberg (1642– 1721) and Gottfried Olearius (1672–1715) at the university of Leipzig.19 Thanks to a generous grant, he was able to complete his studies at Wittenberg, where he stayed between 1701 and 1704. His subsequent professorial career began in Leipzig before he eventually settled for a job as professor at the university of Altdorf. There, he taught rhetoric, poetry, moral philosophy, and history. From his Wittenberg period onwards, he published on philological and antiquarian themes. As anyone browsing through his works will notice immediately, he attached especial importance to Greek philology. Schwartz, for instance, authored a ‘programme to a Greek oration on the necessity of combining the study of jurisprudence with that of the Greek language’.20 This is ascertained by the early biographer Gottlieb Christoph Harleß (1738–1815), who, by the way, attributed the Disputatio de causis dialectorum to Schwartz.21 A stylistic comparison of the Disputatio with other works by Schwartz could cast light on this issue, but that is outside the scope of the present article. If the Disputatio composed in July 1702 is indeed by Schwartz, it would make it one of his earliest, if not the earliest, work written at the age of 26/27. It must be added, however, that one month earlier, in June 1702, a collection of theses ‘on the dialect of the New Testament’ was publicly discussed with Georg Wilhelm Kirchmaier (1673–1759) as praeses and Schwartz as respondens. We do not have a full record of this discussion, but only the theses, the authorship of which is difficult to determine.22 It nonetheless demonstrates Schwartz’ preoccupation with the Greek dialects in Wittenberg where he apparently 18   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum A1v in the copy preserved at Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Res/4 Diss. 273: ‘[…] DN. HERMANNO de VVOLFRAMSDORF […] hanc exercitationem academicam […] sacram esse uoluerunt CHRIST. GOTL. SCHVVARZ. ET ABRAH. HELM’. 19  For biographical data on Schwartz, see Hoche R., “Schwarz: Christian Gottlieb S. (auch Schwartz)”, in Historische Commission (ed.), Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig: 1891) vol. 33, 227–228. 20  Harleß Gottlieb Christoph, De uitis philologorum nostra aetate clarissimorum, 3 vols. (Bremen, Georg Ludwig Förster: 1764) vol. 1, 1–37, with a bibliographical list from p. 11 onwards. The Latin title of the work is: ‘Progr. ad orat. Graec. de iurisprudentiae et Graecae linguae studio coniungendo’ (see p. 14). 21  Harleß, De uitis philologorum 11. 22  Kirchmaier Georg Wilhelm (Pr.) – Schwartz Christian Gottlieb (Resp.), Ex philologia Graeca, de dialecto noui testamenti, propositiones quaedam, ad disputandum publice selec­ tae (Wittenberg, Gerdes: 1702).

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

543

closely collaborated with the renowned scholar Georg Wilhelm Kirchmaier, public professor of Greek at Wittenberg university and son of Georg Kaspar Kirchmaier, who, as pointed out above, also had an interest in the phenomenon of dialectal diversity.23 Finally, Schwartz’ devotion to Greek philology also emerges from the liminary Latin poem which he wrote for a Greek grammar, authored by the Larissa-born scholar Alexander Helladius (1686–after September 1715) and published at Altdorf in 1712.24 The evidence available thus suggests that Schwartz was the principal author of the Disputatio. Yet, with historical data on Abraham Helm missing, doubt inevitably remains, and I will mention both the names of Schwartz and Helm when citing the Disputatio. Let me now consider the contents of the Disputatio. What does the text have to say on the phenomenon of dialects? And how is it structured? After deploring the mutability of human language (§ 1), an outline of the main themes is given (§ 2), which results in two main questions: (1) What is the nature of dialects? (2) What are the causes of language change and the emergence of dialects? In trying to answer these questions, Schwartz and Helm principally drew from the Greek language and its dialects for examples, even though they made occasional reference to other tongues. The outline is followed by an extensive account on the Greek word diálektos (διάλεκτος), Latinised as dialectus (§§ 3–5).25 Far from wanting to engage in a detailed philological discussion of the different meanings of the word, Schwartz and Helm limited themselves to its metalinguistic usage, which they considered to be the ‘proper’ and ‘most common meaning of this word’.26 They were aware of the terminological jungle that existed, and of the fact that dia­ lectus had many synonyms, of which they provided a list: uarietas linguarum, idíōma (ἰδίωμα), discreta loquendi ratio, genus dicendi, character et peculiaris nota ac forma linguae, glôtta (γλῶττα), lingua, etc. Even though these expressions were not entirely the same and most of the alternatives were less transparent than dialectus, Schwartz and Helm still used them interchangeably, and this simply for stylistic reasons, namely for the sake of variation. The fourth paragraph offers a state of the art of definitions of dialectus, with Schwartz and 23  See sec. 1. 24  Helladius Alexander, Σταχυολογία τεχνολογικὴ τῆς Ἑλλάδος φωνῆς […] hoc est Spicilegium technologicum Graecismi […] (Nuremberg, Johann Ernst Adelbulner: 1712) fol. )()()()(8v. 25  On the peculiar history of the Latinisation of Greek diálektos, see Van Rooy R., “Διάλεκτος, Dialectus, Dialect: A Word’s Curious Journey from Ancient Greek to (Neo-)Latin and Beyond”, Latomus: Revue d’Études Latines 78 (2019) 733–770. 26   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum A2r: ‘propriam et communissimam […] huius uocis notionem’.

544

Van Rooy

Helm quoting both from Greek scholarship and from early modern works; in the fifth, they proposed a new definition of their own. The next few paragraphs are devoted to explaining the different parts of Schwartz and Helm’s definition of dialectus. Dialects always derive from an analogical common language (§ 6). Dialectal variation manifests itself mainly in changes within words (§ 7). Style and dialect are two different things (§ 8). Dialects differ from one another as a result of various changes vis-à-vis the common language (§ 9). Dialects have slight peculiarities that set them apart from other dialects and the common language, and that are particular to a certain people, living in a certain region (§ 10); and dialects can exhibit different degrees of variation and can be set within a hierarchy of ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ dialects (§ 11). The subsequent paragraphs treat the causes of dialectal change, as announced in § 12. The construction of the Tower of Babel and the human foolhardiness that led to it are claimed to be a principal cause of linguistic variation, on the level of both language and dialect (§ 13). The general variability of human affairs is, however, also to be blamed. Indeed, linguistic entities too undergo life cycles (§ 14). In more specific terms, an important factor is the mixture of tongues (‘linguarum concretio’), which occurs through events such as conquests and wars (§ 15). Other causes of language change include colonisation, trade, and contact with foreigners, which triggers linguistic imitation and emulation (§ 16). A language’s shape is additionally influenced by cultivation or neglect, changes in mores, the variability of the human voice, and geography; for instance, in the north, dialects are rougher than in the south (§ 17). Linguistic change does not occur suddenly, but takes time. A language gradually branches out into different dialects (§ 18). Font size changes from § 18 onwards, probably to ensure that the remaining eight paragraphs would fit in their entirety on the C-bifolium, but perhaps also because lesser importance was attached to the contents of the final paragraphs. These treat each of the canonical Greek dialects individually, upon which Schwartz and Helm only ‘touch with their fingertips’.27 The Greek common language and its history are discussed at some length, in which they claimed to follow the scholarly consensus (§ 19). Schwartz and Helm then divided the Greek dialects into generic and specific dialects (§ 20) before situating the four principal dialects in their historical context: Attic (§ 21), Ionic (§ 22), Doric (§ 23), and Aeolic (§ 24). A very brief paragraph concludes the dissertation; it claims to be on ‘new Macedonian’, but it provides no information whatsoever 27   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum C1r: ‘extremis […] digitis attingemus’.

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

545

on this dialect (§ 25). In fact, it constitutes nothing more than a rather awkward end to this brief Disputatio. 3

Tradition, Synthesis, and Innovation

The dissertation may only be fifteen pages long, yet it is quite rich in information. It did not simply reformulate traditional views, but synthesised existing accounts and was at times even innovative. The text thus hovered between tradition, synthesis, and innovation. In what respects do these three characteristics manifest themselves in Schwartz and Helm’s ideas on dialects? Let me, for reasons of space, limit myself to elaborating one main case per tendency, even though examples could be easily multiplied. The disputation abounded in traditional ideas. The classification of the Greek dialects into four main ones, for instance, was widely accepted by early modern scholars, as was the link between a dialect on the one hand, and a people and a region on the other.28 Let me focus here on the latter idea which was already present in Ancient and Byzantine Greek scholarship. To highlight this point, it suffices to quote the second earliest surviving definition of the term diálektos as found in Diogenes of Babylon, a Stoic philosopher of the third century BC (ca. 240–150): Διάλεκτος δέ ἐστι λέξις κεχαραγμένη ἐθνικῶς τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶς, ἢ λέξις ποταπή, τουτέστι ποιὰ κατὰ διάλεκτον, οἷον κατὰ μὲν τὴν Ἀτθίδα θάλαττα, κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἰάδα ἡμέρη. Dialect is speech stamped tribally and in a Greek manner, or speech of a certain region, that is, having a certain quality according to a dialect, as thálatta [‘sea’] in the Attic and hēmérē [‘day’] in the Ionic.29 28  For the classification of Greek dialects, see Van Rooy R., “Struggling to Order Diversity: The Variegated Classifications of Greek Dialects before the Rise of Modern Linguistics”, Studies in Greek Linguistics 36 (2016) 465–473, with further references. See also Van Rooy R., Greece’s Labyrinth of Language: A Study in the Early Modern Discovery of Dialect Diversity, History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences 2 (Berlin: 2020) 11–37. For the link between dialect, people, and region, see Van Rooy, Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects 31–32, 112–119, 122–127, on which I draw here. 29  Diogenes of Babylon in Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 7.56. The English translation is adapted from Van Rooy R., “‘What Is a ‘Dialect’?’ Some New Perspectives on the History of the Term διάλεκτος and Its Interpretations in Ancient Greece and Byzantium”, Glotta 92 (2016) 244–279, at 250.

546

Van Rooy

Diogenes viewed a diálektos as a linguistic utterance bearing the mark of a certain people or of a certain region, a view adopted by several later Greek scholars, including the Early Christian author Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 140/150–before 215/221). Humanists using Greek sources encountered these parameters and took them over. This happened especially from the midsixteenth century, after Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata and the definitions of diálektos contained in it were first made available in a printed edition. It was, however, mainly thanks to the Swiss intellectual omnivore Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) that one of Clement’s definitions had spread; for Gessner quoted it at the outset of his much-read language catalogue Mithridates, published in Zurich in 1555. Gessner’s own Latin translation of the definition led most of his later readers to mistake it for his own ideas: Est autem dialectus dictio peculiarem alicuius loci notam seu characterem prae se ferens: uel dictio quae propriam communemue gentis characterem ostendit. A dialect, moreover, is speech exhibiting a peculiar mark or character of a certain place, or speech showing the proper or common character of a people.30 In fact, the authors of the Disputatio knew Gessner’s work, which they quoted when discussing the Greek koine, calling Gessner eruditissimus, ‘most erudite’.31 So when reading Gessner’s Mithridates, they must have encountered the connection between dialect, people, and region. There were lots of other books in which this link could be found, however. Schwartz and Helm, for instance, were also acquainted with the De Hellenistica commentarius (‘Commentary on the Hellenistic tongue’) of the French scholar Claude de Saumaise (1588–1653), published in Leiden in 1643. In this work, which was likewise widely diffused, they could repeatedly find the word diálektos defined as kharaktḕr ethnikós or topikós (χαρακτὴρ ἐθνικός/τοπικός), ‘tribal’ or ‘local character’.32 30  Gessner Conrad, Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum ueterum tum quae hodie apud diuersas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt, Conradi Gesneri Tigurini Obseruationes (Zurich, Froschauer: 1555) 1v. On the Mithridates, see the discussion in Colombat B. – Peters M. (eds.), Conrad Gessner. Mithridate. Mithridates (1555), Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 452 (Geneva: 2009). 31   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum C2r. 32   See e.g. Saumaise Claude, De Hellenistica commentarius, controuersiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens, et plenissime pertractans originem et dialectos Graecae linguae (Leiden, Elsevir: 1643) 61, 457.

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

547

Having mentioned Saumaise, I can move to the second tendency; for apart from simply repeating traditional ideas, Schwartz and Helm tried to offer a synthetic account of previous works, especially Saumaise’s De Hellenistica commentarius, which was highly associative and even chaotic at times. The Disputatio argued, for instance, that dialectal variation manifested itself mainly through ‘letter changes’ within individual words and not by putting different words together in a sentence, i.e. not on the level of syntax.33 This idea stemmed from Saumaise’s Commentarius which discussed this issue in a rather unorderly and drawn-out fashion.34 Schwartz and Helm traced it back to Greek authors like Tryphon, John the Grammarian, and Gregory of Corinth, but they felt that it needed to be qualified. They argued that there were also differences between dialects in terms of syntax, even though this was a more marginal phenomenon. This was not an original observation on the part of Schwartz and Helm but was based on their reading of earlier treatises on the Greek dialects published in the German Sprachraum. For syntactic particularities of Attic, for instance, they referred the reader to the Graecarum dialectorum hypotyposis (‘Sketch of the Greek dialects’) by the Swiss scholar and doctor Jakob Zwinger (1569–1610). This treatise was first published in Basel in 1605 as an appendix to Johannes Scapula’s (ca. 1540–1600) Greek–Latin lexicon and was often reprinted in the seventeenth century.35 There, the reader could find that it was typical for Attic to have sometimes too many words in a syntactic construction (‘abundance’) and sometimes too little (‘ellipse’) or to meddle with word combinations. Another useful point of reference, Schwartz and Helm concluded, was a work I have mentioned earlier: Erasmus Schmidt’s treatise on the Greek dialects, published in Wittenberg in 1604 and containing information on the syntactic properties of all major Greek dialects. To sum up, Schwartz and Helm aimed to provide their readers with an accurate account of the phenomenon of dialectal variation by assembling pieces of information they found scattered in different early modern texts and treated in an unstructured fashion. Schwartz and Helm’s contribution did not stop there, as they strived to enrich their synthesis with their own, often innovative, insights. It is, for instance, quite exceptional that they recognised the terminological difficulties surrounding the concept of dialect.36 The most remarkable feature of the Disputatio, 33   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum B1v. 34  See Saumaise, De Hellenistica commentarius 61 et sqq. 35  Zwinger Jakob, “Graecarum dialectorum hypotyposis, seorsim primum singularum, tum coniunctim omnium, tabulis methodicis, iudicio memoriaeque seruientibus, proposita”, in Scapula Johannes, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum nouum […] (Basel, Sebastian Henricpetri: 1605) TT1r–AAa6r. 36  See sec. 2.

548

Van Rooy

however, is that in it a completely new definition of dialectus was consciously proposed. After judging the definition attributed to John Philoponus as too ambiguous and drily dismissing the interpretations of others, including that of Claude de Saumaise, Schwartz and Helm suggested an elaborate definition of their own: Nos, missis aliorum sententiis, hanc nostram subiicimus definitionem: Dialectus est linguae alicuius communis, inprimis secundum singulas uoces, immutatio peculiaris, eaque leuior, et, pro diuersis temporibus, ac populis illa eadem lingua utentibus, diuersa. We leave the opinions of others behind us and add the following definition of our own: a dialect is a peculiar change of a certain common lan­ guage, especially in terms of individual words, and that change is rather slight and different according to the times and peoples using that same language.37 In what follows, Schwartz and Helm elaborated extensively on the different parts of their new definition. In this further discussion, they showed remarkable insight into dialectal variation and phenomena related to it. Let me take a look at their most notable ideas. To speak of dialects, the existence of a lingua communis, a ‘common language’ to which the dialects belong, was required. This observation led Schwartz and Helm to discuss at length the nature of a common language.38 They started from existing literature and, more specifically, from the sharp distinction between lingua and dialectus which the Dutch Calvinist theologian and orientalist Johannes Leusden (1624–1699) had made in his dissertation ‘on the dialects of the New Testament in general and in specific terms’.39 This 37   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum A2v. The English translation is taken from Van Rooy, Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects 165. 38   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum A2v–B1v, recapitulated and discussed in the paragraphs to follow. 39  See Leusden Johannes, “Dissertatio undecima, de dialectis novi t. in genere et in specie”, in Leusden Johannes, Philologus Hebraeo-Graecus generalis, continens quaestiones Hebraeo-Graecas, quae circa nouum testamentum Graecum fere moueri solent (Utrecht, Anthonius Smytegelt: 1670) 83–91, at 83: ‘dialectus est sermo cuique populo peculiaris, idque in eadem lingua. Si enim sit diuersitas linguae, tum non erunt diuersae dialecti sed diuersae linguae. Eadem igitur requiritur lingua: sed diuersus modus loquendi aut scribendi uoces uel literas parit diuersas dialectos. Ex. gr. lingua Hebraica et Graeca, quia differunt inter se ut linguae, ideo non differunt ut dialecti: nam differentia dialectorum est in una eademque lingua. E contra quia Attici, Aeoles, Iones, Dores aliique usi fuerunt

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

549

reference to Leusden served to make an idiosyncratic claim about the historical relationship between the common language and the dialects, which was considered difficult to determine precisely. Schwartz and Helm presented it as their own opinion and not as an irrevocable truth. Dialects, they argued, originated from the common language and differed only superficially from one another. The common language was thus also the mother from which the dialects derived the majority of their lexicon, showing only differences in pronunciation and morphology. Schwartz and Helm cited an example from their native language: German was the common language, or the mother, from which Saxon, Franconian, Silesian, Thuringian, etc. derived. For them, another obvious example was the Greek context. The Attic, Aeolic, Ionic, Doric, etc. dialects were, according to Schwartz and Helm, generated from the Greek common language, the archetypal koine. They also believed that it was possible for those common ancestral languages to perish or undergo considerable changes which was why capturing the original form of the common language was only possible by relying on analogies still visible in the dialects. Schwartz and Helm realised that language is in constant flux and that the distance between a common language and its dialects varies over time. This recognition forced them to reformulate their interpretation of a lingua com­ munis. In order to do that, they started at the very beginning of language history by providing a genealogy of human language and commenting on the genesis of what today would be called a ‘standard language’. At first, man began to speak out of necessity, not for the sake of elegance. As a result, the language used was rude and unpolished. Later on, language was mostly refined by learned men who intensively studied it. They did so in order to replace all the vicious elements by elegant features. In fact, what Schwartz and Helm were doing here was providing an embryonic description of an essential process of language standardisation: the elaboration of a common language so that it can fulfil the functions for which it is conceived. Apart from elaboration, modern scholars also distinguish the selection of a linguistic norm, its codification in grammars and dictionaries, and its wide acceptance as key parts of the standardisation process.40 According to Schwartz and Helm, the elaboration of a common language by learned men resulted in analogy, which grammarians translated into prescriptions; analogical elaboration was thus claimed to precede the process of una eademque lingua Graeca, ideo diuersitas illa, quae fuit inter Atticos, Aeoles aliosque fuit tantum diuersitas dialectorum’. 40  On the four aspects of the standardisation process see e.g. the seminal contribution by Haugen E., “Dialect, Language, Nation”, American Anthropologist 68, 4 (1966) 922–935.

550

Van Rooy

grammatical codification. The analogical nature of the lingua communis implied that dialects were deviations from that lingua communis and were by nature at least partly anomalous. Schwartz and Helm continued by pointing out that the analogical elaboration of a common language emerged gradually. The more learned and morally good men lived among a people the faster the analogical rule was accepted, especially in higher registers. All of this led Schwartz and Helm to reformulate their conception of the relationship between the common language and its dialects as follows: A qua regula quicquid uulgari usu hinc inde, diuersorum locorum causa, discedit, dialecti nomine insigniri potest. Hac proinde ratione communis lingua est, quae exactiorem analogiam, aut, quod in intermortuis linguis maxime fieri solet, praeceptorum grammaticorum normam sequitur, a quibus dialecti uarie aliquando diuertuntur. And everything in vulgar usage that departs from this rule on this or that side because of the diversity of locations can be designated with the term dialect. For this precise reason, a common language is that which follows a fairly precise analogy or, what usually happens with dead languages in particular, the norm of grammatical precepts from which the dialects variously diverge from time to time.41 Schwartz and Helm thus made a sharp distinction between the analogical common language which was reserved for higher registers and social classes, and its deviating dialects associated with the populace (cf. ‘uulgari usu’). Even though their reasoning was largely original, they drew inspiration from Georg Heinrich Ursin (1647–1707), an older contemporary scholar. This Hellenist had published a grammar of Greek in Nuremberg in 1691 from which Schwartz and Helm quoted in the citation above.42 Their opposition of common language to dialects has a modern ring to it, especially if one takes into account that the idea that dialects were linguistic entities inferior to a common language was still relatively recent in 1702. Only in the decades leading up to Schwartz and Helm’s Disputatio did the distinction between ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ receive an evaluative connotation in favour of the former. This is related to the fact 41   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum B1r. 42  Ursin Georg Heinrich, Grammatica Graeca ex aliis accurato ordine ac solicito quorumuis examine collecta, sectiones et capita, haec in quaestiones ac responsiones digesta, ad usus Gymnasii Ratisponensis Poetici (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Moritz Endter: 1691) 495: ‘Quam uero dicis communem linguam? Quae communem praeceptorum grammaticorum normam sequitur, a quibus dialecti uarie aliquando diuertuntur’.

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

551

that earlier the concept of ‘dialect’ had been more closely tied to Greek variation, which was highly esteemed because of its presence in literature, and to the fact that linguistic standardisation reached more definitive proportions in the seventeenth century.43 Apart from their elaborate discussion of the relationship between a common language and its dialects, Schwartz and Helm were innovative in another major respect. The Greek dialects were important for a philologist because they were used for literary purposes. If, say, one wanted to compose bucolicstyle poetry, tradition dictated to write in Doric. Because of this, dialects were frequently confused with styles. Schwartz and Helm, however, wanted to distinguish clearly the concept of ‘dialect’ (dialectus) from that of ‘style’ (stylus).44 This suggests that they aimed to move towards a more straightforward metalinguistic apparatus – although maintaining synonymy for the sake of variation, as I have already pointed out. Schwartz and Helm claimed that ‘dialect’, a grammatical concept, is characterised by variation occurring in individual words whereas ‘style’, a rhetorical concept defined as ‘apta atque elegans sermonis structura, seu facultas prompte et decore scribendi’ (‘the suitable and elegant structure of speech or the faculty of writing readily and charmingly’), generates differences in the entire composition. Additionally, a ‘dialect’ is used by a large group of people speaking the same language, whereas ‘style’ is a way of writing particular to each person individually. They nevertheless must grant that some dialects were naturally inclined towards certain styles; Ionic Greek, for instance, is faint, careless and delicate whereas Doric is characterised by shortness (‘Dores βραχυλόγοι nominantur’). This also applies to non-Greek dialects: Misnian German is said to be prone to a fluid style whereas Franconian is associated with conciseness. 4

The Impact of the Disputatio

Now that I have established that the Disputatio contains some highly original insights in addition to more traditional points of view, a new question calls for an answer: did the Disputatio have any impact on later scholarship? The many works cited in it indicate that the authors were clearly aligning themselves with an intellectual tradition of handbooks on the phenomenon of Greek dialectal variation. However, did their work obtain a visible place in the later development of that tradition? To a certain extent, it did. Several eighteenth-century 43  See Van Rooy, Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects 131–134. 44   Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum B2r.

552

Van Rooy

Hellenists mentioned it, predominantly in positive terms. A late-eighteenthcentury Compendium dialectorum Graecarum, for example, promoted the Disputatio as a good handbook on the Greek dialects and two introductions to the Greek language also included it in their state of the art on Greek studies.45 Even outside strictly Hellenist circles did the Disputatio meet with response. For instance, in a 1712 dissertation on the dialects of Hebrew, held at Leipzig, the Disputatio, attributed here to Schwartz, was quoted and praised for suggesting that dialectal variation may have existed even before the confusion of tongues at Babel, i.e. in the primeval tongue of mankind.46 The German scholar Gottfried Hensel (1687–1765), in turn, cited Schwartz and Helm’s idiosyncratic definition of dialectus and agreed with it in his 1741 Synopsis uniuer­ sae philologiae.47 Accordingly, it can be concluded that the scholarly impact of the disputation, though restricted to Germany, was significant, especially if one takes into account that it was only a short work and that it is probable that only few copies were printed. 5

Conclusion

Schwartz and Helm’s Disputatio de causis dialectorum was an exponent of the early modern interest in the phenomenon of dialectal variation, with which scholars active in the German city of Wittenberg were particularly concerned. It was part of a tradition of handbooks for the Greek dialects which emerged in the early sixteenth century and continues to this day. The Wittenberg fascination for dialects did not end with Schwartz and Helm’s Disputatio. Rather, the city witnessed several other dissertations devoted to the theme in the eighteenth century. Indeed, German, Greek, and so-called Oriental dialects were to be discussed at length in Wittenberg auditoria – a story awaiting to be told.48 45  See Facius Johann Friedrich, Compendium dialectorum Graecarum in usum scholarum (Nuremberg, E.C. Grattenauer: 1782) vii; Simonis Johann, Introductio grammaticocritica in linguam Graecam […] (Halle, Orphanotropheum: 1752) 216; Walch Johann Ernst Immanuel, Introductio in linguam Graecam, Editio secunda auctior (Jena, J.R. Cröcker’s widow: 1772) 140. 46  Kiesling Johann Daniel (Pr.) – Bause Johann Georg (Resp.), […] De dialectis Ebraeorum puris, dissertatio I. generalis (Leipzig, Brandenburger: 1712) 9: ‘uti ingeniose Cl. M. Schvvarzius conicit’. The passage quoted can be found at Schwartz – Helm, Disputatio de causis dialectorum B3v. 47  Hensel Gottfried, Synopsis uniuersae philologiae […] (Nuremberg, Homann: 1741) 29. 48  See e.g. Schurzfleisch Konrad Samuel (Pr.) – Meisner Christian (Auctor et Resp.), Silesiam loquentem […] praeside Conrado Samuele Schurzfleischio […] protulit […] Christianus Meisnerus […] (Wittenberg, Schultz: 1705); Ferber Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Thryllitsch Georg

EARLY 18TH-C. DISSERTATION ON DIALECTS PRESENTED IN WITTENBERG

553

Although clearly part of a tradition, Schwartz and Helm’s Disputatio nonetheless occupies a somewhat peculiar position. It is the only dissertation focusing on the phenomenon of dialectal variation per se and not on a specific linguistic context. True, the Greek dialects still feature prominently in the final paragraphs of the work, but Schwartz and Helm are exceptional in separating the three-page Greek part so clearly – and even typographically – from their twelve-page general discussion. The result is an account which not only repeats traditional insights and synthesises existing literature but which also formulates innovative ideas on a phenomenon its authors deplored, namely the great linguistic variation haunting mankind which they would rather see reunited in terms of language.

Select Bibliography



Primary Sources

Facius Johann Friedrich, Compendium dialectorum Graecarum in usum scholarum (Nuremberg, E.C. Grattenauer: 1782). Ferber Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Thryllitsch Georg Friedrich (Auctor et Resp.), Suspiciones quasdam historico-technicas de dialectis Graecis ex consideratione originum migra­ tionumque Graecarum nationum collectas praeside […] eruditorum examini modeste subicio, […] Thryllitius […] (Wittenberg, Schrödter: 1709). Groddeck Benjamin (Pr.) – Treuge Michael Gottlieb (Resp.), Commentatio academica de natura dialectorum ad linguam Hebraicam et Arabicam applicata (Wittenberg, Schlomach: 1747). Harleß Gottlieb Christoph, De uitis philologorum nostra aetate clarissimorum, 3 vols. (Bremen, Georg Ludwig Förster: 1764) vol. 1, 1–37. Hensel Gottfried, Synopsis universae philologiae […] (Nuremberg, Homann: 1741). Kiesling Johann Daniel (Pr.) – Bause Johann Georg (Resp.), […] De dialectis Ebraeorum puris, dissertatio I. generalis (Leipzig, Brandenburger: 1712). Kirchmaier Georg Wilhelm (Pr.) – Schwartz Christian Gottlieb (Resp.), Ex philologia Graeca, de dialecto noui testamenti, propositiones quaedam, ad disputandum publice selectae (Wittenberg, Gerdes: 1702).

Friedrich (Auctor et Resp.), Suspiciones quasdam historico-technicas de dialectis Graecis ex consideratione originum migrationumque Graecarum nationum collectas praeside […] eruditorum examini modeste subicio, […] Thryllitius […] (Wittenberg, Schrödter: 1709); Groddeck Benjamin (Pr.) – Treuge Michael Gottlieb (Resp.), Commentatio aca­ demica de natura dialectorum ad linguam Hebraicam et Arabicam applicata (Wittenberg, Schlomach: 1747).

554

Van Rooy

Leusden Johannes, “Dissertatio undecima, de dialectis noui t. in genere et in specie”, in Leusden Johannes, Philologus Hebraeo-Graecus generalis, continens quaestio­ nes Hebraeo-Graecas, quae circa nouum testamentum Graecum fere moueri solent (Utrecht, Anthonius Smytegelt: 1670) 83–91. Saumaise Claude, De Hellenistica commentarius, controuersiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens, et plenissime pertractans originem et dialectos Graecae linguae (Leiden, Elsevir: 1643). Schmidt Erasmus, Tractatus de dialectis Graecorum principalibus, quae sunt in parte λέξεως (Wittenberg, Lorenz Säuberlich: 1604). Schurzfleisch Konrad Samuel (Pr.) – Meisner Christian (Auctor et Resp.), Silesiam lo­ quentem […] praeside Conrado Samuele Schurzfleischio […] protulit […] Christianus Meisnerus […] (Wittenberg, Schultz: 1705). Schwartz Christian Gottlieb (Pr.) – Helm Abraham (Resp.), Disputatio de causis dialec­ torum, speciatim Graecarum (Wittenberg, Gerdes: 1702). Ursin Georg Heinrich, Grammatica Graeca ex aliis accurato ordine ac solicito quorumuis examine collecta, sectiones et capita, haec in quaestiones ac responsiones digesta, ad usus Gymnasii Ratisponensis Poetici (Nuremberg, Wolfgang Moritz Endter: 1691). Zwinger Jakob, “Graecarum dialectorum hypotyposis, seorsim primum singularum, tum coniunctim omnium, tabulis methodicis, iudicio memoriaeque seruientibus, proposita”, in Scapula Johannes, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum nouum […] (Basel, Sebastian Henricpetri: 1605) TT1r–AAa6r.



Secondary Literature

Botley P., Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1396–1529: Grammars, Lexica, and Class­ room Texts, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge 100.2 (Philadelphia: 2010). Ciccolella F., Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 32 (Leiden – Boston: 2008). Colombat B. – Peters M. (eds.), Conrad Gessner. Mithridate. Mithridates (1555), Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 452 (Geneva: 2009). Haugen E., “Dialect, Language, Nation”, American Anthropologist 68, 4 (1966) 922–935. Hoche R., “Schwarz: Christian Gottlieb S. (auch Schwartz)”, in Historische Commission (ed.), Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig: 1891) vol. 33, 227–228. Kazazis J. – Chairopoulos P., “History of Teaching of Ancient Greek in Germany”, in Giannakis G.K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 3 vols. (Leiden – Boston: 2014) vol. 2, 162–174. Van Rooy R., Through the Vast Labyrinth of Languages and Dialects: The Emergence and Transformations of a Conceptual Pair in the Early Modern Period (ca. 1478–1782), Ph.D. dissertation (KU Leuven: 2017).

Chapter 21

The Programma in Relation to Disputations/ Dissertations at the Faculty of Law of Leipzig University around 1750 Annamaria Lesigang-Bruckmüller Summary Disputations and dissertations at Early modern German universities were frequently announced by so-called programmata which had to have some connection to the dissertation announced. This connection has been examined using twelve programmes from the Faculty of Law at Leipzig around 1750. The aim was to find an approach to this type of text which seems quite unfamiliar today. In order to increase our understanding of the programma, one more example is presented which describes all the negative attitudes towards this type of text – ‘futile writing which is neither read nor understood’ – and depicts programmes as a medium of academic vanity. It turns out that while programmes were often written along conventional lines, they could also be used for more personal statements in which scholars could safely call for changes (improvements in court proceedings, in our case). In several cases, the programme appears to have been used as a more easy medium of (scientific) discussion by scholars of that age.

1

Introduction

Disputations at German early modern universities were frequently announced by so-called programmata,1 the contents of which – according to Hieronymus Freyer’s Oratoria – were intended to connect ‘cum themate generali … thema aliquod speciale’.2 In addition, in his Wohl-informirter Redner Erdmann Uhse states that various academic occasions were announced by programmes, 1  The historical development of programmes from ancient Greece onwards and with an emphasis on various types of programmes at German early modern universities has been described by Neumann F., “Programm”, in Ueding G. – Kalivoda G. (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (Tübingen: 2005) vol. VII (Pos-Rhet) 154–158. 2  Freyer Hieronymus, Oratoria in tabulas compendiarias redacta et ad usum iuuentutis scholasticae accommodata. Editio sexta (Halle, Waisenhaus: 1736) 74.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_022

556

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

‘da man denn entweder von der Sache selbst, so abgehandelt werden wird, oder von einer verwandten Materie handelt’.3 In many cases, the imprints of dissertations / disputations and the programmes announcing them were preserved independently; very rarely were they edited together. In dissertational collections, however, collectors seem to have made an effort to bind them next to each other. According to Neumann, the topics of these invitational programmes either referred to the topic of the disputation, or they were just loosely connected.4 In which ways do announcing programmes and announced disputations relate to each other in terms of contents? Can the programma, which sometimes consisted of up to twenty pages in quarto itself, be regarded as a widened battleground of the disputed topic? Does it have any particular relevance for the academic self-representation of the persons involved, or does it play a minor role? As a basis for my exemplary case study I will refer to the imprints of the University of Leipzig edited around 1750. They are listed in journals such as Nützliche Nachrichten von den Bemühungen derer Gelehrten, und andern Begebenheiten in Leipzig in great detail. It was possible to recognise some tendencies at first glance when browsing through the year 1750: ten disputations were held (and printed) at the medical faculty announced by a programma, which is also true for five at the faculty of law, thus offering the best material to answer our question about the thematic interconnection posed above. These ‘couples’ of dissertation plus programma could not be discovered to the same extent in the philosophical, let alone the theological faculty. Our study will focus on pairs from the faculty of law. The habit of writing more elaborate announcements (of deaths, disputations, and academic or religious festivities) played a considerable role in the literary output of early modern German university professors. Although academic conventions differed between German universities, rhetorical prescriptions for these texts, which had to be composed regularly, were more or less the same. It was the duty of the procancellarius (vice-chancellor) of a university to issue invitations to the final exams, festive speeches or disputations by means of these short texts. The rhetorical stilus mediocris – the style used by Cicero in his letters – was considered appropriate. There was supposed to be

3  Uhse Erdmann, Wohl-informirter Redner, worinnen die Oratorischen Kunst-Griffe vom kleinesten bis zum grösten durch Kurtze Fragen und ausführliche Antwort vorgetragen werden (8th ed.; Leipzig, Schuster: 1723) 352. 4  Neumann, „Programm“ 156.

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

557

an argumentative structure and, as mentioned above, some connection to the occasion announced. 2

Programmes as Reflected on and Explained in Contemporary Programmes

In order to increase our understanding of this very specific type of text, it seems helpful to study some programmes from the first half of the eighteenth century that refer to programmes themselves. The legal scholar Samuel Friedrich Böhmer, for example, wrote a programme on the programma iudiciale (Halle 1726)5 in which he traced this type of writing back to ancient times when the (Greek) term programma was used in the same context as the (Latin) edictum. The term was also used in the sense of a sales offer. Böhmer finally focuses his main discussion of the term on one specific type of legal programma. He finishes his observations with a general overview of the contemporary usage of this term,6 adding that: […] formula quidem, more Romano, adhibita angustiori, ita tamen comparata, ut doctrinae quoddam caput, prout rationes Academicae peculiariter postulant, brevibus referat.7 […] the term, however, is used in a narrower sense than in Roman times; nevertheless, it is put together in such a way that one certain chapter of a teaching is presented in a few words, according to the specific academic ways. According to Böhmer it was therefore usual for the writer of a programme to explain some chapters of a discipline in a few words. In the same year, Daniel Müller reflected on De programmate veterum in a school programme in a very similar way.8 (The habit of making these written announcements was not limited to universities, they were also usual in gymnasia.) Introducing the original meaning of programma as an edict on the one hand and as a sales offer on the 5  Böhmer Samuel Friedrich, Programma academicum quo praemissa meditatione de programmate iudiciali lectiones suas aestivas indicit atque ad easdem […] invitat […] (Halle, Grunert: 1726). 6  This passage is cited in Neumann, “Programm” 155, in German translation. 7  Böhmer, De programmate iudiciali 15. 8  Müller Daniel, Programmate programmata veterum considerante proceres urbis nostrae […] ad actum valedictorium […] Johannis Georgii Knauffii Chemnicensis, qui erit d. XXVII. Maji, anni currentis […] invitat M. Daniel Müllerus, rect. schol. Chemn. (Chemnitz, Stöffel: 1726).

558

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

other, he seems to repeat Böhmer’s argument without citing him. But Müller adds one more instance of the use of programmes in ancient Greece: he concludes with the ancient manner of publishing programmes before a gathering, and he argues that the contemporary manner of writing programmes must have its origin in this type of ancient programma. ‘That a programme was once a prelude to a solemn act,’ he begins, ‘nobody will doubt, who mente sua recolit, moris olim fuisse apud Athenienses […], ut, priusquam advocaretur concio, programma publicaretur, inque illo res, cujus deli­ beratio erat suscipienda, proscriberetur […] Ad programmatum huius classis similitudinem accedere aliqua ratione videntur illa, quae hodie in academiis et scholis usitata sunt, in quibus ut varia […], ita maxime orationes publice habendae, illarumque argumenta indicantur.9 […] bears in mind that it used to be the custom in ancient Greece that before calling together a gathering a programme was published, and that it was written down in this programme which topic was going to be discussed […] It seems that those writings that are in use in our universities and schools today, in which various events […] and especially public speeches and their arguments are announced, are somewhat similar to the programmes of that type. So these two programmes have the aim of explaining the historical origins of programmes, with two different emphases: Böhmer finishes his explanation with an explanation of the programma iudiciale, which actually denotes a proscription, while Müller claims that the contemporary programme originated in ancient Greek announcements hung up before gatherings. He finishes with the suggestion that it would be worth writing about the writers of programmes, at the same time apologising for not having enough time to do so. In a programme of 1704, Johann Ernst Müller, a school rector, reflected about the composition of programmes, calling them ‘dissertations’ (in the more general sense of a short treatise): Nobis ergo Programma est dissertatio, in publicum divulgans actus cuiusdam oratorii consilium, et ad eius solennitatem invitans, quorum praesentiam nobis gratam et honorificam fore, putamus.10 9  Ibidem, last page. 10  Müller Johann Ernst, Programma de programmate (Rudolfstadt, Heinrich Urban: 1704). Reprinted in: Bidermann Johann Gottlieb (ed.), Selecta scholastica, in quibus programmata

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

559

So for us, a programme is a dissertation that announces the plan of an oratory act; it invites to the solemn celebration of the speech people whose presence we think will be pleasant for us and give us honour. He states that a programme should be structured into four parts and that topics may be taken from various sources, but mostly those connected to the person whose festivity is being announced, or it should be an additional explanation of the topic announced, but it could also be taken from contemporary circumstances. This programme was reprinted in a collection of school programmes in 1744, edited by Johann Gottlieb Bidermann, who was also the editor of a series called Acta scholastica11 in which again a great number of selected school programmes were published. This series is regarded as an early journal for educational science.12 But in spite of the relevance Bidermann quite obviously attributed to the programme, both as author and editor, he also mentioned some criticism concerning this type of text: in the introduction to his collection of selected programmata he cites a longer passage from a programme by Johann Jacob Schatz13 which suggests that the programme did not remain unquestioned. His text offers a surprising insight into all the negative attitudes towards the programma. Although its topic is the programme written in gymnasia, it still suggests some uneasiness in relation to this type of text in general. In a very amusing way, the author begins with the statement that he is again about to carry out a futile task, like many authors of programmes, particularly those who choose topics that are not relevant enough. And even if the topic is relevant, only a minority really reads these programmes, he writes, while most scholars just collect them without reading or understanding them (the Latin pun on the composites of legere is hard to translate: ‘cum a plerisque multo sudore collecta nec lecta nec intellecta videantur’ – ‘since most of them make a great effort to collect them, but they seem to be neither read nor understood’). And for some scholars, programmes seem to be a real disgrace, since ex scholis sacri, philologici, philosophici et historici argumenti […] coeunt. Vol. I, fasc. I (Naumburg, Laitenberger – Bossoegel: 1744) 9–15, § 2. 11  Eight volumes; 1741–1748. 12  Cf. Brachmann J., Der pädagogische Diskurs der Sattelzeit. Eine Kommunikationsgeschichte, Beiträge zur Theorie und Geschichte der Erziehungswissenschaft 30 (Kempten: 2008) 177–179. 13   Schatz Johann Jacob, Ad actum valedictorium quo […] tres classis selectae alumni d. 21. Septembris MDCCXXXIII […] ultimum gymnasio vale dicturi sunt omnes […] invitat M. Iohannes Iacobus Schatz Argentinensis, gymnasii Isenacensis director et bibliothecarius. (Eisenach, Krug: 1733). Cited in Bidermann, Selecta scholastica 3–8.

560

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

they are always ‘most humanely invited’ as an audience without ever being cited in the programmes themselves. Others again receive programmes honoris causa without understanding them and leave them in their homes to be openly seen by anyone and to bear witness to their scholarly minds. In short, this text depicts and criticises the programme as a medium of academic vanity. But in spite of all this criticism, Schatz contends that this genre does have some positive features, especially as a medium through which the deplorable state of education can be criticised safely and in which suggestions for its improvement can be easily communicated. As a member of the Societas Latina Jenensis, Johann Jakob Schatz called for a renewal of language instruction and was an advocate of teaching Latin through speaking.14 And before he intro­ duces the candidates, he finishes his meditations with some personal thoughts in which he explains that programmes are the perfect means of communicating ideas that go against the thoughts of people to whom nothing feels right, and that he will continue to use this genre in this way. 3

Programmes at the Faculty of Law at Leipzig around 1750

This short excursus about what contemporaries thought about programmes should suffice as an introduction to our question of to what extent these texts are connected to the disputations announced. This study focuses on programmes from the faculty of law in mid-eighteenth century Leipzig, not least because of the fact that many of them are physically available in Vienna: a great number of printed dissertations and programmes, especially from the field of law, have come down to us in the Austrian National Library, the former Imperial Library. They belonged to the collection of dissertations gathered by Heinrich Christian Senckenberg, a famous legal scholar from Frankfort and Reichshofrat in Vienna. After his death, his enormous collection of legal dissertations comprising 800 volumes in quarto was bought by the library in 1779.15 14  O  verhoff J., Die Frühgeschichte des Philanthropismus (1715–1771). Konstitutionsbedingungen, Praxisfelder und Wirkung eines pädagogischen Reformprogramms im Zeitalter der Aufklärung, Hallesche Beiträge zur Europäischen Aufklärung 26 (Tübingen: 2004) 33–35. 15  Stummvoll J. (ed.), Geschichte der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Part I: Die Hofbibliothek (1368–1922) (Vienna: 1968) 399–400 (Section 6, written by Rehberger R. and Ustrnul G.). The handwritten catalogue of this collection has been preserved in the National Library (Katalog der Bibliothek des Heinrich Christian Freiherrn von Senckenberg: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Cod. 14.951–14.953); cf. Fabian B. (ed.), Handbuch der historischen Buchbestände in Österreich. Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 3.4 (Historische Sonderkataloge) (online-resource).

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

561

Unfortunately, the single booklets that Senckenberg had bound together into thick volumes were taken apart when the titles were catalogued in the first half of the 19th century. In these volumes he had bound dissertations and announcing programmes one after the other (this can be seen from the handwritten figures on the title pages), and luckily those pairs were left together when they were re-bound in separate entities in the 19th century. For our study, in which the connection between dissertations and announcing programmes is examined, it seemed reasonable to concentrate on one decade (1742–1752) and one university (Leipzig), and to pick out the writings of three procancellarii of one faculty (Law) to find an answer to our question posed above. In order to find out in which ways the request that there should be some connection was followed, twelve dissertations from the faculty of law will be examined which were announced by means of a programme.16 At the end of every programme the vice-chancellor introduced the candidates with a biography of 2–3 pages. Apart from indicating their descent and the candidates’ course of study, these programmes also offer precious insights into the process of the inauguration: after the candidate had passed an examen rigorosum, the inauguration consisted of a lectio cursoria one day before the disputation, and of the disputation itself, followed by the official award of the doctorate. Both the title of the lecture and of the disputation were published in the programme. It seems that only inaugural disputations were announced by a programma. In this period, three professors functioned as procancellarii of the faculty of law and were thus alternately in charge of writing programmes, namely Carl O. Rechenberg, Ferdinand A. Hommel and Gustav H. Mylius. 3.1 Procancellarius Gustav Heinrich Mylius From 1691 onwards, the University of Leipzig had to hold examinations for future solicitors as well as notaries (from 1711). Many students of law took these exams to become advocates or notaries, and only later did some of them also take their doctoral degrees.17 The faculty of law was closely connected to the Saxon courts of law, and the members of the university had to deal with court matters on four afternoons per week.18 This enormous workload could only be

16  F riedberg E., Die Leipziger Juristenfakultät. Ihre Doktoren und ihr Heim (Leipzig: 1909); Döring D., “Anfänge der modernen Wissenschaften. Die Universität Leipzig vom Zeitalter der Aufklärung bis zur Universitätsreform. 1650–1830/31”, in Bünz E. – Rudersdorf M. – Döring D. (eds.), Geschichte der Universität Leipzig 1409–2009. Vol. I: Spätes Mittelalter und Frühe Neuzeit (1409–1830/31) (Leipzig: 2009) 521–771; about the faculty of law cf. 704–710. 17  Friedberg, Leipziger Juristenfakultät 80. 18  Ibidem 83.

562

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

coped with by the help of assessors. One of these was Gustav Heinrich Mylius,19 and in his case it can be observed that he used the programme as a means of suggesting improvements for various problems concerning the courts. In the programme that announced the disputation De fine litium ut finiantur (‘About the aim of legal proceedings, that they be finished’) by C.O. Packbusch,20 whose argument is that court proceedings should come to an end as quickly as possible, Mylius criticises the misuse of the terminus Saxonicus.21 The terminus Saxonicus was a period of several weeks in which legal action had to be taken.22 Mylius criticises that this specific deadline was being used in an exaggerated way and suggests its abolition in order to shorten legal proceedings. So whereas the vice-chancellor announced the disputation with a very concrete suggestion of how to abbreviate legal proceedings, the disputant, who had passed his exam as a solicitor three years before, made his point in a more general way – he argues that there is an innate human interest in finishing conflicts and legal proceedings quickly,23 thus embedding his considerations into the thinking of natural law. So both Mylius and Packbusch were involved in court proceedings and made a similar point. Mylius refers to his programme once again four years later, when he repeats his criticism of the abuse of the various ways of legal action: Quod in negotiis humanis plurimis evenire solet, ut optimae quaeque res abusu corrumpantur, id plerumque in caussis forensibus accidit, dum media Legum beneficio introducta, quae recto usu sunt salutaria atque litigantibus proficua, usu contrario aut illicito vergant in damnum alterius, imo eiusdem ipsius, qui illis utitur.24

19  “Mylius Gustav Heinrich” in Meusel Johann Georg, Lexikon der vom Jahr 1750 bis 1800 verstorbenen teutschen Schriftsteller vol. 9 (Leipzig, Fleischer: 1809) 490–493. With detailed bibliography. 20  Packbusch Carl Otto, Dissertatio inauguralis de fine litium ut finiantur, quam […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores obtinendi die 21. Martii 1748 proponit Carolus Otto Packbusch adv. immatr. (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). 21  Mylius Gustav Heinrich, Solennia inauguralia […] Caroli Ottonis Packbuschii advocati Chemnicensis die 21. Martii 1748 celebranda indicit G.H. Mylius (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). 22  “Sächsische Frist” in Zedler Johann Heinrich, Großes vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste vol. 33 (Leipzig – Halle, Zedler: 1742) 355. Pierer Heinrich August, Pierer’s Universal-Lexikon der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart vol. 6 (4th ed. Altenburg, Pierer: 1858) 752–753. http://www.zeno.org/nid/20009955259. 23  Packbusch, De fine litium § VII. 24  Pro-Cancellarius Gustavus Henricus Mylius ICtus solemnia inauguralia […] Caroli Ludovici Stieglitzii d. 27. Ian. 1752 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1752) 3.

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

563

What often happens in most human affairs, that even the best things are ruined by misuse, mostly happens in cases at court, when means of legal redress introduced in our favour, that when used in a correct way are helpful and good for the conflicting parties, can damage somebody else when used in a contrary or illicit way, or even damage the person that uses them. He again summarises his criticism of the erroneous use of the terminus Saxonicus, which was supposed to shorten proceedings, but by abuse prolonged them instead. In this text, he goes into detail regarding court appeals and tries to find a remedy for their abuse, stating that they are a beneficial and helpful tool, but sometimes even used in a harmful way by judges. This topic really seems to be a matter of concern to him, because he discusses it in a longer programme of sixteen pages quarto, and it becomes evident how deeply Mylius is involved in court matters and their problems. It is interesting to note that there does not seem to be any connection to the topic of the disputation, in which the candidate discussed persons excluded from entailed estates (Fideikommiß) in relation to a recent decision by the government.25 The only connection one could assume is not openly declared, namely the possibility of appealing against this exclusion. In 1749, Mylius wrote a programma for the son of a deceased colleague in a less serious tone. Again, the contents of the programme are not evidently connected to the disputation: the disputant wrote about a topic from Roman private law, the Roman Lex Laetoria, which protected citizens under the age of 25 from being defrauded,26 while Mylius chose to write about various types of curiae.27 He sets out with the origin of curiae in Roman antiquity, through the middle ages and up to his own times, but he was definitely not personally involved in this topic, which he tackled more from the perspective of history rather than of law. Surprisingly, the connection between the two texts lies on the one hand in the office the candidate’s deceased father had fulfilled in the 25  Stieglitz Karl Ludwig, Dissertationem inauguralem de fideicommissis familiae ab iis quorum interest sublatis […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores obtinendi in academia Lipsiensi a.d. XXVII Ian. 1752 disceptandam proponit Carolus Ludovicus Stieglitz Lipsiensis (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1752). 26  Hetzer Hieronymus, Dissertatio inauguralis ad legem Laetoriam quam […] pro summis in utroque iure honoribus capessendis d. 23. Jan. 1749 publicae disquisitioni submittit Io. Hieronymus Hetzer A.M. (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1749). 27  Gustavus Henricus Mylius Ictus idemque procancellarius de curiis disserit et inaugurationem candidati prae-nobilissimi M. Io. Hieron. Hetzeri Lipsiensis d. 23. Jan. 1749 celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1749).

564

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

curia provincialis, where he was a protonotarius. And on the other, Mylius declares the day of the candidate’s award of the doctorate as a Dies Curiae, a day of a public session: Haec praefari libitum fuit, cum Proto-Notarii quondam Curiae nostrae Provincialis, Viri consultissimi, mihique amicissimi, filius unicus summos honores, quos ordo noster impertiri potest, ab illo peteret, ad cuius commodum promovendum iam Dies Curiae, sive consessus publici dicenda.28 This we liked to tell in advance, when the only son of the late protonotary of our curia provincialis, a man of great knowledge and a very good friend of mine, asked our faculty for the highest honours that it can grant, and in his favour a dies curiae, or a public session has to be announced. So in announcing the award of the highest academic grade to a candidate who was not a solicitor before taking his doctorate, he did not choose a topic from his everyday experience in the courts; instead, he considered the personal reference to the candidate’s father as appropriate. Moreover, the cursory lecture on the day before the disputation addresses the question ‘ubi petantur tutores vel curatores’, so there is also a reference to this lecture. A more general legal problem which is still apparent today is addressed in a short programme of 1744.29 It deals with the question of common sense as opposed to legal argumentation. In particular, the programme deals with a Saxon rule that dismissed cases because of a trifling amount in dispute. Mylius writes that a decision is being prepared which will make these dismissals easier, again with the aim to shorten court proceedings. This programma announces the inaugural dissertation of J.G. Richter. The defendant wrote about the Roman mos maiorum in relation to codified Roman law in a very learned, philological way.30 His interest in Roman antiquity later enabled him to take up office in the Medaillenkabinett of the Saxon electoral prince. It is evident that the programma has no connection to the announced dissertation at all. Instead, Mylius writes about a very specific topic from everyday legal business and announces an improvement. Hence the programme is his means of publicly explaining how helpful this improvement will be. 28  Mylius, De curiis 12. 29  Gustavus Henricus Mylius ICtus […] panegyrin inauguralem candidati clarissimi M. Ioannis Gothofredi Richteri d. IX. Aprilis A. 1744 celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1744). 30  Richter Johann Gottfried, De moribus maiorum tanquam antiquissimo Romani iuris fonte dissertatio, […] proposita a Ioanne Gothofredo Richtero A.M. (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1744).

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

565

One year later, he addressed a more linguistic problem in the field of law which was particularly relevant to all countries that derived their legal systems from the Romans. A few decades before the introduction of national legal codifications and some time before standardised German legal terminology was introduced, Mylius wrote about the difficulty of aligning the terminology of received law (ius receptum, i.e. Roman law and its Latin terminology) with that of common Saxon law written in older German.31 In this programme, he referred back to a programme written for the annual memorial speech in honour of Rudolf Silverstein, in which the terms Leibzucht and Leibgedinge had been discussed. Mylius discussed the difference between the terms Wildbahn and Wildbann, based on the question of a baronet answered by the court. The dissertation itself, however, is about kidnappers and the change in their punishment from Roman antiquity up to the defendant’s days.32 From what has been said so far, we can state that out of the five programmes studied only one actually dealt with a topic similar to the one of the dissertation, two were somewhat loosely connected, and two had no connection at all. It can also be stated that those programmes that addressed problems in court proceedings were written with great commitment, whereas the text that explained various types of curiae seems to have been written hastily and in a less serious way. Moreover, Mylius seems to have felt the need for reform also in other fields of law (standardisation of legal terminology). 3.2 Procancellarius Ferdinand August Hommel The father of the reformer of criminal law Karl Ferdinand Hommel, who has remained influential to this day, not least because of his translations of specialist legal terms into German,33 was initially an assessor (an assistant to a judge) at court and later became a Professor of Institutes and Digests at the University of Leipzig.34 His programmes seem rather different from those of Mylius in that they do discuss an issue related to the inaugural festivities.

31  G  ustavus Henricus Mylius ICtus […] panegyrin inauguralem candidati praeclarissimi M. Christiani Erdmanni Deylingii, d. 18. Maii a. 1745 […] celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1745). 32  Deyling Christian Erdmann, Ad l[egem] Fabiam de plagiariis dissertatio. Quam illustris ICtorum ordinis consensu, moderante Carolo Ottone Rechenberg pro gradu doctoris rite obtinendo defendet auctor M. Christian. Erdmann. Deylingius […] ad diem 18. Maii 1745 (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1745). 33  Döring, “Anfänge der modernen Wissenschaften” 709. 34  “Ferdinand August Hommel” in Meusel, Lexikon vol. 6 (Leipzig, Fleischer: 1806) 90–93.

566

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

In the programme in which the dissertation of J.T. Richter is announced,35 the connection between the programme and the disputation announced is evident and corresponds to the requirements in a very conventional way: the dissertation discusses the question of whether it is necessary for the recipient of a donation to consent to the donation when the donator has died, and the disputant concludes that explicit consent is not necessary.36 The defendant refers to a case recently heard at the court. At the beginning of the programme, the vice-chancellor explains the general meaning of the legal term acceptatio (consent) in terms of language and law – with references to classical authors – and then focuses in his discussion of the term on the possible ways of revoking this consent in various types of contracts, illustrating one of his points with an Aesopian fable. He thus fulfils a main requirement for a programme, namely to explain a specific point related to the topic of the disputation. He concludes with the statement that the discussion should now turn to the cases in which it is not possible to revoke consent, but it ends abruptly and the biography of the defendant begins. As a respected professor, Hommel also takes the liberty of changing the order of the programmes. While defendants’ biographies are normally placed at the end of a programme, closing with a “most sincere” invitation addressed to the academic audience, a programme written in 1750 sets out with the defendant’s biography.37 In this text, Hommel does not refer to the contents of the dissertation,38 in which the candidate discusses a privilege guaranteed to the Roman Church by Emperor Justinian, the praescriptio centum annorum.39 Against the opinion of other scholars, the defendant argues that this privileged limitation period is still valid from the point of view of civil right. Instead, the 35  P rocancellarius D. Ferdinand. August. Hommel […] solemnia inauguralia candidati clarissimi Dn. M. Ioan. Tobiae Richteri […] d. IV. Idus Septembr. in auditorio Petrino publice cele­ branda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1744). 36  Richter Johann Tobias, Dissertatio iuridica inauguralis de acceptatione in donatione mortis caussa non necessaria quam […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores rite capessendi ad diem X. Septembris 1744 eruditorum examini submittit M. Io. Tobias Richter (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1744). 37  Procancellarius D. Ferdinand August Hommel […] ad actum inaugurationis sollemnem candidati dignissimi Dn. Iohannis Augusti Bachii artium magistri ad d. VIII. Kal. Octobr. anni huius 1750 publice celebrandum […] decenter invitat (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). 38  Bach Johann August, Disputatio de praescriptione centum annorum in actionibus ecclesiae Rom. de iure civ[ili], auctoritate illustris ICtorum ordinis ut aditum ad summos utriusque iuris honores aperiret disceptationi eruditorum publ. d. 24. Sept. 1750 proposita a Ioanne Augusto Bachio, A.M. et I.U. cand. (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). 39  Cf. Kaiser W., “Zur hundertjährigen Verjährung zugunsten der römischen Kirche”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 116 (1999): Kanonistische Abteilung LXXXV, 60–103.

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

567

procancellarius chooses the candidate’s cursory lecture on the day before the disputation as a reference point for the topic of his programme. In our case, the announcement reads as follows: Restat ut publica quoque specimina pro more in Academia nostra recepto exhibeat. Facturus id est proximo die Mercurii hora pomerid. II. qua L. 13. C. Quod cum eo qui in alien. potest. est negotium gestum esse dicetur lectione cursoria in auditorio nostro Petrino interpretaturus est, quo ipso uberrimus de diversitate peculiorum tum filiorum familias tum servorum, disserendi ipsi aperietur campus.40 It remains for our candidate to present public proof of his efforts according to our academic manners. He is going to do this on the coming Wednesday at two o’clock in the afternoon. He will interpret law 1341 in our lecture hall in a cursory lecture, in which the wide field of discussion about the variety of peculia, both of the children of a family and of the slaves, will be opened for him. And at this point, the professor develops the argument of his programme as a digression from the announced lecture, discussing one particular type of peculium (assets/property), the pecunia lustrica (assets provided by a godparent). In a programme of 1747, Hommel again explains a point loosely related to the topic of the candidate’s lecture on the eve of the disputation.42 In this lecture, the defendant had to discuss a question from the Corpus Iuris Civilis (‘Qui pro sua iurisdictione iudices dare darive possunt’) regarding the issue of which judge has jurisdiction. The programme deals with the problem where an offender should be charged. Referring to a recent case, Hommel asks whether the place where an offender is arrested should also be the place where they are charged for less serious offences such as verbal injuries. He goes into great detail on the question of which type of crime verbal injury is, arguing that it is a delictum privatum and that it is therefore not possible to take legal action against it everywhere. So the topic of the programme is hinged on the candidate’s cursory lecture and then followed by his biography:

40  Hommel, Ad actum sollemnem Bachii invitatio 6. 41  Cf. Justinian, Institutes IV, 7, according to current numbering. 42  Procancellarius D. Ferdinandus Augustus Hommelius […] solemnia inauguralia candidati […] Mauritii Adolphi Engelii III Kal. Quinctil. in auditorio Petrino publice celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1747).

568

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

Atque haec sunt B L quae de foro deprehensionis, et an illud in iniuriis verbalibus attendi possit, in mentem venerunt occasione Legis Unic. C. Qui pro sua iurisd. iud. dare darive poss. quam lectione cursoria propediem interpretaturus, insimulque materiam de foro competente explicaturus est, praenobilissimus Candidatus noster […].43 And this, friendly reader, is what came to mind about the place of arrest and if it is applicable in verbal injuries, on the occasion of the law […] which our candidate will interpret in a cursory lecture in the coming days and at the same time explain the topic of the competent court […]. The announced disputation by M.A. Engel is about how a syndicate is revoked,44 so again, the programme has no relationship to the disputation. A dissertation about the relevance of renewing an alliance between the Polish king (who was also the Saxon electoral prince) and the House of Austria was proposed by a candidate who had already earned some fame as an author of various texts concerning imperial law and would later become rector of Leipzig University, Heinrich Gottlieb Francke.45 His dissertation, written at an age of over forty,46 was announced by Hommel in 1748.47 Six days later, Francke delivered his oratio auspicalis (inaugural lecture) when he became professor extra ordinem for public law. He invited the academic audience with his own programme. So the copy preserved in the Austrian National Library contains the dissertation, the programme announcing the disputation, and the candidate’s own programme announcing his inaugural lecture that took place a 43  Ibidem 10. 44  Engel Moritz Adolph, Dissertatio inauguralis de syndicatu et eius valida renunciatione quam […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores et privilegia doctoralia rite consequenda d. 29. Junii 1747 publico eruditorum examini submittit Mauritius Adolphus Engel (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1747). 45  “Heinrich Gottlieb Francke”, in Professorenkatalog der Universität Leipzig / Catalogus Professorum Lipsiensium, edited by the Lehrstuhl für Neuere und Neueste Geschichte, Historisches Seminar der Universität Leipzig. http://www.uni-leipzig.de/unigeschichte/ professorenkatalog/leipzig/Francke_1347 (20.6.2018). 46  Francke Heinrich Gottlieb, De nexu foederum perpetuae unionis inter augustam domum Austriacam Poloniaeque regnum auctoritate illustris ICtorum ordinis pro gradu doctoris in utroque iure rite obtinendo die II. Maii 1748 publice disputabit Henricus Gottlieb Francke (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). 47  Procancellarius D. Ferdinand. August. Hommel […] sollemnia inauguralia […] candidati domini Henrici Gottlieb Francke ad diem VI. Non. Mai. 1748 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748).

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

569

week later.48 Interestingly enough, Hommel does not refer to the dissertation, which makes a rather political point. Instead, the point of reference is again the candidate’s lectio cursoria given on the eve of the disputation date, when he spoke De comitibus consistorianis from the Codex Iustinianus. Starting with a philological explanation of the term comes as companion on the one hand and as a title on the other, Hommel drily lists a great number of instances in which the term occurred in various Roman laws, reminding us of Mylius’ programme on curiae. 3.3 Procancellarius Carl Otto Rechenberg Carl Otto Rechenberg became the first professor of natural law at Leipzig in 1711. While he wrote almost fifty programmes in the course of his academic career, we will only have a glance at three of them, written in the same decade as those discussed above. A dissertation from 1747 addressed a topical interest of that period, the variety of law systems with which law in Germany was practised, and the defendant called for the preservation of only the best laws of all these systems, arguing that numerous legal questions could no longer be answered by applying Roman law.49 It has been said that soon after the middle of the 18th century, national law codifications began to be introduced, so here we are reading about a very current problem. The candidate states that laws should be improved by the rational principles of ‘the eternal laws of nature’. The antagonism between theory and practice of studying law and applying it in the courts, as addressed in the title of this dissertation, illustrates this topical problem which is solved in the dissertation by the demand that a lawyer can only fulfil the expectations of a court by becoming a philosopher and knowing the various legal systems (from both ius commune and ius patrium). The vice-chancellor announced this dissertation with a short programme50 and illustrated the candidate’s point with a legal case. The connection between the two texts becomes evident when he begins to introduce the candidate with a short summary of his dissertation. Arguing that a legal scholar has to consider facts and logical principles and accord them with law, he says the following about the candidate:

48  Ö NB 79.P.24. 49  Pauli Martin Gottlieb, Dissertatio inauguralis iuridica de theoriae et praxis iuridicae discordia, quam […] pro summis in utroque iure honoribus obtinendis Lipsiae d. 31. Aug. A.C.N. 1747 eruditorum examini submittit M. Martinus Gottlieb Pauli […] (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1747). 50  Procancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg […] domino M. Martino Gottlieb Pauli […] summos in utroque iure honores d. 31. Aug. 1747 […] tribuendos indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1747).

570

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

Tollit is Theoriae et Praxis Iuridicae discordiam apparentem, et concordiam discordantium, ut videntur, legum, aut usus fori in plurimis restituit. Verum hoc sensu, ubi desinit Iurisperitus, Philosophum incipere, qui si munia sua illi accomodat, demum iure consultum generare, in aprico est. Fecit huius rei periculum Praenobilissimus […] Martinus Gottlieb Pauli […].51 He removes the apparent discrepancy between legal theory and praxis and restores the unity of seemingly contradictory laws or legal habits in most cases. But in this sense it becomes apparent that when someone stops being only familiar with law, he begins to be a philosopher, and only then, in accommodating his duties to him, can he become a true legal scholar. This has been tried by […]. Rechenberg wrote his very last programme, of seven pages, in 1750, and it is also connected to the announced dissertation.52 In this dissertation about involuntary manslaughter the defendant argues that a judge should always consider the exact circumstances of a killing without intent.53 Rechenberg sets out with the personal remark that he had never thought criminal law could be regarded as the most difficult part of jurisdiction, since it was only considered to a minor extent in Roman law, the Carolina or in Saxon law. The judges in Leipzig, who were the only ones allowed to judge criminal cases in Saxe, were therefore highly esteemed for making just judgements in complex cases. Rechenberg describes in great detail that criminal judges had to consider human nature as well as circumstances and probabilities, and the aim of punishment etc. – all this, he argues, has been hardly written down, and he points out that the Carolina (a criminal law codex issued under Charles V) explains very well that there is a difference between what people feel to be just and what is just from a legal point of view. He concludes that it is necessary to study the whole law, human nature, and the exact circumstances of a case instead of just looking at precedents, and indicating that the argument about involuntary manslaughter illustrates this point very well, he finally introduces the candidate. Our last text serves as an example of how several programmes by one author can also constitute an entity in themselves. It was not unusual in programmes 51  Ibidem 6. 52  Pro-cancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg summos in utroque iure honores […] Ludovico Salomo […] d. III. Iul. 1750 tribuendos indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). 53  Salomon Ludwig, Homicidium casuale illustris ICtorum ordinis indultu pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores rite obtinendi die III. Iulii A.O.R. 1750 […] disputat Ludovicus Salomo […] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750).

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

571

to refer back to programmes by other scholars or even to use this type of text as a battle medium. But some authors in referring back to their own programmes and announcing a continuation in the next, composed a whole chain of programmes that belonged together without having a relationship to the announced disputation. An example from the philosophical faculty by August Friedrich Müller has been preserved, who had begun his explanations about the origin of cities in a programme announcing the Magisterpromotion of 1750 and continued his thoughts in a programme inviting its readers to a memorial speech.54 Johann Ernst Hebenstreit, a full professor at the medical faculty, connected many of his programmes in a very conspicuous way: he numbered his programmes (and also some dissertations presided over by him) written between 1748 and 1754 as specimina and they reached a total of 32, all entitled Palaiologias therapiae specimen […]. They were edited together after his death.55 In a similar way, Rechenberg referred to a recent programme of his own when he announced the disputation of Samuel Rudolph Stahn in 1742.56 He indicates this reference right at the beginning: Memor igitur promissi, quod memoriam Borniani nominis mense Iunio huius anni colens, publice feci, in meditationibus ad Constit. Elect. Sax. 38 P. III ea, qua desii, parte iam pergo.57 Remembering my promise that I made publicly when I celebrated the memory of Prof. Born last June, I will continue my meditations about the electoral decree 38, part 3, right where I ended. In this way he published seven numbered programmes between 1744 and 1747 connected to each other that all explain an aspect of this particular electoral decree. The dissertation announced58 has no connection to the programme. 54  Müller August Friedrich, De origine civitatum disserit et ad solennia magistrorum die 12. Febr. 1750 […] invitat A.F. Mullerus. Continued in De origine civitatum disserere pergit et ad orationem memoriae […] Christiani Geyeri sacram die 15. Iulii 1750 […] invitat A.F. Mullerus […]. 55  “Hebenstreit Johann Ernst” in Meusel, Lexikon vol. 5 (Leipzig, Fleischer: 1805) 263–269, about the specimina 266–267. 56  Procancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg solemnia inauguralia candidati clarissimi Samuelis Rudolphi Stahnii […] d. 13. Decembr. 1742 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, (no printer indicated): 1742). 57  Ibidem 3. 58  Stahn Samuel Rudolph, Dissertatio inauguralis de oppignoratione iurisdictionis – Von Verpfändung der Gerichte. Quam ICtorum […] ordinis consensu praeside D. Gustavo Henrico

572 4

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

Conclusion

Within the narrow limits set in a programme, their writers were quite free to relate their topics to the announced disputation, to the preceding cursory lecture, to the candidate or to a completely different topic (related to the respective subject). The writers seem to have had their individual preferences. We have seen that in the programmes studied Mylius mostly tried to point out problems which were crucial in everyday court proceedings, while Hommel liked to link his programmes to the cursory lecture rather than the disputation. In the cases studied, Rechenberg often linked the programme to the disputation, although he also chose to compose a whole chain of programmes in which he discussed a certain decree in detail with no reference to the disputation or the candidate at all. To conclude, it seems that programmes, though they are short treatises, were also a means of communicating more personal thoughts or even personal experiences.59 Sometimes they were more to the point, sometimes they were less carefully written. But just as we nowadays wonder about the actual intention of this very specific type of text, contemporaries themselves seem to have felt some ambiguity towards the habit of writing programmes. Selective Bibliography Brachmann J., Der pädagogische Diskurs der Sattelzeit. Eine Kommunikationsgeschichte, Beiträge zur Theorie und Geschichte der Erziehungswissenschaft 30 (Kempten: 2008). Döring D., “Anfänge der modernen Wissenschaften. Die Universität Leipzig vom Zeitalter der Aufklärung bis zur Universitätsreform. 1650–1830/31”, in Bünz E. – Rudersdorf M. – Döring D. (eds.), Geschichte der Universität Leipzig 1409–2009. Vol. I: Spätes Mittelalter und Frühe Neuzeit (1409–1830/31) (Leipzig: 2009) 521–771. Friedberg E., Die Leipziger Juristenfakultät. Ihre Doktoren und ihr Heim (Leipzig: 1909). Hemmerling W., “Das akademische Journal. Zum Nachrichtenwert von Dissertationen in den Periodika des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in Sdzuj R. – Seidel R. – Zegowitz B. (eds.), Mylio […] pro doctoralibus in utroque iure privilegiis consequendis ad d. XIII. Dec. 1742 auctor Samuel Rudolphus Stahn […] p[ublice] p[roponit] (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1742). 59  Cf. Lesigang-Bruckmüller A., Eine oratio academica als Reisebericht? J. Chr. Gottscheds Reise nach Wien im Spiegel seiner Rede Singularia Vindobonensia. Phil. Diss. (Vienna: 2017): in a programme of 1749, Gottsched described his travel to Vienna.

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

573

Dichtung, Gelehrsamkeit, Disputationskultur, Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012) 637–649. Kaiser W., “Zur hundertjährigen Verjährung zugunsten der römischen Kirche”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 116 (1999): Kanonistische Abteilung LXXXV, 60–103. Marti H., “Dissertation und Promotion an frühneuzeitlichen Universitäten des deutschen Sprachraums. Versuch eines skizzenhaften Überblicks”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmo­ derne, Abhandlungen zum Studenten- und Hochschulwesen 10 (Cologne: 2001) 1–20. Marti H. – Döring D. (eds.), Die Universität Leipzig und ihr gelehrtes Umfeld 1680–1780, Texte und Studien 6 (Basel: 2004). Neumann F., “Programm”, in Ueding G. – Kalivoda G. (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (Tübingen: 2005) vol. VII (Pos-Rhet) 154–158. Overhoff J., Die Frühgeschichte des Philanthropismus (1715–1771). Konstitutionsbedingungen, Praxisfelder und Wirkung eines pädagogischen Reformprogramms im Zeitalter der Aufklärung, Hallesche Beiträge zur Europäischen Aufklärung 26 (Tübingen: 2004). Schlosser H., Neuere Europäische Rechtsgeschichte. Privat- und Strafrecht vom Mittelalter bis zur Moderne (3rd ed. Munich: 2017).



Prints before 1800

Bach Johann August, Disputatio de praescriptione centum annorum in actionibus ecclesiae Rom[anae] de iure civ[ili], auctoritate illustris I[uris]C[onsul]torum ordinis ut aditum ad summos utriusque iuris honores aperiret disceptationi eruditorum publ[ice] d[ie] 24. Sept[embris] 1750 proposita a Ioanne Augusto Bachio, A[rtium] M[agistro] et I[uris] U[triusque] cand[idato] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). Böhmer Samuel Friedrich, Programma academicum quo praemissa meditatione de programmate iudiciali lectiones suas aestivas indicit atque ad easdem […] invitat Io[annes] Samuel Frid[ericus] Böhmer D[octor] (Halle, Grunert: 1726). Deyling Christian Erdmann, Ad l[egem] Fabiam de plagiariis dissertatio. Quam illustris I[uris]C[onsul]torum ordinis consensu, moderante Carolo Ottone Rechenberg pro gradu doctoris rite obtinendo defendet auctor M[agister] Christian[us] Erdmann[us] Deylingius […]. Ad diem 18. Maii 1745 (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1745). Engel Moritz Adolph, Dissertatio inauguralis de syndicatu et eius valida renunciatione quam […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores et privilegia doctoralia rite consequenda d[ie] 29. Junii a[nno] 1747 publico eruditorum examini submittit Mauritius Adolphus Engel […] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1747). Francke Heinrich Gottlieb, De nexu foederum perpetuae unionis inter augustam domum Austriacam Poloniaeque regnum auctoritate illustris I[uris]C[onsul]torum ordinis

574

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

pro gradu doctoris in utroque iure rite obtinendo die 2. Maii 1748 publice disputabit Henricus Gottlieb Francke (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). Freyer Hieronymus, Oratoria in tabulas compendiarias redacta et ad usum iuventutis scholasticae accommodata. Editio sexta (Halle, Waisenhaus: 1736). Hetzer Hieronymus, Dissertatio inauguralis ad legem Laetoriam quam illustris I[uris] C[onsul]torum ordinis auctoritate pro summis in utroque iure honoribus capessendis d[ie] 23. Januar[ii] 1749 publicae disquisitioni submittit Io[annes] Hieronymus Hetzer A[rtium] M[agister] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1749). Procancellarius D[octor] Ferdinand[us] August[us] Hommel […] solemnia inauguralia candidati clarissimi D[omi]ni M[agistri] Ioan[nis] Tobiae Richteri Tribella-Lusati d[ie] IV. Idus Septembr[es] in auditorio Petrino publice celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1744). Procancellarius D[octor] Ferdinandus Augustus Hommelius […] solemnia inauguralia candidati […] Mauritii Adolphi Engelii III. Kal[endas] Quinctil[es] in auditorio Petrino publice celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1747). Procancellarius D[octor] Ferdinand[us] August[us] Hommel […] sollemnia inauguralia […] candidati Domini Henrici Gottlieb Francke ad diem VI. Non[as] Mai[as] 1748 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). Procancellarius D[octor] Ferdinand August Hommel […] ad actum inaugurationis sollemnem candidati dignissimi D[omi]ni Iohannis Augusti Bachii artium magistri ad d[iem] VIII. Kal[endas] Octobr[es] anni huius 1750 publice celebrandum […] decenter invitat (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). Müller Daniel, Programmate programmata veterum considerante proceres urbis nostrae […] ad actum valedictorium […] Johannis Georgii Knauffii Chemnicensis, qui erit d[ie] XXVII. Maji, anni currentis […] invitat M. Daniel Müllerus, rect[or] schol[ae] Chemn[icensis] (Chemnitz, Stöffel: 1726). Müller Johann Ernst, Programma de programmate (Rudolfstadt, Heinrich Urban: 1704). Reprinted in Bidermann Johann Gottlieb (ed.), Selecta scholastica, in quibus programmata ex scholis sacri, philologici, philosophici et historici argumenti […] coeunt. Collegit disposuit et recensuit M[agister] Io[annes] Gottl[ieb] Bidermann. Vol. I, fasc. I (Naumburg, Laitenberger – Bossoegel: 1744) 9–15. Gustavus Henricus Mylius I[uris]C[onsul]tus […] panegyrin inauguralem candidati clarissimi M[agistri] Ioannis Gothofredi Richteri d[ie] IX. Aprilis a[nno] 1744 celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1744). Gustavus Henricus Mylius I[uris]C[onsultus] […] panegyrin inauguralem candidati praeclarissimi M[agistri] Christiani Erdmanni Deylingii, d[ie] 18. Maii a[nno] 1745 in auditorio iureconsultorum celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1745). Mylius Gustav Heinrich, Solennia inauguralia nobilissimi summorum in utroque iure honorum candidati Caroli Ottonis Packbuschii advocati Chemnicensis die 21. Martii 1748 celebranda indicit Gustavus Henricus Mylius, I[uris]C[onsul]tus procancellarius (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748).

THE PROGRAMMA IN RELATION TO DISPUTATIONS/DISSERTATIONS

575

Gustavus Henricus Mylius I[uris]C[onsul]tus idemque procancellarius de curiis disserit et inaugurationem candidati prae-nobilissimi M[agistri] Io[annis] Hieron[ymi] Hetzeri Lipsiensis d[ie] 23. Januar[ii] 1749 celebrandam indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1749). Pro-Cancellarius Gustavus Henricus Mylius I[uris]C[onsul]tus solemnia inauguralia […] Caroli Ludovici Stieglitzii, Lipsiensis, d[ie] 27. Ianuar[ii] 1752 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1752). Packbusch Carl Otto, Dissertatio inauguralis de fine litium ut finiantur, quam consensu […] I[uris]C[onsul]torum ordinis sub moderamine domini D[octoris] Johannis Florentis Rivini […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores obtinendi die 21. Martii 1748 proponit Carolus Otto Packbusch adv[ocatus] immatr[iculatus] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1748). Pauli Martin Gottlieb, Dissertatio inauguralis iuridica de theoriae et praxis iuridicae discordia, quam […] pro summis in utroque iure honoribus obtinendis Lipsiae d[ie] 31. Aug[usti] a[nno] C[hristi] n[ati] 1747 eruditorum examini submittit M[agister] Martinus Gottlieb Pauli […] (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1747). Procancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg solemnia inauguralia candidati clarissimi Samuelis Rudolphi Stahnii […] d[ie] 13. Decemb[ris] 1742 celebranda indicit (Leipzig, [no printer indicated]: 1742). Procancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg […] domino M[agistro] Martino Gottlieb Pauli […] summos in iure honores d[ie] 31. Aug[usti] 1747 […] tribuendos indicit (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1747). Pro-cancellarius Carolus Otto Rechenberg summos in utroque iure honores […] Ludovico Salomo […] d[ie] III. Iul[ii] 1750 tribuendos indicit (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). Richter Johann Gottfried, De moribus maiorum tanquam antiquissimo Romani iuris fonte dissertatio, […] summorum in utroque iure honorum capessendorum […] proposita a Ioanne Gothofredo Richtero A[rtium] M[agistro] (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1744). Richter Johann Tobias, Dissertatio iuridica inauguralis de acceptatione in donatione mortis caussa non necessaria quam […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores rite capessendi ad d[iem] X. Septembris 1744 eruditorum examini submittit M[agister] Io[annes] Tobias Richter […] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1744). Salomon Ludwig, Homicidium casuale illustris I[uris]C[onsul]torum ordinis indultu pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores rite obtinendi die III. Iulii a[nno] o[rbis] r[edemti] 1750 […] disputat Ludovicus Salomo […] (Leipzig, Langenheim: 1750). Schatz Johann Jacob, Ad actum valedictorium quo […] tres classis selectae alumni d[ie] 21. Septembris MDCCXXXIII […] ultimum gymnasio vale dicturi sunt omnes […] invitat M. Iohannes Iacobus Schatz Argentinensis, gymnasii Isenacensis director et bibliothecarius (Eisenach, Krug: 1733). Stahn Samuel Rudolph, Dissertatio inauguralis de oppignoratione iurisdictionis – Von Verpfändung der Gerichte. Quam ampliss[imi] I[uris]C[onsul]torum […] ordinis consensu praeside D[octore] Gustavo Henrico Mylio […] pro doctoralibus in utroque

576

Lesigang-Bruckmüller

iure privilegiis consequendis ad d[iem] 13. Dec[embris] 1742 auctor Samuel Rudolphus Stahn […] p[ublice] p[roponit] (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1742). Stieglitz Karl Ludwig, Dissertationem inauguralem de fideicommissis familiae ab iis quorum interest sublatis, ad decis[ionem] elect[oralem] noviss[imam] X. […] pro licentia summos in utroque iure honores obtinendi in academia Lipsiensi a[d] d[iem] 27. Ian[uarii] 1752 disceptandam proponit Carolus Ludovicus Stieglitz Lipsiensis (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1752). Uhse Erdmann, Wohl-informirter Redner, worinnen die Oratorischen Kunst-Griffe vom kleinesten bis zum grösten durch Kurtze Fragen und ausführliche Antwort vorgetragen werden (8th ed.; Leipzig, Schuster: 1723).

Chapter 22

Who Needs Albertina Dissertations in Russia? Königsberg Dissertations from the Early Modern Age in the Russian State Library (Moscow) Daria Barow-Vassilevitch (Berlin) Summary To find out how did Early Modern Age dissertations from Königsberg university survive into the modern age still should rather apply as a desideratum. Using a single collection of Albertina dissertations – around 300 units from the Collection of Rare and Valuable Books of the Russian State Library in Moscow – this article tries to reconstruct the perception history of these printings until the current (primarily institutional) owners. The greater part of the Russian State Library collection of Königsberg dissertations are unsurprisingly so-called items of ‘displaced cultural property’, which arrived in the Soviet Union as a consequence of the Second World War. However, the percentage of items which entered the Russian State Library collection much earlier – at the beginning of the 20th century, is quite substantial. This group of printed dissertations originates in book collections belonging to Russian aristocrats, middle-class intellectuals or ecclesiastics. These collections were expropriated after the October Revolution in 1917 and were committed to public libraries. Former owners of the printed Königsberg dissertations will be described as far as possible and the author will attempt to ascertain the focus of their collecting interest.

‘Habent sua fata libelli’ – this applies to Early Modern Age dissertations from the Albert University in Königsberg, which exist in the form of pamphlets or as part of omnibus volumes (a bound collection of written or printed material, in this case thin pamphlets). Research into their fate has a special significance as the East Prussian academic world is now lost to us and these documents can be used to attempt a virtual reconstruction of the spiritual and social life of this lost culture. Research into Early Modern Age dissertations, including the Königsberg dissertations, is now quite advanced. Dissertations have been classified according to subject matter, which cover principally the areas of

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_023

578

Barow-Vassilevitch

science and cultural history,1 and have also been investigated as a phenomenon of social life2 in the Early Modern Age. There are well-known studies, which touch upon academic life in Königsberg and academic publications.3 What happened to these dissertations however, and how did they survive into the modern age? Ideally, we should be able to fill the gap between the despatch of the printed dissertation to patrons, politicians, compatriots, academics, i.e. important persons from the point of view of the respondents or praeses, and the current (primarily institutional) owners of these printings. The identity of private collectors who owned Early Modern Age dissertations (in this case specifically dissertations from Königsberg), and why they acquired them merits investigation. This article concerns a single collection of Königsberg dissertations, perhaps the largest held by any Russian library with verified Königsberg dissertations in their collections.4 It consists of around 300 units and forms part 1  Cf. overviews of the history of dissertation research in: Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 7–25, and Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017) 15–27. 2  E.g. Philipp M., “Politische Dissertationen im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne (Cologne: 2001) 21–44; Philipp M., Polyarchiewissenschaft. Die Geburt der Politischen Wissenschaft in Deutschland im 17. Jahrhundert (Augsburg: 2003) [habilitation, not edited]; Philipp M., “Berufsperspektiven von Politikstudenten des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der Frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 126–149; Philipp M., “Politica und Patronage. Zur Funktion von Widmungsadressen bei politischen Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio (1200–1800). Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 231–268. 3  Cf. Marti H., “Frühneuzeitliche Dissertationen der Universität Königsberg. Erschließung und historiographische Bedeutung eines vernachlässigten Quellencorpus”, in Jähnig B. (ed.), 750 Jahre Königsberg. Beiträge zur Geschichte einer Residenzstadt auf Zeit, Tagungsberichte der Historischen Kommission für Ost- und Westpreußische Landesforschung 23 (Marburg: 2008) 271–302, and conference proceedings Marti H. – Komorowski M. (eds.), Die Universität Königsberg in der Frühen Neuzeit (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2008). 4  In addition to the RSL, Königsberg dissertations have been identified in the University Library of the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University Kaliningrad (mostly volumes from the Wallenrodt book collection), in the Russian State Public History Library Moscow, in the Russian Academy of Science Library St. Petersburg. Cf. Barow-Vassilevitch D., “‘Dieses hat auf obige Disputation, um seine Affection zu contestiren, schreiben wollen …’ Dissertationsdrucke aus der Königsberger Albertina im Bestand der Rara-Abteilung der Russischen Staatsbibliothek: Ein Blick auf Rituale des akademischen Lebens und ihren gesellschaftlichen Hintergrund”,

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

579

of the Collection of Rare and Valuable Books of the Russian State Library in Moscow (RSL).5 This collection of dissertations can be viewed as an exemplary receptacle of this kind of academic writing, and is significant to the history of Albertina dissertations in Eastern Europe. Due to the advanced stage of the analysis carried out by the RSL, and partly based on the author’s own view6 of the original items, their provenance can, in most cases, be retraced at least into the 19th century. The provenance of these particular items should be divided into the period before their arrival in Russia, and the period after entering Russian ownership. The second period can be reconstructed exactly, the first period often remains obscure, with some exceptions due to lucky breakthroughs in research. The greater part of the Königsberg dissertations reposited in the current RSL collection are unsurprisingly so-called items of ‘displaced cultural property’, which arrived in the Soviet Union as a consequence of the Second World War. However, the percentage of items which entered the RSL collection much earlier – at the beginning of the 20th century, is quite substantial. This group of printed dissertations originates in book collections belonging to Russian aristocrats, middle-class intellectuals or ecclesiastics. These collections were expropriated after the October Revolution in 1917 and were committed to public libraries.7 Both groups: war-displaced dissertations, as well as dissertations in Ganina N. – Klein K. – Squires C. – Wolf J. (eds.), Deutsch-russische Kulturbeziehungen in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Aus abendländischen Beständen in Russland. Ergebnisse der Tagung des deutsch-russischen Arbeitskreises vom 7. bis 9. April 2016 an der Philipps-Universität Marburg, Akademie gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt. Sonderschriften 49; Deutsch-russische Forschungen zur Buchgeschichte 4 (Erfurt – Stuttgart: 2017), 85–106, esp. 87–88. Meanwhile the author has further succeeded in verifying around 100 Königsberg dissertations in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. 5  In 1862 it was founded as a part of the Moscow Public Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum, in 1925 it was transformed into the V.I. Lenin State Library of the USSR and in 1992 it was renamed the Russian State Library. For representation of Russian personal, geographic and bibliographic names and other texts, this article uses the ALA-LC set of standards for romanisation. 6  Commissioned by Arbeitsstelle für kulturwissenschaftliche Forschungen Engi (Switzerland) in 2015 and 2016, the author had the opportunity to undertake some research in the Rare Book Department of the RSL. 7  The distribution process of expropriated book collections after the October Revolution coordinated by the Library Department the People’s Commissariat for Education is described in Abramov K., Bibliotechnoe stroitel′stvo v pervye gody Sovetskoĭ vlasti. 1917–1920 [Library development in the first years of the Soviet power] (Moscow: 1974) 36–38, 51–58, 63–67 and also in some contemporary testimonies from bibliophiles, e.g. Berkov P., Istorii͡a sovetsko­ go bibliofil′stva (1917–1967) [History of Soviet bibliophily] (Moscow: 1983) 50–57; SHilov F., Zapiski starogo knizhnika [An old booklover’s notes], ed. A. Tolsti͡akov (Moscow: 1990) 181– 188; Martynov P., Polveka v mire knig [A half-century in the world of books], ed. A. Tolsti͡akov (Moscow: 1990) 400–401. On the efforts of the Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum Library and its director

580

Barow-Vassilevitch

with older Russian provenances, will be presented in this article. Former owners of the printed Königsberg dissertations will be described as far as possible and the author will attempt to ascertain the focus of their collecting interest. This is of course much easier to see when we are dealing with easily identifiable Russian persons or institutions, however the composition of the wardisplaced dissertation group cannot be characterised as random. The ‘culture officers’ of the Soviet Army who were delegated to search for valuable books on conquered territories of the Third Reich were mostly well educated intellectuals, and seem to have made their selection from a special scientific or cultural point of view.8 We should therefore suspect there was a certain degree of serious scientific intent behind the appropriation of all the Königsberg dissertations in the RSL collection, regardless of whether they arrived in the RSL after 1945 or earlier.9 Furthermore, each provenance group of Albertina dissertations will be presented, although the provenance of only some of the printings can be described in more detail.10

(1910–1921) Prince Vasiliĭ Dmitrievich Golit͡syn (1857–1926) to save the expropriated book collections from chaos and depredation at that time see Koval′ L., Na blagoe prosveshchenie. Iz istorii Rossiĭskoĭ gosudastvennoĭ biblioteki [For the Beneficent Enlightenment – from the History of the Russian State Library] (Moscow: 2012). 8  For information on the activities of ‘culture officers’ during and after the Second World War (especially in Eastern Prussia) see e.g. Kurpakov V., “Das Schicksal der Königsberger Bücher in der Sowjetunion nach 1945”, in Walter A.E. (ed.), Königsberger Buch- und Bibliotheksgeschichte, Aus Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen Mittel- und Osteuropas 1 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2004) 449–467; Ekdahl S., “Archivalien zur Geschichte Ost- und Westpreußens in Wilna, vornehmlich aus den Beständen des Preußischen Staatsarchivs Königsberg”, Preußenland 30 (1992) 41–55, each article with references to the pertinent research literature. 9  For an overview of some collecting interests and Russian collector types concerning manuscripts see Barow-Vassilevitch D., “Deutsche mittelalterliche Handschriften in der Russischen Staatsbibliothek und ihre Vorbesitzer: Versuch einer Typologie”, in Ganina N. – Klein K. – Squires C. – Wolf J. (eds.), Deutsch-russische Arbeitsgespräche zu mittelalterlichen Handschriften und Drucken in russischen Bibliotheken. Beiträge zur Tagung des deutschrussischen Arbeitskreises vom 14.–16. September 2011 an der Lomonossov-Universität Moskau aus Anlass des 300. Geburtstages des Universitätsgründers Michael Lomonossov, Akademie gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt. Sonderschriften 45; Deutsch-russische Forschungen zur Buchgeschichte 2 (Erfurt: 2014) 255–267. 10  In the database for Königsberg dissertations 1544–1800 (https://forschungen-engi.ch/ projekte/koenigsberg.htm) it is possible to find all the titles with their current library location at RSL Moscow (the input should be ‘RGB’ for Rossiĭskai͡a gosudarstvennai͡a biblioteka).

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

581

About two thirds of the around 270 hits for ‘RGB’ (or ‘RSL’) as library location11 in the database Königsberger Dissertationen are dissertations which have evidenced German provenances (by way of library stamps etc.) from before the Second World War. Four of them belonged to the former Königsberg State University Library. They are medical dissertations, were defended in 1639/1640 and have a joint binding with a treatise: Loesel Johannes, Scrutinium renum in quo genu­ina renum fabrica, et actio, eorumque affectus potiores succincte traduntur et explicantur […] (Königsberg, Peter Hendel – Johann Reusner: 1642).12 Johannes Loesel (1607–1655), a professor of medicine at the Albertina, was also the praeses for the following dissertations: Loesel Johannes (Pr.) – Beckher Johann (Resp.), Disputatio de dolore dentium (Königsberg, Segebade’s heirs: 1639); Loesel Johannes (Pr.) – Hövell Georg (Resp.), Ventriculi fabricam, actionem, eiusque affectus potiores […] tuebitur (Königsberg, Segebade’s heirs: 1639); Loesel Johannes (Pr.) – Jagenteuffel Johannes (Resp.), Pulmonum fabricam, actionem, eorumque affectus potiores […] subjiciunt (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1640); Loesel Johannes (Pr.) – Michaelis Johann (Resp.), Hepatis fabricam, actionem, eiusque affectus potiores […] subjiciunt (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1640). The leather cover and the title-page display some ownership marks: an embossed ‘Bibliotheca’, a handwritten note from 1642 ‘Bibliothecae Electorati’, a stamp of the Königsberg Royal and University Library with the signatory ‘Ec 28. 4o’. On a flyleaf, we find a stamp of the ‘Inst[itut]. organizat͡sii zdravookhranenii͡a, med[it͡sinskoĭ]. statistiki i sot͡s[ial′noĭ]. gigieny’ [Institute for Healthcare Management, Medical Statistics and Social Hygiene] of the Soviet Academy of Medical Sciences with the signatory ‘627’. The next owner was the RSL, which now stores the omnibus volume under the signatory: ‘Loesel’ + ‘Scrutinium renum […]’ + ‘IV-lat. 4°’. Following the occupation of Königsberg, state-delegated groups of academics started searching for valuable books to remove them to Soviet libraries and 11  It is difficult to ascertain the exact number of stored Königsberg dissertations. Consideration should be given to the fact that copies of some of the titles are to be found in the RSL rare book collection (up to four copies), for example one copy of a dissertation can be found in an omnibus volume from Saxon State and University Library of Dresden, another in an omnibus volume from Count Stolberg’s Library from Wernigerode, the third in a volume from Danzig City Library and the fourth as part of a book belonging to the expropriated collection of a Russian aristocrat. On the other hand, some dissertations have two or three respondents, so a single title can generate a respective number of hits in the database. 12  In ordering dissertations or omnibus volumes in the RSL it is important to quote the first bound printing (praeses and title) in addition to the signatory.

582

Barow-Vassilevitch

other institutions.13 In June and July of 1945, one of these groups was active in the area on the orders of the State Agency for Cultural Object Reconnaissance. According to a report made by the group head T. Beli͡aeva, who was a staff member of the Lenin Library, she and her colleagues checked the rooms of the damaged Königsberg University Library and found 11,000 volumes, including Latin dissertations from the 17th century (mostly from the Medical Faculty).14 There is no documentation confirming what happened to the books selected by Beli͡aeva’s group in East Prussia, but it is quite possible that the Loesel omnibus volume was allocated to a research institute of the very new Academy of Medical Sciences (founded in 1944). The staff, as well as PhD students of this institute, were therefore supposedly interested in the history of science, not just current medical topics. In actual fact, this was not the case, and so the omnibus volume was later forwarded as a rare book to the RSL (Lenin Library). The price ‘250’ [roubles] noted on the cover of the omnibus volume could indicate its movement between Soviet state institutions: there was however no actual exchange of money, any cultural object in the museum or library files had to be given a price. A report stored in the library archive of RSL mentions 11 cases, including books from Königsberg, which on December 6th 1946 arrived at the Lenin Library.15 Unfortunately a list of those books does not exist, and we are therefore not able to prove whether there is a correlation between Beli͡aeva’s finds, the Loesel omnibus volume, and 11 cases with Königsberg books, which were incorporated in the RSL collection. Such a correlation is however not impossible. A further 27 printed dissertations from the RSL collection, with no evidence of ownership, should be added to the war-displaced group in accordance with RSL electronic catalogue information about their acquisition period: 1945/1946. One medical, one philosophical, and 25 theological dissertations have a joint binding. The rubbed pale leather cover displays various signatories: ‘305’ (older, printed), ‘XX A.q.65’ (older, hand written) and ‘Ha 140’ (younger, printed). The RSL signatory is ‘Königsberg Osterberger 1598 4°’. The first part of the omnibus volume is: Behm Johann (Pr.) – Heilsberg Friedrich (Resp.), Εξεταςις theologica, de distinctione divinae voluntatis, in antecedentem et consequentem (Königsberg, Osterberger’s heirs: 1610). Johann Behm (1578–1648) studied in Leipzig and Wittenberg (here he received the academic title of doctor theologiae in 1608), and in 1609 he was appointed as professor of theology at the Albert University in the city of his birth. The Behm – Heilsberg dissertation is followed by 24 13  Cf. Kurpakov “Das Schicksal der Königsberger Bücher” 451–457. 14  Ibidem 453–455. 15  Ibidem 457.

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

583

theological dissertations, which were defended during the period 1610–1613, also presided over by Behm. They are numbered consecutively, beginning with Disputationum theologicarum prima […] until tricesima, whereas numbers 17, 19, 23 and 25–27 are missing. The final bound dissertations are philosophical: Waldau Martin (Pr.) – Petri Christian (Resp.), Disputationum ethicarum septima, de temperantia (Königsberg, Johann Fabricius: 1614) and medical: Papius Johann (Pr.) – Wagner Friedrich (Resp.), Theses […] de facultate medicamentorum purgante ad discutiendum propositae (Königsberg, Osterberger’s heirs: 1610) and seem not to be stored in any other library except the RSL. Finally, mention should be made of a medical omnibus volume which includes two Königsberg dissertations. It has a rubbed pale leather cover with Renaissance blind embossing and two well preserved metal locks (perhaps from the middle of the 16th century). Its RSL signatory is ‘Bologna Rubeus 1562 4°’. The blue-green stamp of the library, from which the omnibus volume originated, is hard to decipher, although it was most probably German because of a 19th century inscription ‘Mit 6 Beibänden’ [with 6 bound additions]. There is also an old signatory ‘P 63’ on the title page (16th or 17th century), a younger one on the cover: ‘Ec 16 40’ (19th century) and the repeated inscription ‘1700’ (year of acquisition?). Also the title page displays a Russian stamp which means ‘inventoried in 1945’, so we should classify the book as a war-displaced cultural object. The single Albertina medical dissertation in this omnibus volume, originates from a ‘medicus’ from Breslau: Aurifaber [Goldschmid] Andreas, De podagra disputatio. Qua nam methodo podagra curari possit ac debeat, contra ac vulgus credit ac queritur (Königsberg, Hans Daubmann: 1558). A dedication to Simon Titius probably indicates his thesis was also included in the omnibus volume in spite of the ‘inappropriate’ philosophical topic: Titius Simon, Themata philosophica in schola Regiomontana disputata (Königsberg, Hans Daubmann: 1559). This thesis, published in the year of Aurifaber’s death, and one year before Titius’ appointment to the Primus Ordinarius of the medical faculty,16 seems to be extant in the RSL only. There are also another 28 printed dissertations with no evidence or information about their arrival at the RSL. Ten of them (defended partly in 17th and partly in the 18th century) are on subjects in the area of medicine, most of them exist as separate booklets. These dissertations cannot be identified as former possessions of the Dresden Saxon State and University Library

16  For more on Titius see Jaster S., “Die medizinische Fakultät der Albertus-Universität und ihre bedeutendsten Vertreter im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert”, in Marti – Komorowski (eds.), Die Universität Königsberg 42–76 at 48–49.

584

Barow-Vassilevitch

because this library always appears to have had its dissertation booklets signed. Examples of these are found in the RSL collection amongst nearly 100 dissertations with a Dresden provenance (see below). Two dissertations in the form of single booklets and on subjects relating to Prussian and Polish political history, according to the notes on their provenance, could have belonged to a (unknown) Russian owner. Hartknoch Christoph (Pr.) – Rippen Heinrich Friedrich von (Resp.), Dissertatio de antiqua Prussorum republica. A primis ejus incunabulis usque ad an. M.D.XXV, quo Albertus Marchio Brandeburgicus, positis ordinis Teutonici insignibus, habitu et nomine, Prussiam titulo ducis obtinuit (Königsberg, Reich: 1676) and Hartknoch Christoph (Pr.) – Suter Reinhold (Resp.), Exercitationum academicarum de regno Poloniae, prima (Königsberg, Friedrich Reusner: 16[75?]). The RSL signatory is respectively the praeses name + title + IV-lat. 4°. The second booklet has a pale paper cover with printed paper location stickers, where corresponding handwritten data has been entered: ‘Zala 12 shkaf IV polka 6 № 257’ [hall 12, bookcase IV, shelf No. 257]. The orthography dates the notes pre-1918 (an important orthographic reform took place in that year). On the title page, there is a signatory ‘1282’ entered with a brown ink. The same (deleted) signatory near another signatory ‘2017’, and initials of a Russian person we find on the blue paper cover of the Hartknoch – Rippen dissertation. The handwriting, cover and signatory character, and also the dissertation topics imply that the dissertation belonged to the library of a Russian institution or a large private library at the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century. Prussica or Polonica was a predominant subject of interest for Russian collectors at various times. Such dissertations are found in all types of collections: amongst replaced books, as well as in what were originally Russian repositories. The following omnibus volume (RSL signatory: first author + title + IV-nem. 4°) with a 19th century paper back includes as the first part: Krzystanowicz Stanisław, Kurtze Beschreibung des gantzen Königreichs Pohlen […] Wie auch Ein Register aller Fürsten und Könige, vom Fürst Lechus, so anno 550 zum Regiment kommen, biss auff Fridericum Augustum […] (Hamburg, Thomas von Wiering: 1697). The omnibus volume, including amongst others 4 theological and 3 philosophical Königsberg dissertations, supports the view that Russian collectors were interested in the history, politics and world view of neighbouring nations. Finally, 8 philosophical dissertations from Königsberg should be mentioned, which have a joint binding: Caspari David (Pr.) – Weger Laurentius (Resp.), Exercitatio philosophica de vita dei, qualis ea sit ex mente Graecorum et potissimum Aristotelis (Jena, Johann Nisius: 1673). The dark brown mottled leather cover exhibits various different old signatories: ‘249’ (signatory sticker on the spine), ‘64’ and deleted ‘53’, no other evidence of possession, but a note about the price: 90 roubles (RSL signatory: first praeses +

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

585

title + IV-nem. 4°). It is possible that the RSL either purchased the omnibus volume in an antiquarian bookshop (there were some booksellers in Moscow which specialised in supplying the RSL) or from a private individual. The following overview gives the number and topic affiliation of all the Königsberg dissertations in the RSL which were held in German libraries before the Second World War. 1

Berlin State Library

In the RSL collection, there are 8 Königsberg dissertations evidenced, included in 7 different omnibus volumes with typical library covers and old signatories of the former Berlin Royal Library (also with stamps ‘Ex Bibliotheca Regia Berolinensi’). There is one political and one astronomical dissertation from 1635 about the nature of comets, the remaining dissertations are on what may be termed medical subjects (one of them is called ‘medical-philosophical’). One of these medical dissertations is quite remarkable in that it demonstrates very well the selection criteria of Soviet ‘culture officers’: Engel Heinrich Gottlieb, Dissertatio inauguralis medico-anatomico-chirurgica de utero deficiente (Königsberg, Gottlieb Leberecht Hartung: 1781). The first printing bound in the same omnibus volume originates from the prominent Leipzig anatomist and botanist Augustin Friedrich Walther (1688–1746): Walther Augustin Friedrich (Pr.) – Bose Caspar (Resp.), De obstetricum erroribus a medico pervestigandis; Von Irrthümern der Hebammen (Leipzig, Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf: 1729) (RSL signatory: first praeses + title + lat. 4°). Heinrich Gottlieb Engel, who disputed in April 1781 ‘pro gradu doctoris’, is on the title page indicated as ‘nosocomio militari frimario moscuensi anatomicus et chirurgus, collegiorum assessor et Academiae imperialis scienciarum Petropolitanae correspondens’. The fact that Engel was an associate at the Moscow Military Hospital, and in particular that he was a correspondent member of the Russian Royal Academy of Science is not mentioned in any works of reference17 (the dissertation is therefore significant for biographical reasons) and this might have been a special motivating factor for removing the volume to Russia.

17  Cf. Callisen A.C.P., Medicinisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon der jetzt lebenden Aerzte, Wundaerzte, Geburtshelfer, Apotheker und Naturforscher aller gebildeten Völker, vol. 6 (Copenhagen: 1831) 66, No 166.

586 2

Barow-Vassilevitch

Danzig City Library

38 Königsberg dissertations with this provenance are held in the RSL collection, included in 3 omnibus volumes: two theological (4 and one single dissertation from Albertina) and one philosophical with 33 Königsberg dissertation printings. Michael Hoynovius acts as the praeses in a large amount of disputations from the last omnibus volume, most of them concerning political topics.18 Another omnibus volume including the single Königsberg dissertation: Behm Johann (Pr.) – Movius Kaspar (Resp.), Disputatio theologica de sacramento baptismi contra Photinianos, Calvinianos et Pontificios (Königsberg, Lorenz Segebade: 1624) and dissertations on other theological issues from various Protestant universities should be considered because of its early owner (prior to the Danzig City Library) who could be identified. The book has two old signatories ‘Ha 133’ and ‘XX 4o A 17’ as well as an ex libris of Adrian Engelke displaying his family emblem. Adrian Engelke was a Danzig scholar, who left his books to the City Library, which originated in 1580 as the library of the grammar school in the former Franciscan monastery in Danzig.19 According to the first bound dissertation, the RSL signatory is ‘Gerhard, Johann’ + ‘Apostasia Adami sive Disputatio de peccato protoplastorum’ + ‘IV-lat. 4°’. The dissertations selected from the former Danzig City Library give a good indication of the interests of Soviet ‘culture officers’, as well as Russian collectors: on one hand they include theological discourse from the time of the Reformation and on the other hand there are Western European, specifically German, perceptions of politics, the state, sovereignty and society. 3

Saxon State and University Library Dresden

This subject emphasis, accompanied mainly by philosophical and historical topics, can be seen in the largest collection of displaced dissertations in the RSL: printings from what was the Dresden Royal Public Library. About 90 Königsberg dissertations are held in the RSL collection as single booklets and as parts of omnibus volumes, which in terms of subject matter are placed between law, history and philosophy, with a special focus on Prussia. This is demonstrated in the single printed dissertation Mitzel Johann (Pr.) – Neuberger 18  For more details about this volume, some dissertations within it and about Hoynovius himself see Barow-Vassilevitch, “Dieses hat auf obige Disputation” 94–99. 19  Cf. Bouginé Karl Joseph, Handbuch der allgemeinen Litterargeschichte nach Heumanns Grundriß, vol. 3 (Zurich, Orell, Geßner, Füßli & Co: 1790) 267.

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

587

Martin (Resp.), Juris provincialis ducatus Prussiae oeconomia, generalis et specialis (Königsberg, Friedrich Reusner: 1673). Its paper back displays a signatory sticker ‘Jus priv. Germ 136’, and the title page, the stamp of the Saxon State Library. RSL signatory is praeses name + title + IV-лат. 2°. 4

Elbing Gymnasium Library

The single omnibus volume from the prominent Elbing Protestant High School (which existed from 1535 to 1944) in the RSL rare book collection includes 24 Albertina dissertations, the subjects of which fall between philosophy and medicine, specifically the areas of psychology and psychiatry. The dissertation collection is bound in a parchment cover with embossed letters ‘ETD’ and dated ‘1627’ (perhaps the year in which it was bound), there is also an old signatory ‘70’ (17th century hand) and library stamp ‘Elb. Gymn. Bibl.’ exists. RSL signatory is ‘Charstadt’ + ‘Dissertationes [1–13] de universa medicina dogmatica’ + ‘IV-lat. 4°’. 5

Count Stolberg’s Library in Wernigerode

Two omnibus volumes comprising 18 dissertations from the Albertina Philosophical Faculty, which existed before the Second World War belonged to the Stolberg Library in Wernigerode. Each of them displays a Stolberg library signatory (RSL signatory: ‘Ortlob’ + ‘De ritu jejuniorum exercitatio philologica’ + ‘IV-лат. 4°: olim Qu. 224’; RSL signatory: ‘Jena Steinmann 1597 4°: olim Fb 13’), and the ex libris of Christian Ernst Count Stolberg-Wernigerode (1691–1771). The second omnibus volume also bears the stamp of Count Stolberg’s library. In analysing the interests of Soviet ‘culture officers’ as they selected books to be removed from occupied German territories, it can be seen that the most popular group of dissertations (including Königsberg dissertations) are philosophical, with a particular interest in political texts. There is also a large number of dissertations on occidental belief systems, especially on the Reformation. In contrast, there is just a small number on medicine and law, most of which deal with specific issues. We can therefore conclude that the ‘culture officers’ made their selection with an emphasis on cultural history. Despite the immense cultural and political changes that occurred after the October Revolution of 1917, it was not possible to identify any great differences between the interests of Soviet collectors and bibliophiles prior to 1917. This can be explained by the fact that most of the ‘culture officers’ as well as Soviet

588

Barow-Vassilevitch

academics generally in the middle of the 20th century were products of the same education system that existed before the revolution – changes in the Soviet school system and higher education were first brought in after this generation. This same focus of interest is shared by some Russian collectors in the period prior to 1917. These persons and the Königsberg dissertations in their book collections deserve to be described in more detail. 6

Dmitriĭ Ilarievich Obrazt͡sov (1833–1922)

This owner of dissertations was interested in occidental history and philosophy in general. An omnibus volume, including amongst others 8 dissertations from the Albertina Philosophical Faculty and bearing two different stamps,20 belonged to a physician from Kazan named Dmitriĭ Ilarievich Obrazt͡sov. The descendant of a merchant family, he was also a member of the judiciary, local politician and collector, who donated more than 200 objects to the Kazan City Museum. In 1907, he sold his collection (of approximately 4000 books) to the Moscow antiquarian book dealer Pavel Petrovich SHibanov.21 Many Russian libraries have Obrazt͡sov’s books in their collections. The 19th century cover of the omnibus volume in the RSL displays an old signatory sticker ‘159’, and the title Orationes et disputationes, there is also a price mark ‘15’ [perhaps roubles]. The RSL signatory is: ‘Negeschius’ + ‘Comparatio inter Claudium Tiberium principem et Olivarium Cromwellium’ + ‘IV-lat. 4°’. The following Königsberg dissertations are included: Perbandt Kaspar (Pr.) – Erhardi Albert (Resp.), De jure non-scripto seu consuetudine politica de incrementis rerum publicarum (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1645); Pichler Sigismund (Pr.) – Lettow Werner de (Resp.), Disputatio politica de foederibus (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1646); Pichler Sigismund (Pr.) – Löben Johann Wolfgang von (Resp.), Discursus politicus de statibus seu ordinibus rerumpublicarum (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1647); Wichelmann Hartwig (Pr.) – Colb Heinrich (Resp.), Disputatio rhetoricae genus, cognata, definitionem, opus, praesupposita, fidem et species explicans (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1647); Gartzaeus Andreas (Pr.) – Schimmelpfennig Hieronymus (Resp.), Disputatio ethica, exhibens dodecadem quaestionum de fortitudine (Königsberg, Johann Reusner 1647); Neufeldt Konrad (Pr.) – Mohl Friedrich von (Resp.), Exercitationum politicarum quarta de republica eiusque speciebus (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1651); Wolder Theodor 20  Bogomolov S., Rossiĭskiĭ knizhnyĭ znak 1700–1917 [Russian book sign in 1700–1918] (Moscow: 2004) 570. 21  Cf. a bookplate list from http://monuments.library.karelia.ru/exlibris/vpath1411/.

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

589

(Pr.) – Posner Tobias (Resp.), Disputatio prima ad titulum de verborum et rerum significatione (Königsberg, Friedrich Reusner: 1666). The subject matter of the Albertina dissertations in Obrazt͡sov’s omnibus volume, which show a particular focus on the phenomenon of the republic, corresponds quite convincingly with the activities and mindset as a person of note in his city. 7

Sergeĭ Dmitrievich SHeremetev (1844–1918)

This member of a prominent noble family owned a significant amount of property, and was a State Councillor and historian. His family library was located in the manor house on his estate at Mikhaĭlovskoe near Moscow, and he also owned the library of Prince Vi͡azemskiĭ (located on the Ostaf ′evo estate (also near Moscow), which his wife Ekaterina Pavlovna, née Vi͡azemskai͡a, had inherited at the end of the 19th century. The SHeremetev library, which was comprised of 70,000 books, was expropriated in 1918 and the most valuable part of the collection (around 40,000 volumes) was committed to the RSL, which at that time was called the Rumi͡ant͡sev Library.22 The omnibus volume to be presented here includes mostly historical or political dissertations from the Albertina Philosophical Faculty, with a particular interest in Prussia. The paper back of the book displays a title sticker: ‘Miscellanea Prussica. Vol. VI’ and old signatories ‘295’ and ‘49’. There is also an index of the dissertations that are included (each below the name of the respective praeses) with notes made by a former owner (19th century, compatible to the name of an owner or donor who appears to be German: ‘A. Hagen’ with donation or acquisition year ‘1835’), and also an ex libris with the coat of arms of the Sheremetev family (motto Deus conservat omnia; [Fig. 22.1]). A bookplate (featuring a boy wearing old-style Russian clothes reading by a bookcase; [Fig. 22.2]) can be identified as that of Sergeĭ SHeremetev.23 This type of bookplate was used in the count’s library from 1902. The note, ‘№ 461 shkaf CLXVII polka 7’, [No. 461, bookcase CLXVII, shelf 7] conforms with the verified order of SHeremetev’s library. In view of the time period in which the 22  Cf. Abramov, Bibliotechnoe stroitel′stvo 53–54; SHevyrkina N., “Biblioteka S.D. SHeremeteva i Rossiĭskai͡a gosudarstvennai͡a biblioteka (stranit͡sy istorii)” [S.D. SHeremetev’s library and the Russian State Library (pages of history)], in Rumi͡ant͡sevskie chtenii͡a 1997 [Rumi͡ant͡sev lectures] (Moscow: 1997) 89–91; Kucherkova O., “Biblioteka Rumi͡ant͡sevskogo muzei͡a – spasitel′nit͡sa knizhnykh sobraniĭ (1917–1924 gg.)” [The Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum Library as a preserver of book collections (1917–1924)], in Rumi͡ant͡sevskie chtenii͡a 2012, part 1 (Moscow: 2012) 330–334. 23  Bogomolov, Rossiĭskiĭ knizhnyĭ znak 915.

590

Figure 22.1

Barow-Vassilevitch

Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Jeschke Dissertatio historica lat.-IV 4°. Endpaper (recto): SHeremetev’s ex libris (copperplate engraver Viktor Bobrov, 1842–1918) and former owner’s notes

above-mentioned ex libris was used, and the fact that the omnibus volume is not listed in the printed catalogue of SHeremetev’s library,24 this could be an indication that this item belonged to the Vi͡azemskiĭ library, which was incorporated in 1898. The publication: Jeschke Martin (Pr.) – Rhodman Theodor (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de quercu Romowe gentilibus olim Prussis sacra, locum eius et formam exhibens (Königsberg, Friedrich Reusner: 1674) is bound and forms the first part of the omnibus volume (RSL signatory: first praeses name + title + IV-lat. 4°). The dissertations incorporated with the Jeschke – Rhodman document are: Rohde Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Griesinger David (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de Rudaviensi proelio et statua, quam ex optimae notae annalium libris illustratam […] submittit […] (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1721); Neufeldt Cölestin Konrad (Pr.) – Gottsched Johann Christoph (Resp.), Schediasma historicum de linda Mariana, Rastenburgum inter et Resselium sita, cum amputatis miserae superstitionis Romanensium ramis, praemissam­ que in praesentiarum commentationem praeliminarem, de idololatria gentium sylvestri, et lucis religiosis (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1720); Helwich Christian (Pr.) – Düring Christian (Resp.), Exercitatio historica prior de vita s. 24  Loparev KH., Biblioteka grafa S. D. SHeremeteva, vol. 1–2 (St. Petersburg: 1890–1892).

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

Figure 22.2

591

Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Jeschke Dissertatio historica lat.-IV 4°. Endpaper (verso): Sergeĭ SHeremetev’s bookplate designed by Elizaveta Bëm (1843–1914)

592

Barow-Vassilevitch

martyris Adalberti, Hungarorum Prussorumque apostoli, quam Jesu Christo feliciter adiuvante (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1693); Helwich Christian (Pr.) – Stadtlender Friedrich (Resp.), Exercitatio historica posterior de vita s. martyris Adalberti, Hungarorum Prussorumq[ue] apostoli (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1693); Lilienthal Theodor Christoph (Pr.) – Werner Ludwig Reinhold von (Resp.), Dissertatio historica sistens vitam beatae Dorotheae Prussiae patronae fabulis variis maculatam et veritati historicae restitutam (Königsberg, Gottfried Leberecht Hartung: 1742);25 Bläsing David (Pr.) – Columbus Albert (Resp.), Schediasma academicum de columna Ostrocolensi, regni Prussiae et magni ducatus Lithuaniae etc. (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1712); Tennigs Michael Friedrich, Schediasma medicum, de fonte medicato Ottlaviensi in Borussia [pro gradu doctoris] (Königsberg, Johann Friedrich Reusner: 1727); Pisanski Georg Christoph (Pr.) – Schnell Andreas Friedrich (Resp.), De montibus Regni Prussiae notabilioribus. Commentatio geographica (Königsberg, Driest vidua: 1769); Mascov Christian (Pr.) – Rast Christian Friedrich (Resp.), Dissertatio historicophysica, de insula natante Gerdaviensi, vulgo Schwimmbruch (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1707); Rohde Johann Jakob (Pr.) – Huhn Johann Christoph (Resp.), Dissertatio ex historia patria, de celebri statua quatuor fratrum, sive Von der berühmten Seule der 4 Brüder in der Fischhäusischen Heyde (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1717); Hesse Zacharias (Pr.) – Liedert Johann Daniel (Resp.), Dissertatio prima, eaque inauguralis, considerans juridice testamentum Alberti, marchionis Brandenburgici, primi ducis Prussiae. [pro loco professionis ordinariae] (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1722). The interest of the former owner in Prussian regional studies (mythology, history, policy, local history, art) is obvious. The Prussica and Polonica collection which featured in SHeremetev’s private library was well known in Russian scientific circles. 8

Kapiton Ivanovich Nevostruev (1816–1872)

An Eastern European topic is also touched upon in an omnibus volume, which includes a single Königsberg dissertation concerning Prussia: Hartknoch, Christoph (Pr.) – Nettelhorst Wolfgang Christoph von (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de originibus Prussicis quam consentientibus superioribus (Königsberg, Friedrich Reusner: 1674). This volume includes some dissertations about the history and politics of Poland and Livland. The first bound dissertation is: Mithob Hector Johann, De controversiis Suecopolonicis sive de jure quod in Sueciam regi ad Livoniam regno Poloniae nullum competit (Helmstedt, Müller: 1656) (RSL signatory: first author name + title + IV-lat. 4°). This omnibus volume 25  For more about this dissertation and persons involved with it see Barow-Vassilevitch, “Dieses hat auf obige Disputation” 102–105.

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

593

is especially remarkable due to its ownership history, which could be identified quite easily. A former Russian owner or librarian noticed, on the inner surface of the cover, that the omnibus volume had belonged to the book collection of August Ludwig Schlözer (1735–1809). The publication: Ewers Johann Philipp Gustav von, Vom Zustande der Bauern in Livland und Ehstland. Ein Wort zu seiner Zeit, auch dem Herrn Kollegien-Rath von Kotzebue zur Beherzigung empfohlen (Dorpat: 1806) contains a printed addition: ‘Die kleine Auflage dieser Schrift wird zum Besten der Armen verkauft. Das Exemplar kostet 50 Copeken’ [the small print run of this work will be sold for the benefit of the poor. A copy costs 50 copecks] and a hand written dedication ‘Dem Herrn geheimen Justiz-Rathe und Ritter von Schlözer vom Verfasser’ [Dedicated to the Privy Counsellor and Knight von Schlözer by the author] [Fig. 22.3]. The next bound document: Pott Heinrich August Georg von, Commentatio philosophico-historica de gladiferis seu de fratribus militiae Christi in Livonia (Riga: 1807) contains a handwritten note: ‘Schlözer 28 7br 1808’ [28.09.]. August Ludwig Schlözer, a prominent professor from Göttingen, who earned his reputation as a historian in Russia, was therefore involved with this historical omnibus volume. At a later date, the book changed owner: there is a sticker with a note ‘Iz biblioteki K. I. Nevostrueva’. Nevostruev was a historian of the Orthodox Church and a palaeographer. He, too, was obviously interested in the history of neighbouring countries and the religious order of knights. A graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, Nevostruev preserved a connection with his alma mater, and some stamps from the academy’s library are found in this omnibus volume. 9

Moscow Theological Academy

This prominent Orthodox university was founded in 1814, uniting the Slavonic Greek and Latin Academy in Moscow (which had been in existence since 1687, one of its most prominent graduates being Mikhail Lomonosov), and the Trinity Monastery Seminary near Moscow (founded in 1727). When the Academy closed in 1919, its large and valuable library was made a subsidiary of the Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum Library. In December 1919, the senior librarian I͡Uriĭ Vladimirovich Got′e (Gautier) was dispatched to the Theological Academy Library to work at the collection, and to select books for transportation to the Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum.26 In this way the following omnibus volume, which includes amongst others, Königsberg geographical dissertations regarding the Holy Land, came to the RSL. 26  For more about this process see Koval′, Na blagoe prosveshchenie 463.

594

Figure 22.3

Barow-Vassilevitch

Russian State Library, Rare Book Department, signatory: Mithob De controversiis Suecopolonicis lat.-IV 4°. Title page of the 5th bound issue with a dedication to August Ludwig Schlözer by the author, Johann Philipp Gustav von Ewers

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

595

On the paper cover with leather spine and edges, there are a printed title ‘Rappe De Palaestina’ and a signatory sticker ‘190’, also another old signatory ‘10/159’. The title page of the first bound publication: Concius Andreas (Pr.) – Rappe Moritz Ernst (Resp.), De Palaestina. Theses disputabiles depromptae ex dissertatione prima quae est de limitibus et nominibus Palaestinae (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1662) exhibits the stamp of the Moscow Theological Academy Library (RSL signatory: first praeses name + title + IV-лат. 4°). Two more Königsberg dissertations (also presided over by Concius) are included: Concius Andreas (Pr.) – Pesarovius David (Resp.), Ex dissertationis secundae sectione prima, quae est de Palestinae montibus, theses disputabiles (Königsberg, Pascha Mense – Typis Segebadianis: 1662), and Concius Andreas (Pr.) – Heydenreich Christoph (Resp.), Ex dissertationis secundae sectione secunda et tertia, quarum illa de Palaestinae aquis haec de eiusdem divisione naturali, theses disputabiles (Königsberg, Pascha Mense – Typis Segebadianis: 1662). The religious background indicates that the presence of this omnibus volume in the Theological Academy Library is obvious, but it also reveals a wide ranging interest in general education. 10

Vologda Seminary

A theological omnibus volume covered with parchment and presumably sourced from a German library (deleted old signatory ‘Pal. 8. 1149’) was acquired by the Vologda Seminary: it has the oval stamp of the Seminary Library and a signatory sticker ‘300’ (19th century) on the spine. The library of the Vologda Seminary, established in 1730,27 held the most substantial book collection in Northern Russia. Various alumni of this Orthodox high school became scientists and professors at the Moscow Theological Academy, and so it is not surprising that the Seminary Library possessed an omnibus volume on the subject of the history of occidental theology. This omnibus volume included, amongst others, two Königsberg dissertations: Dreier Christian (Pr.) – Schermer Friedrich (Resp.) De principiis fidei christianae, sive de credendi regula disputatio I (Königsberg, Johann Reusner: 1662) and Dreier Christian (Pr.) – Laurentius Johann (Resp.), De principiis fidei christianae, sive de credendi regula, disputatio XV. qua Jesus noster ex regno suo glorioso, et Judaeorum ac gentilium miseria, verus Messias esse probatur (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1682). 27  For further information on the Vologda Seminary see Nepein S., Vologda prezhde i teper′ [Vologda in the past and nowadays] (Vologda: 1906), online edition: https://www .booksite.ru/fulltext/nep/ein/vol/ogda/38.htm.

596

Barow-Vassilevitch

The Seminary was closed in 1918, and its book collection was distributed among state institutions. According to an ex libris with an acquisition number (58890) and price (75 roubles), as well as a handwritten note, in 1937 the omnibus volume became the property of the ‘Writer’s Bookstore’ in Moscow, an antiquarian bookshop belonging to the Soviet Writers Union. This shop often sold rare books and manuscripts to the former Lenin Library (RSL signatory: ‘Strassburg Apiarius 1533 4°’). 11

Archimandrite Amfilokhiĭ (1818–1893)

Another member of the Orthodox Church who possessed ‘Western European’ dissertations, was Archimandrite Amfilokhiĭ (secular name Pavel Ivanovich Sergievskiĭ-Kazant͡sev),28 doctor of theology, orthodox bishop of Uglich and palaeographer. An omnibus volume belonging to his private library contains dissertations from various universities, beginning with: Opitz Heinrich, Ḥaṣar lešôn haq-qodeš hoc est Atrium linguae sanctae (Leipzig, Johann Caspar Meyer: 1687); RSL signatory: first author + title + IV-лат. 4°. The pro gradu dissertation from the Albertina Theological Faculty in this omnibus volume was defended by a librarian from the city of Nuremberg: Sanden, Bernhard von (Pr.) – Pfeiffer Johann Philipp (Resp.), Disputatio theologica, inauguralis, ostendens quod in coetu Lutheranorum etiam sit vera ecclesia, et quod propter ministerium ejusdem, nemo transire cogatur ad partes pontificiorum (Königsberg, Reusner’s heirs: 1684). The pale pigskin cover displays some old signatories and a Russian note placing it in the linguistic section (signatory ‘N 43 by’ the same hand). The stamp of Archimandrite Amfilokhiĭ’s private library, with a hand written number ‘425’, is located on the title page. The mention of linguistics is significant here because the study of Slavonic and Greek languages was a favourite activity of Archimandrite Amfilokhiĭ, who also collected old manuscripts.29 He was awarded with the Lomonosov medal of the Russian Royal Academy of Science for texts that he edited, although he received no academic education in the area of philology. On completing each of such projects, Amfilokhiĭ often gave the respective scientific literature to libraries and other public institutions, and so it is quite possible that the omnibus volume was already at the Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum Library prior to 1893. 28  For more on Archimandrite Amfilokhiĭ see Kirill, The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (ed.), Pravoslavnai͡a ėnt͡siklopedii͡a [Orthodox encyclopedia], online edition: http://www .pravenc.ru/text/114636.html (with bibliography). 29   His collection is now held in the RSL. Cf. Rykov I͡U. (red.), Rukopisnye sobranii͡a Gosudarstvennoĭ biblioteki SSSR im. V.I. Lenina. Ukazatel′ [Manuscript collections of the V.I. Lenin State Library of the USSR. A guide], part 1, vol. 1 (Moscow: 1983) 50–57.

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

597

Using as an example, the Königsberg dissertations held in the RSL, it is possible to identify the main areas of interest of the educated classes in Russia, secular as well as ecclesiastical, during the Tsarist Empire as well as in the Soviet period – regardless of the background to their book collecting activities: – history (especially political history) of Russia’s neighbours; – the history of thought and the philosophical belief systems of these neighbour nations, in particular the phenomenon of the Reformation; – occidental history and philosophy (to promote a better understanding if the Russian philosophical system was to be seen as a part of the main European system of ideas, or to support Russia in going its own way); – cultural, scientific or political interaction between Russians and their European neighbours. In this way, we can shine a light on this small specialist area of the history of Early Modern Age dissertations and their arrival in Russia, and understand the significance of these cultural objects. Selective Bibliography Abramov K., Bibliotechnoe stroitel′stvo v pervye gody Sovetskoĭ vlasti. 1917–1920 [Library development in the first years of the Soviet power] (Moscow: 1974). Barow-Vassilevitch D., “Deutsche mittelalterliche Handschriften in der Russischen Staatsbibliothek und ihre Vorbesitzer: Versuch einer Typologie”, in Ganina N. – Klein K. – Squires C. – Wolf J. (eds.), Deutsch-russische Arbeitsgespräche zu mittelalterlichen Handschriften und Drucken in russischen Bibliotheken. Beiträge zur Tagung des deutsch-russischen Arbeitskreises vom 14.–16. September 2011 an der LomonossovUniversität Moskau aus Anlass des 300. Geburtstages des Universitätsgründers Michael Lomonossov, Akademie gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt. Sonderschriften 45; Deutsch-russische Forschungen zur Buchgeschichte 2 (Erfurt: 2014) 255‒267. Barow-Vassilevitch D., “‘Dieses hat auf obige Disputation, um seine Affection zu contestiren, schreiben wollen …’ Dissertationsdrucke aus der Königsberger Albertina im Bestand der Rara-Abteilung der Russischen Staatsbibliothek: Ein Blick auf Rituale des akademischen Lebens und ihren gesellschaftlichen Hintergrund”, in Ganina N. – Klein K. – Squires C. – Wolf J. (eds.), Deutsch-russische Kulturbeziehungen in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Aus abendländischen Beständen in Russland. Ergebnisse der Tagung des deutsch-russischen Arbeitskreises vom 7. bis 9. April 2016 an der Philipps-Universität Marburg, Akademie gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt. Sonderschriften 49; Deutsch-russische Forschungen zur Buchgeschichte 4 (Erfurt – Stuttgart: 2017) 85–106. Berkov P., Istorii͡a sovetskogo bibliofil′stva (1917–1967) [History of the Soviet bibliophily] (Moscow: 1983).

598

Barow-Vassilevitch

Bogomolov S., Rossiĭskiĭ knizhnyĭ znak 1700‒1917 [Russian book sign in 1700‒1918] (Moscow: 2004). Bouginé Karl Joseph, Handbuch der allgemeinen Litterargeschichte nach Heumanns Grundriß, vol. 3 (Zurich, Orell, Geßner, Füßli & Co: 1790). Callisen A.C.P., Medicinisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon der jetzt lebenden Aerzte, Wund­ aerzte, Geburtshelfer, Apotheker und Naturforscher aller gebildeten Völker, vol. 6 (Copenhagen: 1831). Ekdahl S., “Archivalien zur Geschichte Ost- und Westpreußens in Wilna, vornehmlich aus den Beständen des Preußischen Staatsarchivs Königsberg”, Preußenland 30 (1992) 41–55. Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Kirill, The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (ed.), Pravoslavnai͡a ėnt͡siklopedii͡a [Orthodox encyclopedia], online edition: http://www.pravenc.ru/. Koval′ L., Na blagoe prosveshchenie. Iz istorii Rossiĭskoĭ gosudastvennoĭ biblioteki [For the Beneficent Enlightenment – from the History of the Russian State Library] (Moscow: 2012). Kucherkova O., “Biblioteka Rumi͡ant͡sevskogo muzei͡a – spasitel′nit͡sa knizhnykh sobraniĭ (1917–1924 gg.)” [The Rumi͡ant͡sev Museum Library as a preserver of book collections (1917–1924)], in Rumi͡ant͡sevskie chtenii͡a 2012, part 1 (Moscow: 2012) 330–334. Kurpakov V., “Das Schicksal der Königsberger Bücher in der Sowjetunion nach 1945”, in Walter A.E. (ed.), Königsberger Buch- und Bibliotheksgeschichte, Aus Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen Mittel- und Osteuropas 1 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2004) 449‒467. Loparev KH., Biblioteka grafa S.D. SHeremeteva, vol. 1‒2 (St. Petersburg: 1890–1892). Marti H., “Frühneuzeitliche Dissertationen der Universität Königsberg. Erschließung und historiographische Bedeutung eines vernachlässigten Quellencorpus”, in Jähnig B. (ed.), 750 Jahre Königsberg. Beiträge zur Geschichte einer Residenzstadt auf Zeit, Tagungsberichte der Historischen Kommission für Ost- und Westpreußische Landesforschung 23 (Marburg: 2008) 271–302. Marti H. – Komorowski M. (eds.), Die Universität Königsberg in der Frühen Neuzeit (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2008). Marti H. – Sdzuj R.B. – Seidel R. (eds.), Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500‒1800 (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2017). Martynov P., Polveka v mire knig [A half-century in the world of books], ed. A. Tolsti͡akov (Moscow: 1990). Nepein S., Vologda prezhde i teper′ [Vologda in the past and nowadays] (Vologda: 1906).

KÖNIGSBERG DISSERTATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY ( MOSCOW )

599

Philipp M., “Politische Dissertationen im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Promotionen und Promotionswesen an deutschen Hochschulen der Frühmoderne (Cologne: 2001) 21–44. Philipp M., Polyarchiewissenschaft. Die Geburt der Politischen Wissenschaft in Deutschland im 17. Jahrhundert (Augsburg: 2003) [habilitation, not edited]. Philipp M., “Berufsperspektiven von Politikstudenten des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in Müller R.A. (ed.), Bilder – Daten – Promotionen. Studien zum Promotionswesen an deutschen Universitäten der Frühen Neuzeit, Pallas Athene 24 (Stuttgart: 2007) 126–149. Philipp M., “Politica und Patronage. Zur Funktion von Widmungsadressen bei politischen Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in Gindhart M. – Kundert U. (eds.), Disputatio (1200–1800). Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur, Trends in Medieval Philology 20 (Berlin – New York: 2010) 231–268. Rykov I͡U. (red.), Rukopisnye sobranii͡a Gosudarstvennoĭ biblioteki SSSR im. V.I. Lenina. Ukazatel′ [Manuscript collections of the V.I. Lenin State Library of the USSR. A guide], part 1, vol. 1 (Moscow: 1983). SHevyrkina N., “Biblioteka S.D. SHeremeteva i Rossiĭskai͡a gosudarstvennai͡a biblioteka (stranit͡sy istorii)” [S.D. SHeremetev’s library and the Russian State Library (pages of history)], in Rumi͡ant͡sevskie chtenii͡a 1997 [Rumi͡ant͡sev lectures] (Moscow: 1997) 89–91. SHilov F., Zapiski starogo knizhnika [An old booklover’s notes], ed. A. Tolsti͡akov (Moscow: 1990).

Chapter 23

Form, Function and Publication of the Zurich Dissertations before the Founding of the University (1833) Urs B. Leu Summary A systematic review and analysis of the Zurich dissertations has not taken place until today. The University of Zurich was founded in 1833, so that the pre-university disputations were given no weight and dismissed as student exercises. However, recent research has occasionally shown that these works are historically of great interest in terms of their reception history, because they show which intellectual movements have arrived and been conveyed in Zurich. They are a mirror of the philosophical conflicts of the time and are closely interlinked with corresponding, partly revolutionary movements such as the early Enlightenment. Since mainly reformed pastors were trained at the pre-university Hohe Schule, they were occasionally trimmed to a line, which they had to represent as pastors in their fields of operation, especially with the help of the authority-directed disputation culture. The dissertations also provide interesting information for the book and printing history of Zurich. For example, the school records in the State Archive provide information about printers, bookbinders, print runs, prices and clients of printed theses. Not infrequently a whole series of respondents appear, who later reappear at various educational institutions in Europe, and whose earliest intellectual achievement leads them back to Zurich. Such prosopographic data can also be extracted from the dedications and dedication poems, although this work has barely begun. The pre-university Zurich dissertations represent a generally underestimated treasure trove of information on Swiss intellectual history in the early modern period.

1

Introduction – A Short History of the Hohe Schule

After the Reformation was introduced in Zurich on 29 January 1523 by decision of the City Council, there was an urgent desire to train Zurich’s young theologians independently rather than leaving their education to the Catholic universities. In autumn 1523 the reorganization of the Stiftsschule am Grossmünster was decided, and in June 1525 the theological lectures finally © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_024

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

601

began.1 Throughout the centuries, one finds various names for this theological ‘university’ such as Prophezei, Lectorium, Hohe Schule, Collegium publicum and Carolinum.2 We prefer the expression Hohe Schule. With the suspension of Theodor Bibliander as professor for Hebrew (1560),3 the death of Peter Martyr Vermigli as professor for Old Testament (1562),4 the passing of the printer Christoph Froschauer the Elder (1564),5 the death of the polymath Conrad Gessner (1565)6 and Antistes Heinrich Bullinger (1575),7 Zurich saw the end of the cultural heyday which was generated by humanism and Reformation.8 The Reformed Orthodoxy prevailed for some decades. The city and canton of Zurich not only tried to seal itself off denominationally, but also found it difficult to deal with incomers. This was not least reflected in the teaching staff of the Hohe Schule. Markus Bäumler (1555–1611), who was born in Volketswil, was for a long time the last professor who did not hail from the city of Zurich.

1  Bernhard J.-A., “Die Prophezei (1525–1532). Ort der Übersetzung und Bildung”, in Rüsch M. – Leu U.B. (eds.), Getruckt zů Zürich – Ein Buch verändert die Welt (Zurich: 2019) 93–113. 2  Ernst U., Geschichte des zürcherischen Schulwesens bis gegen Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Winterthur: 1879); Nabholz H., “Zürichs Höhere Schulen von der Reformation bis zur Gründung der Universität, 1525–1833”, in Gagliardi E. – Nabholz H. – Strohl J. (eds.), Die Universität Zürich 1833–1933 und ihre Vorläufer (Zurich: 1938) 3–164; Büsser F., “Schola Tigurina. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550”, in Bächtold H.U. (ed.), Schola Tigurina. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550, Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 19. Juli 1999 in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Zurich – Freiburg i.Br.: 1999) 7–15; Marti H. – Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: 2012); Goeing A.-S., Storing, Archiving, Organizing: The Changing Dynamics of Scholarly Information Management in Post-Reformation Zurich, Library of the written word 56 (Leiden: 2017). 3  Thomann J., “Kritik an Calvin, Koran und Kabbala. Bibliander, der Dissident unter Zürichs Reformatoren”, in Niederhäuser P. (ed.), Verfolgt, verdrängt, vergessen? Schatten der Reformation (Zurich: 2018) 71–85. 4  Baumann M., Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich (1556–1562): Dieser Kylchen in der heiligen gschrifft professor und läser, Reformed Historical Theology 36 (Göttingen: 2016). 5  Leu U.B., “Reformation als Auftrag. Der Zürcher Drucker Christoph Froschauer d.Ä. (ca. 1490– 1564)” in Leu U.B. – Scheidegger Ch. (eds.), Buchdruck und Reformation in der Schweiz, Zwingliana 45 (Zurich 2018) 1–80. 6  Leu U.B., Conrad Gessner (1516–1565). Univeralgelehrter und Naturforscher der Renaissance (Zurich: 2016). 7  Büsser F., Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575). Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: 2004– 2005). 8  See for a similar decline in Basle and Europe: Leu U.B., “Die Bedeutung Basels als Druckort im 16. Jahrhundert”, in Christ-von Wedel Ch. – Grosse S. – Hamm B. (eds.), Basel als Zentrum des geistigen Austauschs in der frühen Reformationszeit (Tübingen: 2014) 53–78; Maclean I., “The Market for Scholarly Books and Conceptions of Genre in Northern Europe 1570–1630”, in Maclean I., Learning and the Market Place. Essays in the History of the Early Modern Book, Library of the Written Word 9 (Leiden – Boston: 2009) 9–24.

602

Leu

As a result of the school reform of 1601, which aimed to raise standards, a new six-year Latin School was introduced, and a Collegium humanitatis was created to bridge the two years between the Latin school and the Hohe Schule (also called Collegium publicum). From 1603 onward, candidates were only admitted to the theological examination if there were vacancies. At the instigation of Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger (1575–1645), the Hohe Schule was divided into a philological, a philosophical and a theological department, with students advancing to the next department only after passing an examination. The duration of studies at the Hohe Schule was generally four to five years. While science and ethics had been taught since the 1540s, further subjects such as history and logic were added in the following decades. Education in modern foreign languages and mathematics was almost completely lacking. However, the ideas of the English and French Enlightenment scholars spread to Zurich over time. The two doctors Johannes von Muralt (1645–1733)9 and Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733)10 brought in new ideas, not to mention the Gelehrte Gesellschaften which were beginning to flourish.11 In 1731 Johann Jakob Zimmermann (1695–1757) was appointed professor of natural law, and Samuel Pufendorf’s (1632–1694) De officio hominis et civis [About the duty of man and citizen] was declared a textbook.12 The philosophers Johann Jakob Bodmer (1698–1783) and Johann Jakob Breitinger (1701–1776) brought the Enlightenment into the core of the Zurich education system.13 In 1768 a comprehensive school reform was implemented, which included all schools and created an art school for craftsmen, merchants and artists. But the Hohe Schule remained theologically oriented, and young people acquired their general education while travelling abroad (on a Grand Tour). The professors, among whom there were well-paid canons as well as lecturers who were compensated according to expenditure, offered private lectures to supplement the main lectures, including courses in mathematics and physics. Starting in 1776, lecture timetables were introduced with the title Index lectionum publicarum atque privatarum. Many were sceptical about the reforms: student numbers declined and did not recover until 1795.14 A few 9  Peyer B., Die biologischen Arbeiten des Arztes Johannes von Muralt 1645–1733, Schriftenreihe der Stiftung von Schnyder von Wartensee 36 (Thayngen: 1946). 10  Leu U.B. (ed.), Natura sacra. Der Frühaufklärer Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733) (Zug: 2012). 11  Kempe M. – Maissen Th., Die Collegia der Insulaner, Vertraulichen und Wohlgesinnten (1679– 1709). Die ersten deutschsprachigen Aufklärungsgesellschaften zwischen Naturwissenschaft, Bibelkritik, Geschichte und Politik (Zurich: 2002). 12  Nabholz, “Zürichs Höhere Schulen” 72–76. 13  Lütteken A. – Mahlmann-Bauer B. (eds.), Bodmer und Breitinger im Netzwerk der europäischen Aufklärung, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert, Supplementa 16 (Göttingen: 2009). 14  Nabholz, “Zürichs Höhere Schulen” 86–100.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

603

decades later, in 1833, the University of Zurich was founded, entering its first year with 161 students, 26 professors and 29 private lecturers.15 2

Different Forms of Disputations/Dissertations

It was not until 1833 that Zurich doctoral Theses qualified the writer for an academic doctorate. The previous dissertations contained Theses that were the subject of debate. These disputations were academic exercises designed to probe the subject matter and practise the ability to argue convincingly. From 1561, disputations of this kind were held irregularly in Zurich.16 The school records report, in an entry from 30 June 1571, that Johann Wilhelm Stucki (1542– 1607), a teacher of dialectics, had to practise disputing with the students for an hour every day. On June 1, 1590, the Professores logicae et physicae were asked to start with disputations, the former monthly, the latter every two months.17 The school records, and the Dissertatio historico-theologica de disputationum publicarum earumque inprimis quae in gymnasio Turicensi postero synodi die bis per annum celebrati solent, origine, fine et usu [On the origin and history of the public disputations, in particular the Synodal Disputations] written by Johann Jacob Cramer (1714–1769) in 1768, agree that the regular Saturday disputations began in April 1592 under rector Rudolf Hospinian.18 The motive for these exercises was that neither Jesuits nor Lutherans should be better trained for disputes.19 Two Praesides of the disputations in philosophical, physical und ethical matters (de rebus philosophicis, physicis et ethicis) were elected: the doctor Heinrich Lavater (1560–1632) as Professor physico-medicus, and the head of the Latin School, Johann Jakob Ulrich (1569–1638).20 In autumn 1592 permission finally followed for disputations to be conducted in theology; leadership of these was incumbent on the two theology professors. They were also responsible for the Synodal Disputations which took place from 1602 onward

15  B  rändli S., “Universität Zürich”, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), vol. 12 (Basel: 2013) 626–627; Moser Ch. (ed.), Repertorium der Vorlesungen an der Universität Zürich, 1833–1900, 2 vols. (Zug: 2011). 16  Bodmer  J.-P., “Zürcher Disputationsthesen bis 1653 – Facetten einer Druckschriftengattung”, Zwingliana 41 (2014) 85–116. 17  Schulakten, Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich (StAZH), E II 458, fol. 124r and 415v. 18  Bodmer, “Disputationsthesen” 88; Cramer, Dissertatio 11. 19  Cramer, Dissertatio 11. 20   Cf. concerning the roles during a disputation: Marti H., “Dissertationen”, in Rasche U. (ed.), Quellen zur frühneuzeitlichen Universitätsgeschichte: Typen, Bestände, Forschungsperspektiven (Wiesbaden: 2011) 55–81.

604

Leu

in spring and autumn after the great church synods at which all clergymen of town and country were required to appear.21 Disputation exercises became more and more established over the following decades. The school regulations of 1653 provided that at the Collegium humanitatis the Professor artium logicarum was required to introduce the students to disputations on Saturdays. At the Hohe Schule the professor for the New Testament was to hold a disputation on Mondays, and the professor for the Old Testament was to deal with controversial questions on Thursdays and Fridays, while both professors were still responsible for the disputations on Saturdays and after the church synods. The professor of logic and the two professors of philosophy were required to lead a disputation every Thursday.22 The school records of February 1663 reveal that a monthly Disputatio ordinaria was held in addition to the weekly theological and philosophical disputations. The theological disputations were to be held in the Auditorium novum, the philosophical disputations in the Auditorium publicum. The students who took part as respondents were promised a ducat as remuneration from the Thomannian Foundation.23 3

Disputations after the Synods as Instruments for Confessional Disciplining

As early as 1599, Markus Bäumler had proposed at a disputation that such events should be held in public in order that opponents’ arguments could be refuted before a broad audience.24 Accordingly, the following school law was passed in 1602, and the Synodal Disputations were initiated: Neben den ordentlichen wochentlichen Disputationen sollen zwey gemeine grosse Disputationen gehalten werden unter beyden Theologis, eine auf Synodum Maji, die andere auf Synodum Galli, damit auch die Herren ab der Landschaft disputieren können. Derowegen wird von einem Herrn Praeside erfordert, dass er die Theses bey guter Zeit ein Tag acht oder vierzehen davor in Truk verfertige, auf dass ein jeder, der Lust hat, sich bey Zeiten umsehen, und auf die Disputation gefasst machen könne.25 21  Bodmer, “Disputationsthesen” 89; Cramer, Dissertatio 12. 22  Bodmer, “Disputationsthesen” 91. 23  Schulakten, StAZH, E II 465, 43. 24  Cramer, Dissertatio 14–15. 25  Cramer, Dissertatio 13; cf. Sazungen unnd Ordnungen der Reformierten Schůl Zürich, StAZH, E II 466, 1–24.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

605

In addition to the regular weekly disputations, two common great disputations are to be held under the direction of the two theologians, one after the Synode of May, the other after the Synode of October, so that the clergy from the country can also dispute. For this reason the Praesides is required to prepare the printed Theses eight or fourteen days in advance, so that everyone who wants to prepare himself for the disputation can do so in time. A Synodal Disputation took place each Wednesday after May 1 and October 16 (Gallus Day) until the 19th century. The Praesides had the chair; the first discussion partner was called the Respondent, who was assisted by the Assument. Since all the pastors from the city and the countryside as well as all the professors of the Hohe Schule and the teachers of the clergy had to appear at the synods under the threat of a fine, the entire Zurich clergy attended the final disputation, which was, in effect, planned as an obligatory continuing education event. It ultimately served to ensure the pastorship followed a uniform line. The Zurich Church Constitution of 1628 states: Damit aber diß oberzelt ansaehen dester bas erhalten, auch zucht, einigkeit, rechtmaessige ermanung vnnd straaff vnder den Dieneren des worts blybe: alle simulation vnd ambition vermitten vnd vßgeschlossen werde, sol jaehrlich ein allgemeiner Synodus zwey mahlen hie in vnser Statt Zürych besamblet werden.26 But in order that the reputation may be preserved, as well as the unity, rightfull exhortation and punishment of the servants of the word: all falsehood and ambition shall be avoided and excluded, a general synod shall be convened two times a year here in Zurich. Law and order, unity and correct instruction of the clergy were clearly in the foreground. In the age of confessionalization, the Synodal Disputations served as a way for the state and the church to discipline their subjects. The main opponents were the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, although the latter disappeared from the scene in the last third of the 17th century and were subsequently hardly an issue [Fig. 23.1].27 26   Ordnung der Dieneren der Kilchen in der Statt vnnd vff der Landtschafft Zürich […] (Zurich, no printer: 1628) fol. D1v. 27  Leu U.B. – Scheidegger Ch. (eds.), Die Zürcher Täufer 1525–1700 (Zurich: 2007); Leu U.B., “Disputanten und Dissidenten – Zur gelehrten Auseinandersetzung mit dem Täufertum

606

Figure 23.1

Leu

Disputation after the synod against the Anabaptists. Caspar Waser, Orthodidascalia de binis quaestionibus […] (Zurich, Johann Hardmeyer: 1614) (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, shelf mark: 6.12233)

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

607

It was not until the last third of the 18th century that Johann Jacob Cramer, in the dissertation mentioned above on the origin, history and usefulness of Synodal Disputations, struck reconciliatory notes. He states that the defence against Catholic positions in the 17th century was understandable, but that it is now time to accept each other and to argue respectfully in disputations. Cramer took the same view as the Enlightenment philosopher Johann Georg Sulzer (1720–1779),28 who, in a similar vein to Lessing’s Ring Parable, pointed out that nobody can know what is the one true religion: Ein Polemischer Schriftsteller muß zwey Ding wohl bedenken; das eine ist, daß in seiner Lehr nothwendig viel zweifelhaft und Polemisches sey; dann wann alles schlechter Dinger erwiesen, und so klar waere, wie sich viele einbilden, so waere es nicht moeglich, daß so viele andere Menschen, die doch auch denken koennen, und zum Theil unpartheyisch sind, sich der so klaren Wahrheit widersezen wuerden; dieses muß ihn bescheiden machen, daß er seine Beweise für nichts mehr ausgiebt, als sie sind, nemlich für wahrscheinliche Schluesse. Das andere, was er bedenken muß, ist, daß, da der Selbst-Betrug und das Vorurtheil in Religions-Sachen so augenscheinlich groß und stark ist, es ihn eben so wol treffen koenne, als seine Gegner. Es ist ein unaussprechlicher Stolz, sich einzubilden, daß alle Menschen, die anders denken als wir, nothwendig in groben Irrthuemern steken: Derowegen sey er behutsam, und denke bestaendig daran, daß andere eben das von ihm denken, was er von ihnen.29 A polemic writer must consider two things; the first is that in his teaching there must be many doubtful and polemic things; then if everything were proven and as clear as many imagined, it would not be possible that so many other people, who are able to think, and in part impartial, would oppose the clear truth; this must make him humble that he spends his proofs for nothing more than they are, namely for probable conclusions. The other thing he must bear in mind is that, since self-deception and prejudice in religious matters is so obviously great and strong, it could affect him as well as its opponents. It is an unspeakable pride to imagine in Zürich im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Moser Ch. – Opitz P. (eds.), Bewegung und Beharrung. Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–1650, Festschrift für Emidio Campi, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 144 (Leiden – Boston: 2009) 91–115. 28  Cf. Caflisch-Schnetzler U., “Sulzer der ‚Weltweise‛ in seiner Korrespondenz zur Zürcher Aufklärung”, in Décultot E. – Kampa Ph. – Kittelmann J. (eds.), Johann Georg Sulzer. Aufklärung im Umbruch (Berlin – New York 2018) 229–242. 29  Cramer, Dissertatio 29.

608

Leu

that all people who think differently from us are necessarily wrong: That is the reason why he is cautious, and constantly remembers that others think of him exactly what he thinks of them. Cramer’s conciliatory drive went so far that he wrote in regard to the Lutherans: ‘Dissensus enim Lutheranos inter et Reformatos in Articulis fidei Christianae fundamentalibus nullus datur’.30 [There is no dissension between Reformed Protestants and Lutherans in the fundamental articles of faith] – a sentence that would never have been formulated in Zurich during the 16th and 17th centuries. Cramer, however, does not want to abolish Synodal Disputations; he continues to regard them as legitimate, because they offer the possibility of dealing with special theological questions, and because disputing is also a good preparation for parish work.31 4

Dissertations as a Mirror of the Intellectual Debates

The dissertations of the Hohe Schule in Zurich often dealt with topics that had been controversial in Europe.32 They show what was going on in the minds of the scholars and what could inflame passions to such an extent that even the welfare of the community could be at stake. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), René Descartes (1596–1650) and Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669) were particularly influential.33 Grotius sparked discussion about the proper division of tasks and powers in church questions and thus also about the handling of church discipline and the treatment of heretics. The first two Zurich works to deal with this topic were written by Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698), who had been working at the Hohe Schule since 1666.34 His pupils, along with those of the polymath Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620–1667), belonged to the core of the group that founded the first early Enlightenment society in Zurich on 12 April 1679, the Collegium Insulanum.35 These topics culminated in a 30  Ibidem 38. 31  Ibidem 33–36. 32  Leu U.B., “Häresie und Staatsgewalt – Die theologischen Zürcher Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts zwischen Orthodoxie und Frühaufklärung” in Marti – Marti-Weissenbach (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie 105–145. 33  Cf. the reception of Grotius and Coccejus in Germany, Mulsow M., Radikale Früh­ aufklärung in Deutschland 1680–1720, vol. 1 (Göttingen: 2018) 175–251. 34  Blaufuss D., “Das Carolinum als Stätte des innerprotestantischen Konsenses? Johann Heinrich Heidegger und sein Vorschlag”, in Marti – Marti-Weissenbach (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie 47–69. 35  Maissen Th., Die Geburt der Republic. Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft, Historische Semantik 4 (Göttingen: 2006) 366.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

609

dissertation by Johann Heinrich Schweizer (1646–1705), which threatened to seriously endanger the peace within the city of Zurich. At the synod of October 1694, a disputation took place under the chairmanship of Johann Caspar Wolf on the topic of De ratione coercendi delinquentes [The reason why one should force deviators]. In addition to more or less general statements on church discipline, it contains an explosive section in which Wolf pleads for the expansion of church powers in questions of morals and church discipline.36 On 18 March 169537 Johann Heinrich Schweizer replied to Wolf’s remarks in a dissertation entitled Theses politicae de magistratus iure circa sacra [Political theses on the law of the state in church affairs]. He pleaded for putting morality censorship and church discipline in the hands of the state, which led to violent reactions on the part of conservative theologians. In the end, even the Geheime Rat [Secret Council] had to deal with the matter and warned that inner peace could be jeopardized. They issued a letter instructing those responsible not to speak or write a word about the matter from then on. It was the task of the professors to take care of their students in this matter. Moses and Aaron, as synonyms for state and church, were to continue to exercise their functions in peace.38 Nobody dared to defy the instructions of the Geheime Rat. In addition to Grotius, various other modern authors, including those of the early Enlightenment, were also received in Zurich and even mediated by Heidegger. They include, for example, the law scholar Erich Mauritius (1631– 1691), who in his Tübingen dissertation De denuntiatione sagarum [On exposing witches] of 1664 reformed the procedural law for witchcraft defendants.39 Although he considered magic and pacts with the devil possible, he opposed the medieval way of finding the truth through torture. Of Johann Heinrich Heidegger’s four dissertations De artibus magicis [Dissertations on the magical arts] which appeared annually in 1682, 1683, 1684 and 1685, the fourth and last one deals with the question of whether today’s Christian jurisprudence should still judge magic as it was usual at the time of the Old Testament (Ex. 22,18): “You shall not let a sorceress live”. Heidegger 36  Wolf Johann Caspar (Pr.) – Keller Jacob (Resp.) – Wolf Rudolf (Resp.), Dissertatio theologica de ratione coercendi delinquentes (Zurich, David Gessner: 1694) fol. B3r–f. B4r. 37  The date of the disputation is mentioned in: Protokoll der Wohlgesinnten, Zentralbibliothek Zürich (ZBZ), Ms Z III 617, 55. 38  StAZH, E II 287, Nr. 24. Moses and Aaron as metaphor for state and church is already mentioned in: Bullinger Heinrich, In priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios epistolam commentarius (Zurich, Christoph Froschauer d.Ä.: 1534) fol. 48r. 39  Cf. concerning his predecessors Johann Weyer, Friedrich von Spee, Anton Praetorius, Johann Matthäus Meyfart etc.: Kittsteiner H.D., Die Stabilisierungsmoderne. Deutschland und Europa 1618–1715 (Munich: 2010) 156–177.

610

Leu

discusses the original meaning of the word and comes to the conclusion that the underlying Hebrew word for sorceress means to make use of the help of the devil for mixing poisons and sorcery. The Old Testament law provides for the death penalty for all magicians, not just the poisoners. The word is in the female form (sorceress), not because the Old Testament overlooks men, but because women are much more conspicuous for such black arts, as the Roman authors Pliny and Quintilian confirmed. But the same penalties should be applied to both women and men.40 Heidegger continues, referring to Mauritius, that the law on the punishment of magicians is unchangeable and continuously valid. The nature of the capital punishment may vary for some reason. But wizards and those who had dealings with the devil rightly suffered the death penalty. However, it was to be ensured that no one would be convicted without lawful proof. Doubtful evidence, such as the fire test from the Hexenhammer of the 15th century and the like, would be rightly rejected by pious judges. Heidegger concludes by pointing out that there are different kinds of magical practices and that not everyone has to be punished with death. He refers to Thomas Erastus, Andreas Rivetus and Gisbertus Voetius, who hold similar views.41 Heidegger concludes his statement with the recommendation that the death penalty should be imposed rightly on the devil’s allies, but that it should not be applied to those who have simply done superstitious things without harming people or livestock. Heidegger also points out that voluntary confession is much more valuable than that given under torture;42 it is well known that some people make a false confession of guilt when subjected to inhumane treatment. A further topic that had been stirring debate for decades was the heliocentric world view of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), which was recognized in Basel in the early 18th century, but still had to fight for acceptance in Zurich.43 In 1703 the physician and Professor physicus Salomon Hottinger (1649–1716) opposed Copernicus in his dissertation Positiones philosophicae miscellaneae44 [Various philosophical topics]. On January 28, 1711 he attacked him again in 40  Heidegger Johann Heinrich (Pr.) – 6 students (Resp.), Dissertatio de artibus magicis quarta et ultima. Qua de poenis magiae, ad locum Exod. XXII.18 disquisitio instituitur (Zurich, David Gessner: 1685) fol. A2r–f.A4v. 41  Ibidem, fol. D3v–D4r. 42  Ibidem, fol. D2r. 43  Nagel F. – Gehr S., “Zürich und Basel im Dialog: Johann Jakob Scheuchzers Korrespondenz mit Johann I Bernoulli”, in Leu U.B. (ed.), Natura sacra 181–207. 44  Hottinger Salomon (Pr.) – 12 students (Resp.), Positiones philosophicae miscellaneae katallaktikai; quas sapientia coelesti adspirante, [...] tueri sustinebunt (Zurich, Heinrich Bodmer: 1703) fol. D1v–D2v.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

611

his dissertation on Psalm 19.45 In the school records, it is noted that the wellknown Zurich physician and polymath Johann Jakob Scheuchzer was annoyed by these negative statements, especially since Copernicus was now widely recognized.46 From the second third of the 18th century onward, the influence of the Enlightenment could no longer be stopped, as can be seen from the topics of the Zurich dissertations. David Lavater (1692–1775) in his dissertation Theologiae naturalis […] sistens brevem delineationem argumentorum pro existentia dei [Dissertation on natural theology … containing a brief statement for the existence of God] was still opposing the atheism of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), but soon the spirit of Bodmer and Breitinger prevailed, as can be seen from the above-mentioned quotations from Sulzer’s works in Cramer’s dissertation of 1768. The Zurich dissertations also brought various natural scientists of European importance to the attention of the professors and students. Carl von Linné (1707–1778) and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707–1788), who were the subject of lectures by Johannes Gessner (1709–1790), founder of the Natural History Society and professor of natural sciences, are particularly worthy of note. Gessner’s most important achievement in the field of botany was the dissemination of the Linnéan systematics and nomenclature. His first botanical dissertations of 1740 and 1741 were dedicated to the reproductive and vegetative parts of plants and served as a well understandable introduction to Linné’s system.47 The two works were so popular that they were reprinted in Leiden in 1743 together with smaller works by Linné.48 Four years later the

45  Hottinger Salomon (Pr.) – Sprüngli Johann Caspar (Resp.) – Denzler Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Liber naturae ex Psalmo XIX, v. 1–7 (Zurich, David Gessner: 1711) 14–16. Hottinger was no Copernican which has been falsely claimed in Rother W., “Die Hochschulen in der Schweiz”, in Holzhey H. et al. (eds.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, vol. 4/1 (Basel: 2001) 447–474. 46  Actorum scholasticorum tomus XVII, StAZH, E II 474, fol. 207r: ‘Bei diserem anlaß hat her D[octor] m[edicinae] Professor Scheuchzer bedeutet wie er mit verdruß die sonderlich in § 20 wider die sogenannte Copernicaner ent[.?.] gar ernsthaffte invective wahrgenommen […]’. [On this occasion Doctor Scheuchzer expressed how he perceived with annoyance the insulting statement made against the so-called Copernicans particularly in § 20]. 47  Gessner Johannes (Pr.) – 5 students (Resp.), Dissertationis physicae de vegetabilibus pars prima – posterior (Zurich, Heidegger: 1740 – 1741). 48  Linné Carl von, Oratio de necessitate peregrinationum intra patriam; item: Elenchus animalium per Sueciam observatorum. Accedunt […] Jo. Gesneri dissertationes de partium vegetationis et fructificationis structura (Leiden, Cornelis Haak: 1743).

612

Leu

book appeared again in Halle as an addition to Linnés Fundamenta botanica.49 Even decades later Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) was benefiting from Gessner’s work.50 After Scheuchzer’s death, new models of earth history were established in the Swiss Confederation, which also adopted ideas of the French Enlightenment scholars Benoît de Maillet and Buffon. This paradigm shift led away from biblical flood geology to an earth history that sought to function independently, or more independently, of theological categories. This new world view was first reflected in two Zurich dissertations by Johannes Gessner, which he published in 1752 and 1756.51 The first is entitled Dissertatio physica de petrificatorum differentiis et varia origine [Dissertation about the differences of fossils and their origin], the second Dissertatio physica de petrificatorum variis originibus praecipuarum telluris mutationum testibus [Dissertation on different origins of fossils and the changes on earth]. Both were orthographically revised and reprinted together in Leiden in 1758 as Tractatus physicus de petrificatis. In 1772 the Tractatus appeared in a French translation as Traité des Pétrifications in one of the most important scientific journals of the time, Observations sur la physique, sur l’histoire naturelle et sur les arts.52 The first issues of this periodical, which was first published in 1771, are very rare. One of the editors was Jean-Claude de La Métherie (or Delamétherie, 1743–1817). In 1777 the Traité des Pétrifications was published again in the second introductory volume of the same journal.53 If a scientific work is published four times and in two languages within 25 years, one can rightly assume that it was important for scholars of the time.

49  Linné Carl von, Fundamenta botanica in quibus theoria botanices aphoristica traditur: accedunt: Johannis Gesneri dissertationes physicae in quibus celeb. Linnaei Elementa botanica dilucide explicantur (Halle, Johann Gottlob Bierwirth: 1747). 50  Goethe J.W. von, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft. 1. Abt.: Texte, vol. 10, Aufsätze, Fragmente, Studien zur Morphologie, ed. D. Kuhn (Weimar: 1964) 323. 51  In his dissertation of 1756, he mentions Buffon as one of his sources, of whom he also had various works in his private library, including his Histoire naturelle, which he owned twice, in a German and in a French edition. Cf. Füssli Johann Heinrich, Catalogus librorum bibliothecae Joannis Gessneri […] qui venales prostant (Zurich, Johann Heinrich Füssli son: 1798) 28–29. 52  Rudwick M.J.S., Bursting the Limits of Time. The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution (Chicago – London: 2005) 47. 53  Gessner J., “Traité des Pétrifications”, in Abbé Rozier [François] (ed.), Introduction aux observations sur la physique, sur l’histoire naturelle et sur les arts, vol. 2 (Paris, Le Jay – Barrois l’Aîné: 1777) 517–555 and 586–612.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

5

613

The Printing of Dissertations

The first dissertations or Theses printed in Zurich were written by the Polish Jan Turnowski (1567–1629), who studied in Zurich, and by Raphael Egli (1559– 1622), who was professor for the New Testament at the Hohe Schule [Fig. 23.2]. The two prints appeared in 1592 and 1593 without mentioning ‘respondents’ or ‘assuments’ and without evidence of a corresponding event. Nevertheless, they may be described as prototypes of the Zurich imprints of Theses, which were some of the most important imprints from Zurich in the 17th century. Apart from dissertations and other specialist works, only a few noteworthy publications appeared in Zurich during the Baroque era. At times the dissertations accounted for a third or even half of overall book production [Graph 23.1]. A particularly high number of Dissertationes were published between 1646 and 1738 [Graph 23.2]. Among the 1,020 printed Zurich dissertations from 1592 to 1800 known so far, the most notable are the printed dissertations from the Synodal Disputations. They took place twice a year and had to be printed and delivered to the clergy one to two weeks before the synod. These imprints were financed by Studentenamt of the Hohe Schule. They make up about two fifths of the printed Theses. The other three fifths were usually written and paid for by the Praesides, but a significant number of Theses have never been printed. It was not uncommon to use these dissertations as scholarly publications which were spread and read far beyond the Swiss Confederation, as the example of Johannes Gessner mentioned above demonstrates. The number of dissertations printed annually is independent of the number of students, which for the years 1660 to 1790 can be relatively easily deduced from the school records [Graph 23.3]. In contrast to various cities in which universities have their own printing houses, such as Basel54 and Leiden,55 the professors of the Hohe Schule in Zurich commissioned the printers Bodmer, Gessner and others to publish their 54  V  erzeichnuß der Vergleichung / Welche zwischen einer Ehrwuerdigen Regentz Loblicher Universitet Basel / und Johann Jacob Deckern / wolermeldter Universitet bestelten Buchdruckern / beschehen […], (Basel, Johann-Jacob Decker: 1665), Staatsarchiv Basel, Universitätsarchiv I 17; Husner F., Verzeichnis der Basler medizinischen Universitätsschriften von 1575–1829, Sonderdruck aus der Festschrift für Dr. J. Brodbeck-Sandreuter (Basel: 1942); Mommsen K., Katalog der Basler juristischen Disputationen 1558–1818, Ius Commune, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Sonderhefte, Texte und Monographien 9 (Frankfurt a.M.: 1978). 55  Hoftijzer P., “Veilig achter Minerva’s schild. Het Leidse boek in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw”, in Bouwman A. et al. (eds.), Stad van boeken. Handschrift en druk in Leiden 1260–2000 (Leiden: 2008) 185–208.

614

Figure 23.2

Leu

Raphael Egli, Theses XII, de sacrae scripturae plenitudine […] (Zurich, Johann Wolf: 1593) (Zentralbibliothek Zürich, shelf mark: 6.1226)

615

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

Numbers of titles and Theses in Zurich (17th century) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 1601 1604 1607 1610 1613 1616 1619 1622 1625 1628 1631 1634 1637 1640 1643 1646 1649 1652 1655 1658 1661 1664 1667 1670 1673 1676 1679 1682 1685 1688 1691 1694 1697 1700

0

Titles

Theses

Graph 23.1

Numbers of printed Theses per year 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1550

Graph 23.2

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

616

Leu

Numbers of students and printed Theses 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1640

1660

1680

1700

Students Collegium publicum

1720

1740

1760

1780

Students Collegium humanitatis

1800

1820

Theses

Graph 23.3

dissertations. As already mentioned, the Theses or dissertations of the Synodal Disputations had to be printed, which is why this item has appeared annually in the account books of the Hohe Schule since at least 1623.56 Examination of the expenditures every five years (1625, 1630, 1635 etc.) reveals that the entries are qualitatively quite different. The records often only mention the amount that had to be paid to the printers for the printing of the Synodal Disputations. Occasionally, however, it was also noted how large the print run was and how many copies of it were bound in pasted or marble paper. The number of printed copies per edition increased over the decades from 250 (1630) to 400 (1650), and from 1655 onward the number of printed copies was between 500 and 600. For a printer, however, only print runs of more than about 500 copies were worthwhile, so that the imprints of Theses had to be fully financed as commissioned work.57 The 1,000 copies on the occasion of the spring disputation of 1780 seem to have been an outlier. These treatises were always printed in quarto format and with a comparable type area. The actual number of pages can be determined on the basis of the copies still available in the libraries. The listed data can be used to calculate how expensive it

56  Rechnungsbücher des Studentenamts des Chorherrenstifts am Grossmünster 1532–1832, StAZH, G II 39. 57  Leu, “Reformation als Auftrag” 24–25.

617

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

Price per page with mathematical trend line (currency: Haller) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

Graph 23.4

was to print a single page. It ranged between 0.35 and just under 0.8 Haller.58 The two prices of 1630 and 1795 are so high because the paper became scarce: 1630 as a result of the Thirty Years’ War, 1795 because ‘high paper prices’ as noted in the account back, very probably because of the lack of raw materials. The average price was just under 0.6 Haller per printed page [Graph 23.459]. A printed Zurich dissertation cost the Hohe Schule about 1 to 3 Schilling over 200 years, which was a fraction of the daily wage of a master craftsman [Graph 23.5]. Although the selling prices of these imprints were estimated to be around twice as high, they remained affordable for the interested parties. The monthly salary of a provincial pastor was comparable to that of a master craftsman, but a pastor would receive additional benefits in kind. The curve also shows an increase in the income over the centuries, whereas the cost of producing the imprints remained at about the same level, possibly indicating an increase in

58  Cf. the following currency units: 1 Gulden = 2 Pfund = 40 Schilling = 480 Haller. 59  Compare quite a similar graph for the annual cost of a so called consumer basket in: Pfister U., Consumer prices and wages in Germany, 1500–1800, CQE – Center for Quantitative Economics, University of Münster 15 (2010) 11 (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6241026. pdf; 4.2.2019).

618

Leu

Prices and wages with mathematical trend lines (currency: Schilling) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1620

1640

1660

1680

1700

Price per dissertation

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

Wage of a master craftsman per day

Graph 23.5

prosperity in the canton of Zurich towards the end of the 18th century. This is one of the few preserved price lists for books to span almost two centuries.60 6

Conclusion

Until recently no weight was attached to pre-university disputations, and for a long time they were dismissed as student exercises. Recent research has shown that these works are of great interest for the history of reception, as they contain important indications of the intellectual currents that arrived and were communicated in Zurich. The printed Theses are a mirror of the intellectual

60  P  root G., “Prices in Robert Estienne’s bookseller’s catalogues (Paris 1541–1552): a statistical analysis”, Journal of Library and Information Science 9 (2018) 192–221; Proot G., “The pricing policy of the Officina Plantiniana 1580–1655”, in Imhof D. (ed.), Balthasar Moretus and the Passion of Publishing (Antwerp: 2018) 32–44.

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

619

discussions of the time and are closely interlocked with corresponding movements and processes. Since the pre-university Hohe Schule mainly trained Reformed pastors, they and the clergy were made to conform to a common line with the help of Synodal Disputations conducted by the authorities. This was the line they were to represent in their work as pastors. The dissertations also provide interesting information about the book and printing history of Zurich. The account books of the Hohe Schule provide especially valuable information about printers, bookbinders, print runs and prices of printed Theses. The pre-university Zurich dissertations represent a generally underestimated treasure trove of information on the Swiss intellectual history of the early modern period.

Bibliography

Baumann M., Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich (1556–1562): Dieser Kylchen in der heiligen gschrifft professor und läser, Reformed Historical Theology 36 (Göttingen: 2016). Bernhard J.-A., “Die Prophezei (1525–1532). Ort der Übersetzung und Bildung”, in Rüsch M. ‒ Leu U.B. (eds.), Getruckt zů Zürich – Ein Buch verändert die Welt (Zurich: 2019) 93–113. Blaufuß D., “Das Carolinum als Stätte des innerprotestantischen Konsenses? Johann Heinrich Heidegger und sein Vorschlag”, in Marti H. ‒ Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012) 47–69. Bodmer J.-P., “Zürcher Disputationsthesen bis 1653 – Facetten einer Druckschriftengattung”, Zwingliana 41 (2014) 85–116. Brändli S., “Universität Zürich”, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (HLS), vol. 12 (Basel: 2013) 626‒627. Bullinger Heinrich, In priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios epistolam commentarius (Zurich, Christoph Froschauer d.Ä.: 1534). Büsser F., “Schola Tigurina. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550”, in Bächtold H.U. (ed.): Schola Tigurina. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550, Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 19. Juli 1999 in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Zurich – Freiburg i.Br.: 1999) 7–15. Büsser F., Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575). Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: 2004‒2005). Caflisch-Schnetzler U., “Sulzer der ‚Weltweise‛ in seiner Korrespondenz zur Zürcher Aufklärung”, in Décultot E. ‒ Kampa Ph. ‒ Kittelmann J. (eds.), Johann Georg Sulzer. Aufklärung im Umbruch, Hallesche Beiträge zur Europäischen Aufklärung 60 (Berlin ‒ New York: 2018) 229–242.

620

Leu

Cramer Johann Jacob (Pr.) ‒ Wirz Johann Leonhard (Resp.) ‒ Steinbrüchel Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio historico-theologica de disputationum publicarum earumque inprimis quae in gymnasio Turicensi postero synodi die bis per annum celebrati solent, origine, fine et usu (Zurich, Gessner: 1768). Ernst U., Geschichte des zürcherischen Schulwesens bis gegen Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Winterthur: 1879). Füssli Johann Heinrich, Catalogus librorum bibliothecae Joannis Gessneri […] qui venales prostant (Zurich, Johann Heinrich Füssli son: 1798). Gessner Johannes (Pr.) ‒ 5 students (Resp.), Dissertationis physicae de vegetabilibus pars prima (Zurich, Heidegger: 1740). Gessner Johannes (Pr.) ‒ 5 students (Resp.), Dissertationis physicae de vegetabilibus pars posterior (Zurich, Heidegger: 1741). Gessner Johannes, “Traité des Pétrifications”, in Abbé Rozier [François] (ed.), Introduction aux observations sur la physique, sur l’histoire naturelle et sur les arts, vol. 2 (Paris, Le Jay ‒ Barrois l’Aîné: 1777) 517–555 and 586–612. Goeing A.-S., Storing, Archiving, Organizing: The Changing Dynamics of Scholarly Information Management in Post-Reformation Zurich, Library of the written word 56 (Leiden: 2017). Goethe J.W. von, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft. 1. Abt.: Texte, vol. 10, Aufsätze, Fragmente, Studien zur Morphologie, ed. D. Kuhn (Weimar: 1964). Heidegger Johann Heinrich (Pr.) ‒ 6 students (Resp.), Dissertatio de artibus magicis quarta et ultima. Qua de poenis magiae, ad locum Exod. XXII.18 disquisitio instituitur (Zurich, David Gessner: 1685). Hoftijzer P., “Veilig achter Minerva’s schild. Het Leidse boek in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw”, in Bouwman A. et al. (eds.), Stad van boeken. Handschrift en druk in Leiden 1260–2000 (Leiden: 2008) 185–208. Hottinger Salomon (Pr.) ‒ 12 students (Resp.), Positiones philosophicae miscellaneae katallaktikai (Zurich, Heinrich Bodmer: 1703). Hottinger Salomon (Pr.) ‒ Sprüngli Johann Caspar (Resp.) ‒ Denzler Johann Heinrich (Resp.), Liber naturae ex Psalmo XIX, v. 1–7 (Zurich, David Gessner: 1711). Husner F., Verzeichnis der Basler medizinischen Universitätsschriften von 1575–1829, Sonderdruck aus der Festschrift für Dr. J. Brodbeck-Sandreuter (Basel: 1942). Kempe M. ‒ Maissen Th., Die Collegia der Insulaner, Vertraulichen und Wohlgesinnten (1679–1709). Die ersten deutschsprachigen Aufklärungsgesellschaften zwischen Naturwissenschaft, Bibelkritik, Geschichte und Politik (Zurich: 2002). Kittsteiner H.D., Die Stabilisierungsmoderne. Deutschland und Europa 1618–1715 (Munich: 2010). Leu U.B. ‒ Scheidegger Ch. (eds.), Die Zürcher Täufer 1525–1700 (Zurich: 2007). Leu U.B., “Disputanten und Dissidenten ‒ Zur gelehrten Auseinandersetzung mit dem Täufertum in Zürich im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Moser Ch. ‒ Opitz P. (eds.), Bewegung

ZURICH DISSERTATIONS BEFORE 1833

621

und Beharrung. Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–1650, Festschrift für Emidio Campi, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 144 (Leiden ‒ Boston: 2009) 91–115. Leu U.B. (ed.), Natura sacra. Der Frühaufklärer Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733) (Zug: 2012). Leu U.B., “Häresie und Staatsgewalt – Die theologischen Zürcher Dissertationen des 17. Jahrhunderts zwischen Orthodoxie und Frühaufklärung”, in Marti H. ‒ Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012) 105–145. Leu U.B., “Die Bedeutung Basels als Druckort im 16. Jahrhundert”, in Christ-von Wedel Ch. ‒ Grosse S. ‒ Hamm B. (eds.), Basel als Zentrum des geistigen Austauschs in der frühen Reformationszeit (Tübingen: 2014) 53–78. Leu U.B., Conrad Gessner (1516–1565). Universalgelehrter und Naturforscher der Renaissance (Zurich: 2016). Leu U.B., “Reformation als Auftrag. Der Zürcher Drucker Christoph Froschauer d.Ä. (ca. 1490–1564)”, in Leu U.B. ‒ Scheidegger Ch. (eds.), Buchdruck und Reformation in der Schweiz, Zwingliana 45 (Zurich: 2018) 1–80. Linné Carl von, Oratio de necessitate peregrinationum intra patriam; item: elenchus animalium per Sueciam observatorum. Accedunt […] Jo. Gesneri dissertationes de partium vegetationis et fructificationis structura (Leiden, Cornelis Haak: 1743). Linné Carl von, Fundamenta botanica in quibus theoria botanices aphoristica traditur: accedunt: Johannis Gesneri dissertationes physicae in quibus celeb. Linnaei elementa botanica dilucide explicantur (Halle, Johann Gottlob Bierwirth: 1747). Lütteken A. ‒ Mahlmann-Bauer B. (eds.), Bodmer und Breitinger im Netzwerk der europäischen Aufklärung, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert, Supplementa 16 (Göttingen: 2009). Maclean I., “The Market for Scholarly Books and Conceptions of Genre in Northern Europe 1570–1630”, in Maclean I., Learning and the Market Place. Essays in the History of the Early Modern Book, Library of the Written Word 9 (Leiden ‒ Boston: 2009) 9–24. Maissen Th., Die Geburt der Republic. Staatsverständnis und Repräsentation in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft, Historische Semantik 4 (Göttingen: 2006). Marti H., “Dissertationen”, in Rasche U. (ed.), Quellen zur frühneuzeitlichen Universitätsgeschichte: Typen, Bestände, Forschungsperspektiven (Wiesbaden: 2011) 55–81. Marti H. ‒ Marti-Weissenbach K. (eds.), Reformierte Orthodoxie und Aufklärung. Die Zürcher Hohe Schule im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna ‒ Cologne ‒ Weimar: 2012). Mommsen K., Katalog der Basler juristischen Disputationen 1558–1818, Ius Commune, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte Frankfurt am Main, Sonderhefte, Texte und Monographien 9 (Frankfurt a.M.: 1978).

622

Leu

Moser Ch., Repertorium der Vorlesungen an der Universität Zürich, 1833–1900, 2 Bde. (Zug: 2011). Mulsow M., Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland 1680–1720, 2 vols. (Göttingen: 2018). Nabholz H., “Zürichs Höhere Schulen von der Reformation bis zur Gründung der Universität, 1525–1833”, in Gagliardi E. ‒ Nabholz H. ‒ Strohl J. (eds.), Die Universität Zürich 1833–1933 und ihre Vorläufer (Zurich: 1938) 3–164. Nagel F. ‒ Gehr S., “Zürich und Basel im Dialog: Johann Jakob Scheuchzers Korrespondenz mit Johann I Bernoulli”, in Leu U.B. (ed.), Natura sacra. Der Frühaufklärer Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672‒1733) (Zug: 2012) 181–207. Ordnung der Dieneren der Kilchen in der Statt vnnd vff der Landtschafft Zürich […] (Zurich, no printer: 1628). Peyer B., Die biologischen Arbeiten des Arztes Johannes von Muralt 1645–1733, Schriftenreihe der Stiftung von Schnyder von Wartensee 36 (Thayngen: 1946). Pfister U., “Consumer prices and wages in Germany, 1500–1800”, CQE – Center for Quantitative Economics, University of Münster 15 (2010) 11 (https://core.ac.uk/down load/pdf/6241026.pdf; 4.2.2019). Proot G., “Prices in Robert Estienne’s bookseller’s catalogues (Paris 1541–1552): a statistical analysis”, Journal of Library and Information Science 9 (2018) 192–221. Proot G., “The pricing policy of the Officina Plantiniana 1580–1655”, in Imhof D. (ed.), Balthasar Moretus and the Passion of Publishing (Antwerp: 2018) 32–44. Rother W., “Die Hochschulen in der Schweiz”, in Holzhey H. ‒ Schmidt-Biggemann W. (eds.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, vol. 4/1 (Basel: 2001) 447–474. Rudwick M.J.S., Bursting the Limits of Time. The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution (Chicago ‒ London: 2005). Schweizer Johann Heinrich (Pr.) ‒ Hirzel Ludwig (Resp.), Theses politicae de magistratus iure circa sacra (Zurich, David Gessner: 1695). Thomann J., “Kritik an Calvin, Koran und Kabbala. Bibliander, der Dissident unter Zürichs Reformatoren”, in Niederhäuser P. (ed.), Verfolgt, verdrängt, vergessen? Schatten der Reformation (Zurich: 2018) 71–85. Verzeichnuß der Vergleichung / Welche zwischen einer Ehrwuerdigen Regentz Loblicher Universitet Basel / und Johann Jacob Deckern / wolermeldter Universitet bestelten Buchdruckern / beschehen […] (Basel, Johann-Jacob Decker: 1665). Wolf Hans Caspar (Pr.) ‒ Keller Jacob (Resp.) ‒ Wolf Rudolf (Resp.), Dissertatio theologica de ratione coercendi delinquentes (Zurich, David Gessner: 1694).

part 4 Scandinavia and the Baltics

∵

Chapter 24

Ramism, Metaphysics and Pneumatology in the Swedish Universities of the First Half of the 17th Century Meelis Friedenthal Summary Academic life in the Swedish universities of the first half of the 17th century was heavily influenced by Ramist thought. This is clearly visible already in the statutes of the universities of Uppsala, Tartu and Turku, which all shared (mutatis mutandis) the same constitutions. The Ramist influence persists during the better part of the period and continues up to the late 1640s. The Uppsala university statutes from 1626 prohibit teaching of metaphysics and accordingly, we find only occasional mention of metaphysics in the disputations of the Swedish universities. Metaphysical topics are also generally avoided, and when discussed, then they are not categorized under metaphysics in the bodies of the texts. From 1640 onwards, Ramism starts to play an increasingly smaller role in disputations, and the first critical remarks towards Ramism also appear. At the same time, a rise in interest towards peripatetic philosophy is visible and the first positive mentions of metaphysics emerge in disputations. However, in the period before the reception of the new constitutions of 1655, we find only one work (from 1649) that uses metaphysics as a subject in the heading of the disputation. This article will also discuss the adoption of the new philosophical discipline of pneumatology (and its sub-discipline psychology) as a compromise, which permitted the prohibition of metaphysics to be bypassed and allowed consideration of metaphysical topics like God and the soul.

At the beginning of the 17th century, Sweden became a major power in the Baltic Sea region (in Swedish historiography this period is known as stormaktstiden) and achieved the long-awaited dominium maris Baltici.1, 2 This 1  This article was written at the Tartu University Library in the framework of the Pro Futura Scientia program of the SCAS and with the help of the base financing project no PHVFI19924 of the University of Tartu. I am also thankful for Janika Päll for many helpful discussions. 2  Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_025

626

Friedenthal

situation also led to the need for the creation of a capital suitable for a great power and for restructuring state institutions.3 Along with rebuilding the city of Stockholm, the Swedish state thus also expanded Uppsala University and founded new universities in Dorpat (established in 1632, present day Tartu, Estonia) and Åbo (established in 1640, present day Turku, Finland). During the Thirty Years War, in addition to Estonia,4 the Swedish imperium also acquired territories in Northern Germany, where the University of Greifswald is situated. Later, Sweden also won control of the Scanian provinces in the southern parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, which had previously belonged to Denmark, and there established a university in Lund in 1666.5 Thus, by the end of the century, the Swedish kingdom had five universities under its control. These universities were quite closely connected to each other – Dorpat, Åbo and Lund had university statutes that were closely modelled after the Uppsala University constitutions (mutatis mutandis), and professors and students moved between the universities often.6 The purpose of these academies was to provide the Swedish Empire with educated officials – we can count clergy among them – and establish its intellectual presence in its territories. The Statutes of Uppsala University, which were adopted in 1626, stipulate that: Professores, inprimisque Philosophiae, disciplinas suas clare et perspicue sine omnibus prorsus Scholasticorum perplexitatibus metaphysicisque speculationibus, tricis et subtilitatibus juventuti proponent, inque iis tradendis ordinem et methodum Socraticam seu Rameam accurate tenebunt, nec a rebus ipsis temere unquam recedent. All professors, especially philosophers, should present their disciplines to young people clearly and comprehensibly, without any ambiguous scholastic explanations and metaphysical speculation, condescension 3  Lockhart D., Sweden in the Seventeenth Century (New York: 2004) 3–4, 26–30. 4  In the Early Modern period the provinces of Estland and Livonia (Livland) comprised most of present-day Estonia. Estland was under Swedish dominion from 1558–1721 and Livonia from 1629–1721. Kasekamp A., A History of the Baltic States (Basingstoke: 2010) 43–45. 5  Kasekamp, A History of the Baltic States 98–99; Weibull M., Lunds universitets historia: 1668– 1863, 2 vols (Lund: 1868) I 21. 6  Annerstedt C. (ed.), Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1, Handlingar 1477–1654 (Uppsala: 1877); Vasar J. (ed.), Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid. Quellen zur Geschichte der Universität Tartu (Dorpat). I, Academia Gustaviana : a) Urkunden und Dokumente (Tartu: 1932); Kallinen M., Change and Stability: Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku (1640–1713), Studia Historica 51 (Helsinki: 1995) 47; Alvermann D. – Jörn N. – Olesen J.E. (eds.), Die Universität Greifswald in der Bildungslandschaft des Ostseeraums (Berlin: 2007) 250.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 627

and refinement, and present accurately the Socratic or Ramistic system and method, and without ever slipping away rashly from the things themselves.7 In addition, we can find comments on Ramism and metaphysics in a number of places in the constitutions. So we can read that the first mathematician should rely on Ramus’ arithmetic and geometry, the professor of rhetoric is to teach Ramus’ rules of rhetoric, and the professor of logic should read Ramus’ logic. The same stipulations are retained in the constitutions of Academia Dorpatensis and Academia Aboensis.8 This situation reflects the philosophical preferences of Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, who later became the Archbishop of Uppsala, and Johan Skytte, who became the Governor General of Livonia and the Chancellor of Uppsala and Tartu University.9 Both of these men were trained in a Ramist environment and thus Ramism became, in a sense, the official educational policy of Sweden during the first half of the 17th century. Furthermore, Skytte takes the opportunity in many of his ceremonial speeches to disparage Aristotelianism and criticize metaphysics, not letting the audience forget the spirit of the university statutes.10 Such state of affairs in the Swedish Empire was somewhat unusual, since the peak time of Ramism in Europe was between 1560 and 1630, when a large number of editions of Ramus’ own works, as well as writings of philosophers influenced by his thinking, were published.11 After that date, the flow of new editions of Ramist works decreased sharply, and at the time of the opening of Academia Dorpatensis and Academia Aboensis, modified and re-systematized Aristotelianism(s) had emerged as the dominant philosophy in the German cultural space.12 The philosophy of Ramus was found to be 7  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 276. 8  Vasar, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid 38–73; Kallinen, Change and Stability 47. 9  Ingemarsdotter J., Ramism, Rhetoric and Reform: An Intellectual Biography of Johan Skytte (1577–1645), Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in History of Ideas 42 (Västerås: 2011) 221–222. 10  E.g. the speech at the opening of the Academia in Tartu. Vasar, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid 23; Frängsmyr T., Svensk idéhistoria: bildning och vetenskap under tusen år. Del 1: 1000–1809 (Stockholm: 2001) 75–76. 11  Hotson H., Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications, 1543–1630 (Oxford: 2007) 4–5. 12  See e.g. Schmitt C.B., Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: 2013); Knuuttila S., “Philosophy and Theology in Seventeenth-Century Lutheranism”, in Knuuttila S. – Saarinen R. (eds.), Theology and Early Modern Philosophy (1550–1750), Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Sarja Humaniora 360 (Helsinki: 2010) 41–54; Mercer C., “The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aristotelianism”, in Sorell T. (ed.),

628

Friedenthal

inadequate and even harmful in most German universities, but its impact continued in Uppsala, Tartu and Turku thanks to Gothus’ and Skytte’s person and activity, at least until 1655 when updated constitutions for Uppsala University were drafted. The new constitutions take the statutes of 1626 as their basis, but remarkably, all mentions of Ramism are now systematically removed from the text and sometimes replaced by suggesting Aristotle instead.13 Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) was a French Reformed Church convert and an educational philosopher who focused in particular on how to make knowledge acquisition easier for students.14 He wrote on widely different topics and in an eristic style, constantly also revising and editing his published works. Ramus’ reception was twofold already during his lifetime: he found many eager followers, and just as many eager and angry critics.15 Biographers generally mention his rivalrous and quarrelling character, which becomes evident throughout his life: as soon as he began his scholarly activity in Paris, he took part in various controversies and made several enemies. After a tumultuous career, he died in the pogroms following the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. When Ramus left the Catholic Church in 1562 and joined the Huguenots, he determined his relationship to the Catholic Church and accordingly, his teachings did not find much support at Catholic universities. By contrast, Ramus acquired the aura of a martyr among Protestants16 and emerged as a very influential philosopher at the end of the 16th century, even though he did not always manage to get rid of his notoriety as a radical.17 As mentioned above, the high tide of his philosophy’s popularity was a relatively short period in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.18 Already in the second half of the 17th century, authors refer to him mostly in a critical manner, and by the middle of the 18th century he is almost forgotten.

The Rise of Modern Philosophy: The Tension between the New and Traditional Philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz (Oxford: 1993) 33–67; Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia. D. 1, D. 1 (Uppsala: 1877) 120–121. 13  Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets konstitutioner af år 1655 (Uppsala: 1890) viii–ix. 14  See Skalnik J.V., Ramus and Reform: University and Church at the End of the Renaissance (Kirksville: 2002); Sellberg E., Filosofin och nyttan = Philosophy and Use. 1, Petrus Ramus och ramismen = Petrus Ramus and Ramism, Gothenburg Studies in the History of Science and Ideas 1 (Gothenburg: 1979); Ong W.J., Ramus. Method and the Decay of Dialogue. From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (New York: 1979). 15  Skalnik, Ramus and Reform 1. 16  Nancelius Nicolaus, “Petri Rami Vita”, ed. and trans. P. Scharratt, Humanistica Lovaniensia 24 (1975) 161–277 (here esp. 250–251); Reid S.J. – Wilson E.A. (eds.), Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts: Ramism in Britain and the Wider World (Farnham: 2011) 50. 17  Skalnik, Ramus and Reform 148–149. 18  Hotson, Commonplace Learning 58.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 629

Until the beginning of the 20th century, little attention was paid to Ramus, and when scholars became more interested in his writings, then due to the influential analysis of Walter Ong (published in 1958), largely negative assessment of Ramus and his activities became dominant. The perception of Ramus as an unoriginal thinker has thus been overwhelming up until the last few decades, when his role and that of his followers have been reappraised. It has become evident that he has immensely influenced early modern thinking, and his contribution to both the systematization of sciences and the popularization of mathematics has been recognized. In particular, it is worthwhile to look at the significance of Ramus in the context of the enormous popularity of his teachings.19 Why, then, did his philosophy find such a lively resonance in the early modern period, and why did the new great power of the Baltic region – the Swedish Empire – deem it useful to choose his philosophical program as a guideline? Petrus Ramus emerged at a time when Europe was undergoing great confessional, political and intellectual changes. It was a period of explosive proliferation of printing, which made debates that had previously taken place only in academic circles and in small groups of humanist scholars available to a wider audience.20 Many of the reformers whose works were distributed across Europe were critical of Aristotelian philosophy, criticizing the misconduct of the Catholic Church and scholastic sophisms, and in the same breath praising the benefits of Platonism. In addition to Platonism, Stoic, sceptical, and even Epicurean ideas became popular during the humanistic period. In universities, the availability of printing resulted in the regulation that the disputations had to be printed before they were ventilated.21 These short texts (in Swedish universities often only two or three sheets in quarto format, i.e. 16 or 24 pages) were frequently sent to benefactors or colleagues at other universities, contributing to knowledge transfer. The main body of the texts themselves, which usually comprised of numbered theses, was habitually also accompanied by paratexts – dedicatory letters, occasional poetry, etc.22 Thus, printed disputations also allow us to draw conclusions regarding the affiliations and personal attitudes of the participants. During the Reformation, many of the reformers’ 19  F eingold M. – Rother W. – Freedman J.S. (eds.), The Influence of Petrus Ramus: Studies in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Philosophy and Sciences, Schwabe Philosophica 1 (Basel: 2001); Hotson, Commonplace Learning 3–9; Goulding R., Defending Hypatia. Ramus, Savile, and the Renaissance Rediscovery of Mathematical History (Dordrecht – New York: 2010) 19–21; Skalnik, Ramus and Reform. 20  Eisenstein E.L., The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: 2012) 164–173. 21  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 274–275. 22  Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016).

630

Friedenthal

views were spread by way of such printed disputations and were later collected into thematic omnibuses.23 The activity of Ramus situates itself in this context of changing intellectual geography. He began his work with a disputation criticizing Aristotle’s logic, but did not confine himself to Aristotle alone: contemporary authors and teachers of Roman rhetoric were also subjected to his criticism.24 His main innovation is his emphasis on the concept of method, its simplification and systematic implementation. It differed from traditional Aristotelianism mainly in its combination of several different methods into one: Method is the arrangement of many good arguments. It is twofold, method of teaching and method of prudence. Not that both kinds do not make use of prudence, but rather that the latter has almost no training or art in it, depending merely on man’s natural judgment and prudence.25 To simplify, this means the rational arrangement of existing bits of true knowledge in order to make it more easily accessible and manageable. Utility, practicality and applicability are central to Ramus’ philosophy. However, there is a small but important difference between Ramus’ conceptions of practicality and experimentation, and those of the new philosophers of the 17th century – namely, Ramus does not highlight the investigator’s own direct experience, but rather the experience contained in the works of ancient authors (e.g. he discussed physics based on Virgil’s Bucolica and Georgica).26 Ramus stresses that it is necessary to always start with what is by nature first, simple and more general, and from there to move on to more specific, particular and composite objects (in early 17th century texts, this became known as the analytical approach).27 Ramus takes grammatical systematisation as an example, pointing out that his particular method applies primarily to teaching.28 Ramus was not the first to use the word ‘method’ nor is he original in the way he 23  This practice was popular well into 18th century. See: Apin Siegmund Jacob, Unvorgreiffliche Gedancken, wie man so wohl alte als neue Dissertationes academicas mit Nutzen sammlen, und einen guten Indicem darüber halten soll (Nuremberg, Johann Daniel Tauber: 1719). 24  It is doubtful whether his disputation form 1536 Quaecumque ab Aristotele dicta essent, commentitia esse (‘whatever Aristotle has said is false’) was publicly presented. Skalnik, Ramus and Reform 33; Ong, Ramus 46–47. 25  Cited from Ong, Ramus 245, 363. 26  Skalnik, Ramus and Reform 49–50. 27  Keckermann Bartholomaeus, Praecognitorum logicorum tractatus III: Systemati logico annis abhinc aliquot praemissi, nunc secunda editione recogniti atque emendati (Hanau, Wilhelm Antonius: 1606) 142–144. 28  Gilbert N.W., Renaissance Concepts of Method, 2nd ed. (New York: 1963) 149.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 631

applied the analytic method, but he made the concept central to his enterprise of reforming school philosophy. Thanks to his influence in the second half of the 16th century, many authors emerged who were committed to explaining ‘method’. These authors, who were directly or indirectly influenced by Ramus, are sometimes called semi-Ramists, but they do not form a very distinct school of thought. The importance of method, or rather of various methods, is also voiced by authors who are explicitly critical towards Ramism (e.g. Giacomo Zabarella, Bartholomäus Keckermann).29 Generally, one can say that ‘method’ becomes a catchword in nearly all the universities of the 16th century – the word appears in the titles of books and disputations, and the methodological approach to a subject is often stressed in the texts. Method is also important in teaching and finds a certain expression in the design of the curriculum and classification of disciplines. This approach that focused on method, system, and easy comprehension was exactly what the Swedish state needed to quickly and effectively remedy the intellectual situation in its territories. The statutes introduced in 1626 at Uppsala University are thoroughly Ramist in character: Aristotle is mentioned in only two places30 (but only in relation to mechanics and poetry, which are generally considered practical or productive disciplines31). This is quite different from the character of the earlier 1606 draft of the constitutions (probably by Johannes Rudbeckius), where a quote from Aristotle opens the whole text.32 At the same time, the 1626 statutes not only exhort practical sciences, but, based on the above considerations, also reduce the proportion of theoretical disciplines. Thus, we do not find a professorship for theoretical philosophy in the 1626 constitutions – one of the results of simplifying the curriculum and making it more understandable for students was the omission of all metaphysical teaching in the universities. There are also several reasons given for such prescriptions. If we look at the guidelines given by Uppsala’s constitutions for different faculties, we first of all notice that it is prohibited for the professors of theology to ventilate metaphysical and scholastic disputations since from these ‘pontificiae tenebrae 29  Gilbert, Renaissance Concepts of Method 145–147. 30  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 278–279. 31  Freedman J.S., “Classifications of Philosophy, the Sciences, and the Arts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe”, The Modern Schoolman 72, 1 (1994) 37–65; Friedenthal M. – Piirimäe P., “Philosophical Disputations at the University of Tartu 1632–1710: Boundaries of a Discipline”, Studia Philosophica Estonica 8, 2 (2015) 65–90. 32  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 65; for a discussion about Rudbeckius and his philosophical position see: Braw C., Förnuft och uppenbarelse: en berättelse om aristoteliskt tänkande i teologin (Skellefteå: 2007) 235–255.

632

Friedenthal

et abominationes olim exortae sunt’ (‘papist obscurantism and curses have arisen’).33 We see that here, metaphysics is directly connected to Catholicism. The statutes were written during the Thirty Years War when the tension between Protestant and Catholic camps was at its apex. This is clearly visible in the context of Academia Gustaviana in Dorpat, where this statement can be interpreted as including a reference to the former Jesuit college, on the premises of which the new Lutheran gymnasium began operating in 1630, and which later grew into the Academia Gustaviana.34 The Jesuits had already set up a school in Dorpat in 1583, the broader goal of which was to contribute to re-catholicizing Livonia. The school also aimed to influence the territories of Scandinavia.35 It is quite understandable that in his festive speech at the opening of the Tartu Gymnasium, Skytte formulates the rationale for establishing a gymnasium ‘ne status huius Prouinciae in Atheismum, Epicureismum, et regnum tenebrarum transformetur’ (‘to prevent the province of Livonia from becoming a state of atheism, Epicureanism and darkness’) and to build up the Swedish Church.36 Since the 13th century, Catholic theology had relied predominantly upon Aristotle’s philosophy, and a large number of school texts used in (also Protestant) universities were by Catholic authors (e.g. Petrus Hispanus, Francesco Piccolomini, Giacomo Zabarella). Although not always without problems, metaphysics had an important position in the curriculum of Catholic universities. A critical attitude towards metaphysics, however, cannot in any way be considered specifically Ramist. Indeed, already Martin Luther took a disapproving view of the whole philosophy of Aristotle, arguing in his disputation against scholastic theology that ‘the whole of Aristotle is to theology the same as darkness is to light’,37 and preferred Augustinian and Platonist philosophy. Thus, for example, he writes in his Heidelberg disputation (thesis 36): ‘Aristotle does poorly, that he denies and denigrates Platonist ideas, which, however, are better than his philosophy’.38 Philipp Melanchthon regarded Aristotelianism 33  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 276. 34  Vasar, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid LIV. 35  Garstein O., Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia, 3. Jesuit Educational Strategy, 1553–1622, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 46 (Copenhagen: 1992) 268–273; Kivimäe J., “Jesuiitide koolitegevusest Tartus”, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi 1 (1975) 5–16. 36  Vasar, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid 8. 37  Luther Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesammtausgabe. Abteilung 1. Schriften, Predigten, Disputationen 1512/18, ed. J.K.F. Knaake (Weimar: 1883) I 226, Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam, thes. 50. 38  Luther Martin, Studienausgabe, ed. H.-U. Delius (Berlin: 1979) I 188.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 633

much less stringently, but he rejected Aristotelian metaphysics as well.39 Due largely to the attitudes of these important reformers, and specifically due to the fact that Melanchthon’s task was to restructure the curricula of German universities, metaphysics was not taught almost anywhere in mid-16th century Protestant universities.40 So, if Petrus Ramus criticizes Aristotelian metaphysics, he is not much different from other 16th century Protestant writers. In his writings, Ramus brings up quite commonplace arguments against the ‘socalled first philosophy’: he argues that metaphysics, which is sometimes also referred to as natural theology, is inherently impious, and cites authors who say that there is nothing useful for teaching in metaphysics.41 In the Protestant camp of the 16th century, a consensus therefore prevailed that ‘the Church of Jesus Christ has never known fiercer enemies than the philosophers, puffed up with a pretence of human knowledge’,42 as was stated by Balthasar Menzer, who was the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Gießen. By philosophy, metaphysics was meant first and foremost, because natural philosophy and moral philosophy were still taught and studied. However, interest in metaphysics began to re-appear at the beginning of the 17th century in many German universities, largely due to the activities of Wittenberg and Helmstedt philosophers.43 The reason for this was, above all, theological controversy between Lutherans and Calvinists, for which metaphysical terminology was needed to more precisely define important theological terms such as substance, form, matter, actuality, potentiality, unity, distinctness, accidents, etc. The central question was the understanding of the Lord’s Supper, but there were also discussions about free will, images and adia­phora. In many ways, Protestant theology was based on, and still used, terminology and concepts developed in the Middle Ages. Therefore it was not possible to hold precise discussions without knowing and understanding the scholastic legacy. The 17th century Ramists were aware of the improvement of the position of metaphysics in universities, but they still disagreed with the idea of 39  P  ozzo R., “Logic and Metaphysics in German Philosophy from Melanchthon to Hegel”, in Sweet W. (ed.), Approaches to Metaphysics, Studies in Philosophy and Religion 26 (Dordrecht: 2004) 62. 40  Jensen K., “Protestant Rivalry – Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590–1620”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 41, 1 (1990) 51–52. 41  Ramus Petrus, P. Rami scholarum metaphysicarum libri quatuordecim, in totidem metaphysicos libros Aristotelis (Paris, Andreas Wechelus: 1566), praef. 42  Cited from Jensen, “Protestant Rivalry – Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590– 1620” 27. 43  Wundt M., Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: 1939) 59.

634

Friedenthal

metaphysics as a separate discipline, and instead felt that metaphysical issues should be discussed within logic or theology. So, for example, William Ames (1576–1633), who worked in the Netherlands, split all disciplines by their purpose into three larger groups: Hae sex artes totum hominem perficiunt; Logica intellectum; Theologia voluntatem; reliquis, Grammatica, Rhetorica, Mathesi, Physica, Locomotivam ejus in εὐπραξίαις suis ad amussim dirigentibus. These six arts describe the whole person: logic his intellect, theology his will, and the rest – grammar, rhetoric, mathematics and physics direct him to act correctly as if they were a carpenter’s ruler.44 In this way, Ames develops Ramus’ principles further, narrowing the field of philosophy to make it simpler, clearer and more useful. The goal of philosophy is to set what kind of behaviour is right and its purposes are first and foremost practical. Metaphysical topics do not disappear completely, but its principles are derived from theology and are proved a posteriori in the philosophical sense. This is also supported by Ramus, who, in his critique of Aristotle’s arithmetic, argues that the ‘first philosophy’ is in fact nothing else than theology combined with logical sophismata, and concludes that ‘quatuordecim metaphysicos libros quatuordecim logicarum tautologiarum cumulos esse statuo’ (‘14 books on metaphysics are indeed 14 books of piled up logical tautologies’).45 In this way, traditional metaphysical subject matter becomes divided between theology and logic, which we can also observe in the 1626 constitutions for the Swedish universities. Thus, the negative attitude towards metaphysics in the 1626 constitutions of Uppsala can be explained on the one hand by the Lutheran tradition, but on the other hand, by Skytte’s Ramist background and his ideas on new pedagogy. We can also see Ramist influence and the expectations of the Swedish state in the appeals that appear in many places in the constitutions to abandon scholastic twists and instead present the material with regard to its practical value.46 For example, lawyers – who are the second professorship after the theologians – should adhere to practice as closely as possible and always serve 44  Ames William, Guilielmi Amesii magni theologi ac philosophi acutissimi philosophemata technometria duplici methodo adornata, cui jure cognationis nunc adjunguntur (Leiden, Justus Livius: 1643) 36, § 117. 45  Ramus, P. Rami scholarum metaphysicarum libri quatuordecim, praef. 46  For the importance of Ramism in Sweden at that period see: Sellberg E., Kyrkan och den tidigmoderna staten: en konflikt om Aristoteles, utbildning och makt (Stockholm: 2010).

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 635

the interests of the state.47 The guide for medical professors also talks about the implementation and importance of dissections, which can be understood as a practical aspect of the profession of the medic.48 The most lengthy and detailed instructions in the constitutions, however, are laid out for the professors of the Faculty of Philosophy. Altogether, the faculty had to have professors for politics, ethics, physics, history, languages, rhetoric, logic, poetry, and mathematics. The exact number of professors varies a bit between universities, but all disciplines are represented in all universities. Already in the list itself, and more clearly in the prescriptions for teaching, one can see a number of Ramist traits. For example, in the directions for the professor of ethics (philosophia civilis), it is stated that he should read the subject based on the works of Johannes Althusius.49 Althusius’ book, Politica methodice digesta already emphasizes the importance of method in its title, and indeed the very structure of Althusius’ work follows Ramist principles.50 Next, it is set forth that the professor of rhetoric must read his subject based on Ramus and Omer Talon, who was Ramus’ closest collaborator in Paris.51 The fact that the professor of logic had to read his lectures based on Ramus’ works is already perfectly foreseeable – for logic was what Ramus began his pedagogical program with, and it was logic that the Ramists paid particular attention to. Finally, the appointment of several professors of mathematics to rather small universities characterizes the importance of mathematical sciences in the 17th century.52 The mathematical sciences were divided into three areas: Euclideus addressed Ramus’ arithmetic and geometry, based on Lazarus Schöner’s explanation, Archimedeus was supposed to explain music, optics, isorrophy (weight lifting and balance) and mechanics, and the task of Ptolomaicus was to teach spheres, the movement of planets and their theory, geography, and architecture. Such detailed interest in 47  ‘Uterque autem tam in Lectionibus, quam disputationibus ea praecipue afferet, quae ad praxin quam proxime accedunt et Reipublicae gubernationi inserviunt’. Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 272. 48  Ibidem 272. 49  Ibidem 278. 50  Hueglin T.O., Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism (Waterloo: 1999) 71–75. 51  The ‘praecepta Thalaeo’ mentioned in the statutes is presumably the Rhetorica of Omer Talon (Audomarus Talaeus), that was first published in 1548. Ramus Petrus, Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian: Translation and Text of Peter Ramus’s Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum, ed. J.J. Murphy, trans. C. Newlands (Carbondale – Edwardsville: 2010) 8–9. 52  Kallinen M., “Lectures and Practices. The Variety of Mathematical and Mechanical Teaching at the University of Uppsala in the 17th Century”, in Feingold M. – Navarro Brotóns V. (eds.), Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period, Archimedes 12 (Dordrecht: 2006) 111–125.

636

Friedenthal

mathematics was also well in line with Ramus’ general principles, which emphasized the importance and usefulness of mathematics in many of his works. The central concept of ‘usefulness’ emerges particularly clearly from further instructions contained in the constitutions, which confirm that mathematics must be implemented primarily for the common good (‘civilem usum’)53 – that is, mathematics was not of value in theory but only in practice, for example in military matters, fortification, seafaring, commerce, architecture, etc. The word ‘usus’ is repeated in nearly all sections of the statutes and it is recommended that every professor show the usefulness and applicability of his discipline. So history has to have ‘use’ in matters pertaining to the church, politics and economics. Similarly in rhetoric and poetics, the usefulness of ancient texts is to be highlighted (‘usum monstrabit’), and of course the general usefulness of logic is pointed out.54 The guide for teaching at the Faculty of Philosophy ends with the exhortation: […] tales erunt philosophi inque id sedulo incumbent, ut rerum sint magis actores, quam verborum fabricatores, utque quisque cum philosophiae studio eloquentiam in usu coniungat, ne tales ex eorum scholis prodeant, qui studiosi fuerint Rhetorices et dicere non noverint, aut Mathematicae dediti ignorent rationem demonstrandi earum disciplinarum usum. Philosophers […] should take care that they are more like men of action than fabricators of empty words; so that everyone will combine the study of philosophy with the usefulness of eloquence, and that there will be no one, who, having learned rhetoric, cannot speak, or is committed to mathematics, but does not know how to apply this discipline usefully.55 The statutes that were written under the directions of Skytte thus laid the basis for creating a Ramist university, but the question is how much does this policy appear in the practical functioning of the academies? One indirect indication that the prescriptions contained in the constitutions were taken into account is the list of books from the Tartu University library. The books belonging to the university (together with print types) were buried near the altar of the Church of Mary in 1656 due to the advance of Russian forces, and thus reflect the exact state of the Academia Gustaviana library at that date. The hiding place was opened in connection with plans for reopening the university in 1688 and a list 53  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 278. 54  Ibidem 278–280. 55  Ibidem 280.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 637

of books was prepared.56 The list contains 152 books, and there is not even one work by Aristotle. Instead we find some of Ramus’ own texts and books written by his followers, as well as works by Melanchthon.57 Such a situation is to a certain extent even surprising given that Aristotle was undoubtedly still the most cited author in the disputations – apparently, students used the personal libraries of professors for these purposes. 1

Ramism and Metaphysical Topics in the Philosophical Disputations of the Swedish Universities

According to the statutes, the main elements of university education were lectures, examinations and disputations.58 While the task of the lectures was to instruct students in the subject material, the task of the disputation was for students to learn to apply the acquired knowledge.59 The statutes of Uppsala, Tartu and Turku emphasize that participation in the disputations as a listener was compulsory for all students.60 Thus, the disputations provide a good picture of the reality of university teaching and the topics that students listened to and discussed. From the printed disputations, it appears that the students and professors were also fully aware of the instructions and spirit of the university statutes. E.g. we are reminded about that in the disputation presided over by Michael Wexionius in Turku, where he exhorts us to remember that ‘Constitutiones sive lls: nostras Academicas […] non ex Theoreticae Philosophiae sed politicae principiis eductae et extructae sunt’ (‘the constitutions or laws of our Academies […] are inspired not from Theoretical philosophy but built on political principles’).61

56  The location of the stash was pointed out by Johannes Gezelius (Sr.), who had been prochancellor at that time. Bacmeister Hartwig Ludwig Christian, “Nachrichten von den ehemaligen Universitäten zu Dörpat und Pernau”, in Müller G.F. (ed.), Sammlung Rußischer Geschichte 9, st. 2, 3 (St. Petersburg, Academie der Wissenschaften: 1764) 122–123. 57  Schirren C., Zur Geschichte der schwedischen Universität in Livland (Riga: 1853) 47–62. 58  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 271. 59  Schwinges R.C., “Student Education, Student Life”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: 1992) 232. 60  ‘Quisque Decanus suae facultatis auditores in classes distribuet, nomina omnium recensebit, ut lectionibus, disputationibus, examinibus intersint, urgebit’. Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 267. 61  Wexionius (Gyldenstolpe) Michael Olai (Pr.) – Torelius Svenonius Petrus (Resp.), De philosophia moralis constitutione (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1647), thes. xxx.

638

Friedenthal

As such, it is not surprising that we don’t see metaphysics mentioned in the disputation titles. During the entire period (1626–1655), there is only one disputation that explicitly prints on its title page that the study belongs to the field of metaphysics (from 1649, Disputatio metaphysico-mathematica de numero presided over by Isak Isthmenius, professor of physics in Uppsala). Also, one cannot find metaphysics in the lecture lists (catalogi lectionum) in which professors briefly introduced the content of lectures for the next semester. However, there are several disputations and orations from the period that may be considered metaphysical because of the topics they discuss. In the early modern period, the topics of metaphysics were generally considered to be the ten categories of Aristotle (substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, habitus, action, affection), but also abstract issues such as unity, goodness, life, truth, and death were considered to be metaphysical problems.62 Since there was no professor of theoretical philosophy, the works in Swedish universities considering these topics were chaired by professors of logic and ethics, of astronomy and physics, of rhetoric, etc. Attitudes towards philosophy in general, and specifically towards metaphysics, were also displayed in other disputations, in particular in those dealing with the categorization of philosophy as a subject. E.g. at the Academy of Tartu, a Ramist and anti-metaphysical mood is most clearly seen in the disputations presided over by Michael Savonius (professor in logic and ethics from 1632 to 1650).63 In his disputations that discuss the division and nature of philosophy, the analytical method of Ramism is very clearly presented. Ars est systema praeceptorum perpetuo verorum, Homogeneorum et Catholicorum, Methodice a generalissima per subalterna ad specialissi­ ma usque dispositorum. Science (ars) is a system of perpetually right, homogeneous and catholic teachings that is methodically organized by subalternation from the most general element to the most specific one.64 62  Alsted Johann Heinrich, Ioan. Henrici Alstedii scientiarum omnium encyclopaediae: Tomus primus (Lyon, Joannes Antonius Huguetan – Marcus Antonius Ravaud: 1649) 9, tabula metaphysicae. 63  Sainio M.A., “Ramismen vid universitet i Dorpat”, Studia Historica Jyväskyläensia 1 (1962) 250–274. 64  Savonius Michael (Pr.) – Zethraeus Georgius (Resp.), Disputatio II. de philosophia in genere quae est de arte, eiusque natura, cui analogus tractatus est peripateticorum de quinque habitibus intellectualibus ex 6. ethicorum desumptus, quem Alstedius sub titulo De hexilogia persequitur (Tartu, Jacobus Pistorius: 1632), thes. 8.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 639

In his next thesis, Savonius compares this Ramus’ argument to that of the Peripatetics and concludes that there is absolutely no overlapping.65 He points out that it is perfectly legitimate to agree that the goal of philosophy is to pursue wisdom, and this does not contradict theology, but at the same time we have to bear in mind that the roots of these disciplines are very different. Just as wisdom is different in the Creator and in man, it is also different in disciplines, and nobody claims that philosophy is not subordinate to theology (thesis 15). He argues that philosophy is a natural ability, much like medical science, that cures the spirit, will, and behaviour of a person. He raises this argument against the reformed theologians and emphasizes that neither metaphysics nor logic is of divine origin and therefore cannot teach us the right way to serve God: Quia per Philosophiam in mentibus nostris exoritur illustris naturae et virtutis cognitio, sequitur etiam per eandem in nobis excitari pietatem, cultum, honorem et invocationem Dei. Huic Goclenius non multum absimilis est, qui parte 1 Miscell. Fidem salvificam ab humana ratione stabiliri affirmat, quod absurdum. If, through philosophy, an understanding of illustrious nature and virtue can emerge in our spirit, then it would follow that, through this same process, we would also be able to evoke piety, worship, respect and prayer to God. This [i.e. Keckermann’s position] is similar to Goclenius’, who claims in the first part of his work Miscellanea that redeeming faith is supported by human reasoning, which is absurd.66 He points out that if such a statement were true, then the pagans would have arrived at true faith, because they had a demonstrably very strong philosophical tradition. But as this did not happen. Savonius argues that philosophy is subservient to theology, and emphasizes that the Calvinists, in particular, are wrong in putting philosophy and theology on a more or less equal level. In general, however, it appears that Savonius restricts the domain of philosophy to the field of physics and moral philosophy, leaving metaphysical themes to logic or theology. 65  ‘Quae definitio neque in genere neque differentia specifica convenit cum definitione superius a nobis tradita’. Savonius – Zethraeus, thes. 9. 66  Savonius Michael (Pr.) – Anethulander Magnus (Resp.), Disputationes aliquot de philosophia in genere, I. De philosophiae definitione tam nominali quam reali (Tartu, Jacobus Pistorius: 1632), thes. xl.

640

Friedenthal

In Uppsala, Olaus Moretus explains the benefits of Ramist logic against peripatetic critics in his Disputatio logica secunda de inventione Ramea. After his unfortunate death, Johannes Chesnecopherus continued the Ramist philosophical tradition in Uppsala, highlighting the usefulness of Ramism in his disputation on the division of philosophy.67 Chesnecopherus shows that all philosophical disciplines should be divided into general and specific categories – the general ones (consisting of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic) are anterior to the specific ones. Specific disciplines deal with nature and human affairs. His division of sciences leaves no place for metaphysics and instead, logic deals with most of the metaphysical topics. We can see similar attitudes in other disputations that discuss the usefulness of philosophy at Turku University under Georg Alanus, who criticized metaphysics and argued that it does not constitute a real science.68 However, the problem with reducing the domain of philosophy to physics and ethics was that Aristotle’s metaphysics uses the same conceptual framework as physics (natural philosophy) and often addresses similar issues. The main and distinctive task of metaphysics is to examine ‘first things’ – they, however, are not directly perceptible and as a result, these questions can only be dealt with through the metaphysical investigation of perceivable things. One of the important reasons why the Ramist program of developing a new system of philosophy was not successful was its reliance on Aristotle’s physics – only after the new mechanical physical systems were developed later in the 17th century did it became philosophically possible to abandon Aristotelian metaphysical concepts. In Aristotle’s physics, terms such as ‘matter’ and ‘form’ are particularly important and are discussed in relation to both physics and metaphysics. In animate objects, the constitutive ‘form’ was equated with the ‘soul’ of the creature. Thus a situation emerged in Swedish universities where professors and students who wanted to discuss the soul (also angels, demons, God) philosophically in their disputations had no other option than to do so within the scope of physics. There are quite a lot of physical disputations in Swedish universities, which set as their goal the discussion of the soul. E.g. in 1634 under the professor of astronomy and physics Petrus Schomerus, a physical disputation about the soul was ventilated and the author argued in the foreword that the soul, as it relates to the body, belongs to the field of physics, and added: 67  Chesnecopherus Johan (Pr.) – Björlundius Ericus Petreius (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de philosophiæ ac logicæ definitione et divisione ex sententia Rameorum (Uppsala, Aeschillus Matthiae: 1625), thes. 18–21. 68  Alanus Georgius Christophori (Pr.) – Axelius Andreae Kempe (Resp.), Theoremata quaedam miscellanea (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1646), thes. 7.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 641

Cum una quoque res variis modis in variis disciplinis considerari potest. Ne falcem in messem alienam mittam; non ejus absolutam substantiam, vel quatenus ad Theologiam spectat, sed quatenus est cum corpore conjuncta, et forma hominis specifica, eique esse et operari largitur. One thing can be discussed differently in different disciplines. I do not want to thrust my sickle into the crop of others, so I do not treat it [i.e. the soul] as an absolute substance here or the way it is dealt with in theology, I consider it only in so far as it is connected with the body and is specific form of man, giving it being and making it operational.69 It is noteworthy that here the author omits the word ‘metaphysics’ – though this discipline is implied – and simply mentions that he does not regard the soul as an absolute substance. Similarly, under the guidance of Schomerus, the word ‘metaphysics’ is avoided and instead the word ‘hyperphysical’ is used in its place in a disputation about the origin of souls.70 Also in Turku, Nicolaus Laurentii Nycopensis, when discussing the causes of things, carefully circumvents mentioning metaphysics and uses the definitions offered by Petrus Ramus instead.71 It is possible to see a common pattern emerging in Swedish disputations of that period – naming metaphysics is shunned, authors often remain vague in definitions of metaphysical topics and sometimes cut off citations just before the cited author mentions ‘metaphysics’.72 This situation, however, was not uniform – as illustrated by the disputations of Ericus Brunnius and Laurentius Stigzelius in Uppsala, who dissented from the usual careful antimetaphysical stance.73 Other authors, as a compromise, introduce the new science of pneumatics in its place. The 1644 disputation De vita et morte by Petrus Svenonis Lidenius, 69  Schomerus Petrus (Pr.) – Bernhardi Sueno (Resp.), Disputatio physica, de anima rationali in genere (Tartu, Jacobus Pistorius: 1634), prooe. 70  Schomerus Petrus (Pr.) – Bobergius Ericus (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica, de animae humanae origine (Tartu, [s.n.]: 1639), corol. 71  Laurentii (Nycopensis) Nicolaus (Pr.) – Dahlman (Norcopius) Olaus Jeremiae (Resp.), De causa per se et per accidens (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1646). 72  See e.g. Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt [Of Pneumatology in General and of Gezelius’ Greek Pneumatological Disputations in Particular]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Rahvusarhiivi toimetised. Acta et commentationes archivi nationalis Estoniae. Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust 1, 32 (2017) 182–237. 73  Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Biörn Petrus Olai (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica, de philosophia in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1643); Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Valingius Nicolaus Olai (Resp.), Disputatio de philosophia in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1631).

642

Friedenthal

who was at the time a professor at Turku University, but later moved to the University of Tartu, argued that the human soul, as a spirit, when considered without regarding the body, belongs to the field of pneumatology.74 In a 1652 disputation De anima in genere, Turku University Professor Thauvonius argued that it is possible to consider the soul under physics, but the soul in itself and according to its own absolute essence (‘in sese vero et ratione suae essentiae absolutae’) is a subject of pneumatics.75 Both authors avoid categorizing this subject under metaphysics and instead introduce a new science altogether. This general attitude is supported by the discussion in 1639 in Uppsala between Laurentius Paulinus Gothus and Professor of Logic Stigzelius, where the archbishop argues that it is diabolic to consider God and the angels metaphysically (‘De Deo autem et Angelis in Metaphysica doctrina diabolica est’).76 We can understand this problem, since it was not possible to deal with the questions of God and souls under metaphysics, but authors also saw that it was somewhat problematic to deal with the question of God and souls under physics, since God and souls are immaterial. To overcome this problem, many Swedish disputations turn to the new discipline of pneumatologia or psychologia as a compromise.77 Compared to traditionally Aristotelian universities like Helmstedt, we find no explicitly psychological or pneumatological disputations there from that period. Most such early pneumatological disputations in Germany are concentrated at a few universities like Rostock, Leipzig or Wittenberg.78 The need for a special science regarding non-material substances is first discussed already by the Jesuit philosopher Benedict Pereira in his book De rerum omnium communibus naturalium principia (first published in 1576).79 He discusses the division of philosophy and comes to the conclusion that the division of theoretical or speculative philosophy into the traditional trichotomy – physics, metaphysics and mathematical sciences – is problematic in several respects. He came to this conclusion by looking at the definitions of these disciplines, because without proper definitions one cannot understand the thing 74  ‘Praetereo quod anima hominis, ut spiritus, absque respectu ad corpus considerata, quandam doctrinae pneumatologicae coloniam tenet’. Lidenius Petrus Svenonis (Pr.) – Svenonius Enevaldus, De vita et morte (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1644), thes. 5. 75  Thauvonius Abrahamus Georgii (Pr.) – Rosander Daniel Bernhardi (Resp.), De anima in genere (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1652), thes. III. 76  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1 357. 77  For the development of the discipline of psychology from pneumatology see Vidal F., The Sciences of the Soul: The Early Modern Origins of Psychology (Chicago: 2011). 78  Based on VD17 (http://www.vd17.de/) data [accessed 1 May 2019]. 79  Pereira Benedict, De communibus omnium rerum principiis libri quindecim (Rome, Venturino Tramezino – Francesco Zanetti – Bartolomeo Tosi: 1576).

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 643

that is under consideration. Pereira found that the existing division does not cover the entire spectrum, and showed that there is really a need for ‘duas scientias distinctas inter se; Unam, quae agat de transcendentibus et universalisissimis rebus: Alteram, quae de intelligentiis’ (‘two distinct sciences: universal science that deals with the transcendental and most universal things, and another one which deals with the intelligences’).80 He described this science as being about intelligences but did not use the word pneumatologia. Only later writers started using the broader term for this science. The science of pneumatology was actively discussed by philosophers connected to the University of Marburg, where Johan Skytte also studied. Thus Rudolph Snellius,81 who taught physics in Marburg, explains at the end of his textbook his idea about the science of pneumatology. Rudolph Goclenius (Sr.),82 who is considered to be one of the most important figures of Calvinist metaphysics, and was also the first to use the term psychologia, also contributed to the very same volume.83 Incidentally, Goclenius also chaired Johan Skytte’s pro gradu disputation in Marburg (1598), and it is probable that the Swedish universities also adopted a Ramist philosophical stance due to the influence of Goclenius on Skytte.84 The idea of a separate science for the study of the soul in the most general manner also became popular elsewhere. Thus the Aristotelian Jacobus Martini and the orthodox Lutheran Johann Scharf discuss this science. In Wittenberg, Scharf composed the book Pneumatica, seu pneumatologia, hoc est scientia spirituum naturalis (1629),85 where he also addresses the circumstances in which the new discipline developed, crediting Benedict Pereira with raising this issue, and admitting that now nearly all of today’s better philosophers (naming here 80  Pereira, De communibus omnium rerum principiis libri quindecim I 7. 81  For information about Rudolph Snellius and his interest in Ramism, see: Wreede L. de, Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626): A Humanist Reshaping the Mathematical Sciences (Utrecht: 2007) 36–45. 82  About Goclenius see: Giglioni G., “What’s Wrong with Doing History of Renaissance Philosophy? Rudolph Goclenius and the Canon of Early Modern Philosophy”, in Muratori C. – Paganini G. (eds.), Early Modern Philosophers and the Renaissance Legacy, International Archives of the History of Ideas=Archives Internationales d’histoire Des Idées 220 (Cham: 2016) 21–39; Lamanna M., “Ontology between Goclenius and Suárez”, in Novák L. (ed.), Suárez’s Metaphysics in Its Historical and Systematic Context, Contemporary Scholasticism 2, 2 (Berlin: 2014) 137–139. 83  Vidal, The Sciences of the Soul 47–50. 84  Ingemarsdotter, Ramism, Rhetoric and Reform 43, 128; at the time of Skytte’s studies in Marburg, Goclenius’ position was not yet explicitly Calvinist. See: Jensen, “Protestant Rivalry – Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590–1620” 33. 85  Scharf Johann, Pneumatica, seu pneumatologia, hoc est scientia spirituum naturalis (Wittenberg, Balthasar Mevius: 1644).

644

Friedenthal

Rudolph Goclenius and Johann Heinrich Alsted) agree on the necessity of this science.86 However, it was Heinrich Alsted’s encyclopaedia that proved to be the most influential book to promote the spread of pneumatica as a separate science between metaphysics and physics. Alsted was closely connected to the Marburg circle and he interacted with Rudolph Goclenius, Georgius Schönfeld and others who belonged to the group with which Skytte was also connected.87 Alsted provides a thorough overview of the new discipline in his immensely popular Encyclopaedia and also discusses the subcategories of pneumatologia, such as psychologia and ktistica.88 Alsted’s encyclopaedia was used early on in Swedish universities and it presented professors with a good opportunity to use the new science of pneumatologia for discussing topics of immaterial substances such as God, angels, demons and souls. E.g. the direct influence of Alsted’s encyclopaedia is visible in the series of Greek pneumatological disputations at Academia Gustaviana presided over by the professor of Greek and Hebrew, Johannes Gezelius. Gezelius’ Greek text follows the Latin of Alsted’s encyclopaedia quite closely, supplementing material but importantly also omitting some. It is noteworthy that the material Gezelius leaves out often discusses the relationship between pneumatology and metaphysics, most probably due to the official ban on discussing metaphysics in disputations.89 2

Concluding Remarks

The new statutes for Uppsala University authored mainly by Johan Skytte determined the general attitude in all Swedish universities towards metaphysics up until 1655, when the statutes were modified to be Aristotelian in character. These Ramist statutes of 1626 directly affected the tone of disputations. A general anti-metaphysical atmosphere is perceptible and authors often also avoid mentioning or discussing metaphysics altogether in their texts. This concerned 86  ‘Paene omnes hodierni accuratiores Philosophi uno ore docent’. Scharf, Pneumatica, praef. 87  Hotson H., Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford: 2000) 50–65, 118. 88  Alsted Johann Heinrich, Johannis Henrici Alstedii compendium philosophicum: exhibens methodum, definitiones, canones, distinctiones et quaestiones per universam philosophiam (Herborn, Georgius Corvinus – Johannes Georgius Muderspach: 1626) 97–117; Alsted, Encyclopaedia I 9. 89  See: Friedenthal – Päll, “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt” 203–204.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 645

disputations with traditional metaphysical topics or with themes like truth, life or death, which were often left uncategorised during that period, though later the same topics could be discussed under metaphysics.90 In parallel and perhaps due to the restrictions in the constitutions, disputations on some metaphysical topics appear that categorize their subject matter under new disciplines of psychology or pneumatics, discussing the soul, angels, but also will, sleep and sense perception. Starting in the 1640s, remarks critical of Petrus Ramus and his philosophy appear in disputations,91 Metaphysics is increasingly mentioned in a neutral manner when discussing the division of philosophy92 and in 1649, the first disputation with metaphysics on its title page appears after the reception of the 1626 constitutions.93 Finally, stipulations were added in the new constitutions of 1655 that the professor of logic should also discuss – albeit briefly and sensibly – metaphysical topics, and now disputations that take metaphysics as their subject start to be ventilated regularly.94 Selected Bibliography Sources

Alsted Johann Heinrich, Ioan. Henrici Alstedii scientiarum omnium encyclopaediae: Tomus primus (Lyon, Joannes Antonius Huguetan – Marcus Antonius Ravaud: 1649). Ames William, Guilielmi Amesii magni theologi ac philosophi acutissimi philosophemata technometria duplici methodo adornata, cui jure cognationis nunc adjunguntur (Leiden, Justus Livius: 1643). Apin Siegmund Jacob, Unvorgreiffliche Gedancken, wie man so wohl alte als neue Dissertationes academicas mit Nutzen sammlen, und einen guten Indicem darüber halten soll (Nuremberg, Johann Daniel Tauber: 1719). Keckermann Bartholomaeus, Praecognitorum logicorum tractatus III: Systemati logico annis abhinc aliquot praemissi, nunc secunda editione recogniti atque emendati (Hanau, Wilhelm Antonius: 1606). 90  E.g. Tolpo Simon Johannis (Pr.) – Ulnerus Petrus (Resp.), Dissertatio metaphysica de veritate (Turku, Johannes Wallius: 1685). 91  E.g. Stregnensis Johannes Erici (Pr.) – Flojerus Andreas (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de natura et constitutione scientiae naturalis (Tartu, Johannes Vogelius: 1651), corol. 92  E.g. Laurentii (Nycopensis) Nicolaus (Pr.) – Stirenius Andreas Laurentii, De dissentaneis in genere et de diversis, oppositis et disparatis in specie (Turku, Petrus Wald: 1649). 93  Isthmenius Isaacus Jacobi (Pr.) – Tybelius Ericus Benedicti (Resp.), Disputatio metaphysicomathematica de numero (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1649). 94  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets konstitutioner af år 1655 43.

646

Friedenthal

Nancelius Nicolaus, “Petri Rami Vita”, ed. and trans. P. Scharratt, Humanistica Lovaniensia 24 (1975) 161–277. Luther Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesammtausgabe. Abteilung 1. Schriften, Predigten, Disputationen 1512/18, ed. J.K.F. Knaake (Weimar: 1883) I. Luther Martin, Studienausgabe, ed. H.-U. Delius (Berlin: 1979) I. Pereira Benedict, De communibus omnium rerum principiis libri quindecim (Rome, Venturino Tramezino – Francesco Zanetti – Bartolomeo Tosi: 1576). Ramus Petrus, Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian: Translation and Text of Peter Ramus’s Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum, ed. J.J. Murphy, trans. C. Newlands (Carbondale – Edwardsville: 2010). Ramus Petrus, P. Rami scholarum metaphysicarum libri quatuordecim, in totidem metaphysicos libros Aristotelis (Paris, Andreas Wechelus: 1566). Scharf Johann, Pneumatica, seu pneumatologia, hoc est scientia spirituum naturalis (Wittenberg, Balthasar Mevius: 1644).



Secondary Literature

Alvermann D. – Jörn N. – Olesen J.E. (eds.), Die Universität Greifswald in der Bildungslandschaft des Ostseeraums (Berlin: 2007). Annerstedt C. (ed.), Upsala universitets historia: Bihang 1, Handlingar 1477–1654 (Uppsala: 1877). Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia. D. 1, D. 1, (Uppsala: 1877). Annerstedt C. (ed.), Upsala universitets konstitutioner af år 1655 (Uppsala: 1890). Bacmeister H.L.C., “Nachrichten von den ehemaligen Universitäten zu Dörpat und Pernau zusammen getragen von Hartwich Ludwig Christ. Backmeister”, in Müller G.F. (ed.), Sammlung Rußischer Geschichte 9, st. 2, 3 (St. Petersburg, Academie der Wissenschaften: 1764) 95–262. Braw C., Förnuft och uppenbarelse: en berättelse om aristoteliskt tänkande i teologin (Skellefteå: 2007). Eisenstein E.L., The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: 2012). Feingold M. – Rother W. – Freedman J.S. (eds.), The Influence of Petrus Ramus: Studies in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Philosophy and Sciences, Schwabe Philosophica 1 (Basel: 2001). Frängsmyr T., Svensk idéhistoria: bildning och vetenskap under tusen år. Del 1: 1000–1809 (Stockholm: 2001). Freedman J.S., “Classifications of Philosophy, the Sciences, and the Arts in Sixteenthand Seventeenth-Century Europe”, The Modern Schoolman 72, 1 (1994) 37–65. Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt [Of Pneumatology in General and of Gezelius’ Greek Pneumatological Disputations in Particular]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Rahvusarhiivi toimetised. Acta et commentationes archivi nationalis Estoniae.

RAMISM, METAPHYSICS & PNEUMATOLOGY IN THE SWEDISH UNIVERSITIES 647 Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust 1, 32 (2017) 182–237. Friedenthal M. – Piirimäe P., “Philosophical Disputations at the University of Tartu 1632–1710: Boundaries of a Discipline”, Studia Philosophica Estonica 8, 2 (2015) 65–90. Garstein O., Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia, 3. Jesuit Educational Strategy, 1553–1622, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 46 (Copenhagen: 1992). Giglioni G., “What’s Wrong with Doing History of Renaissance Philosophy? Rudolph Goclenius and the Canon of Early Modern Philosophy”, in Muratori C. – Paganini G. (eds.), Early Modern Philosophers and the Renaissance Legacy, International Archives of the History of Ideas=Archives Internationales d’histoire Des Idées 220 (Cham: 2016) 21–39. Gilbert N.W., Renaissance Concepts of Method (New York: 1963). Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Goulding R., Defending Hypatia. Ramus, Savile, and the Renaissance Rediscovery of Mathematical History (Dordrecht: 2010). Hotson H., Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications, 1543–1630 (Oxford: 2007). Hotson H., Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford: 2000). Hueglin T.O., Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism (Waterloo: 1999). Ingemarsdotter J., Ramism, Rhetoric and Reform: An Intellectual Biography of Johan Skytte (1577–1645), Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in History of Ideas 42 (Västerås: 2011). Jensen K., “Protestant Rivalry – Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590–1620”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 41, 1 (1990) 24–43. Kallinen M., Change and Stability: Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku (1640– 1713), Studia Historica 51 (Helsinki: 1995). Kallinen M., “Lectures and Practices. The Variety of Mathematical and Mechanical Teaching at the University of Uppsala in the 17th Century”, in Feingold M. – Navarro Brotóns V. (eds.), Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period, Archimedes 12 (Dordrecht: 2006) 111–125. Kasekamp A., A History of the Baltic States (Basingstoke: 2010). Kivimäe J., “Jesuiitide koolitegevusest Tartus”, Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi 1 (1975) 5–16. Knuuttila S., “Philosophy and Theology in Seventeenth-Century Lutheranism”, in Knuuttila S. – Saarinen R. (eds.), Theology and Early Modern Philosophy (1550–1750),

648

Friedenthal

Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Sarja Humaniora 360 (Helsinki: 2010) 41–54. Lamanna M., “Ontology between Goclenius and Suárez”, in Novák L. (ed.), Suárez’s Metaphysics in Its Historical and Systematic Context, Contemporary Scholasti­cism 2, 2 (Berlin: 2014) 135–151. Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1997). Lockhart P.D., Sweden in the Seventeenth Century (Houndmills [England] – New York: 2004). Mercer C., “The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aristotelianism”, in Sorell T. (ed.), The Rise of Modern Philosophy: The Tension between the New and Traditional Philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz (Oxford: 1993) 33–67. Ong W.J., Ramus. Method and the Decay of Dialogue. From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (New York: 1979). Pozzo R., “Logic and Metaphysics in German Philosophy from Melanchthon to Hegel”, in Sweet W. (ed.), Approaches to Metaphysics, Studies in Philosophy and Religion 26 (Dordrecht: 2004) 61–74. Reid S.J. – Wilson E.A. (eds.), Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts: Ramism in Britain and the Wider World (Farnham: 2011). Sainio M.A., “Ramismen vid universitet i Dorpat”, Studia Historica Jyväskyläensia 1 (1962) 250–274. Schirren C., Zur Geschichte der schwedischen Universität in Livland (Riga: 1853). Schmitt C.B., Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: 2013). Schwinges R.C., “Student Education, Student Life”, in Ridder-Symoens H. de (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: 1992) 195–243. Sellberg E., Filosofin och nyttan = Philosophy and Use. 1, Petrus Ramus och ramismen = Petrus Ramus and Ramism, Gothenburg Studies in the History of Science and Ideas 1 (Gothenburg: 1979). Sellberg E., Kyrkan och den tidigmoderna staten: en konflikt om Aristoteles, utbildning och makt (Stockholm: 2010). Skalnik J.V., Ramus and Reform: University and Church at the End of the Renaissance (Kirksville: 2002). Vasar J., (ed.), Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo allikaid. Quellen zur Geschichte der Universität Tartu (Dorpat). I, Academia Gustaviana : a) Urkunden und Dokumente (Tartu: 1932). Vidal F., The Sciences of the Soul: The Early Modern Origins of Psychology (Chicago: 2011). Weibull M., Lunds universitets historia: 1668–1863, 2 vols (Lund: 1868) I. Wreede L. de, Willebrord Snellius (1580–1626): A Humanist Reshaping the Mathematical Sciences (Utrecht: 2007). Wundt M., Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: 1939).

Chapter 25

Corollaries and Dissertations Bo Lindberg Summary The article highlights the corollaria in early modern dissertations from the university of Uppsala. It is based on some 1750 corollaries collected from about 200 dissertations. They are examined with regard to terms, form, function and contents. They disappear around 1700 but reappear occasionally towards the end of the 18th century. Their functions are various and not easily grasped. Apparently, they often were, placed as an attachment, the subject of the disputation instead of the wording of the actual dissertation, especially when it seemed necessary to formulate questions or propositions that could be easily argued about. This becomes obvious at the end of the researched period. As for contents, most of them repeat standard learning. Some of them are provocative, while others produce facetious paradoxes. All in all, the corollaries, in their simple linguistic outfit, reflect everyday learned stuff and current attitudes and values.

1

Introduction

Early modern dissertations before the 18th century are sometimes equipped with short questions or statements which follow after the main text. They have various names, but the most common is corollaria. Being separate from the main text, the corollaries can be regarded as one among the peritexts in prose or poetry that can surround a dissertation, i.e. dedication, expressions of gratitude to parents and sponsors, congratulations from fellow students, the recommendation of professors, and the preface. Corollaries are more closely related to the contents of the dissertation than those peritexts, but still constitute a text type of their own. Normally, they are not included in the pagination. Not much attention has so far been paid to them,1 and indeed one might ask if these tiny fragments are important. They do not present advanced theory 1  They are mentioned by Horn E., Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den Deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: 1893) 86, and Marti H., Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660–1750, eine Auswahlbibliographie (Munich – New York – London – Paris: 1982) 30–31.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_026

650

Lindberg

that might interest the historian of science, nor are they, in their mostly simple linguistic outfit, a challenge to neo-Latin philologists. Neither do they promise findings on social networks or hierarchic relations, as the other peritexts do. Still, I think they add to the knowledge of the what has aptly been called the ‘polyvalent’2 phenomenon of the early modern academic dissertation, first because of their contents, second because they shed light on the relation between the oral disputation and the printed dissertation.3 Obviously, corollaries follow dissertations everywhere, at least in Germany and The Netherlands, but here I will concentrate on Swedish examples. This study is based on some 900 corollaries extracted from dissertations defended in Uppsala during the 17th century.4 Thus, the results of the investigation pertain to Swedish circumstances and conditions.5 Comparisons with other countries have been left out, but there is little doubt that the general pattern is similar in Sweden and Germany, from which Swedish academic practice and behavior was imported. 2

Corollaria – Academic Gifts

In classical Latin, corollarium means a gift.6 In Boethius’ famous Consolatio philosophiae, probably written in 524, the word is used philosophically, meaning a pleasant consequence of an argument, an opening that is a gift for him who follows the argument. (The pleasant consequence in Boethius’ argument is that he who receives virtue will accomplish virtuous actions.)7 In the Middle Ages, the term appears in scholastic philosophy, meaning a proposition 2  Cf. Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). 3  This issue has been dealt with by Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written text: The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities XIX/2 (2004) 129–187. 4  Early modern Swedish dissertations are catalogued in Lidén Johan Henrik, Catalogus disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae, atque etiam, a Svecis, extra patriam habitarum, sectio I–V (Uppsala, Johan Edman: 1778–1780). 5  The standard work on the early modern history of the University of Uppsala is Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, part I, II:1, II:2, III:1. III:2, appendix 1–5 (Uppsala: 1877–1914). 6  Lewis C.T. – Short C., A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: 1879) 471. From corolla (fem.) meaning flower. 7  Boethius, Consolationis philosophiae libri V (Leiden, Officina Hackiana: 1671), lib. II, prosa X, 157: ‘Et pulcrum, inquam, hoc, atque pretiosum, sive porisma, sive corollarium vocari mavis’. On the word ‘corollarium’, Guillaumin J.-Y., “Le nom du ‘corollaire’”, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 77.2 (2003) 225–234.

Corollaries and Dissertations

651

that follows easily from another proposition, what the Germans call Folgesatz and the English, keeping the Latin term, corollary. Outside logic, corollarium could have a mercantile connotation of something extra one gets into the bargain, which is not necessarily of first class quality.8 A synonym is mantissa, meaning a worthless addition.9 That connotation is not accentuated in the sources, but its existence indicates a possible derogatory air around the phenomenon: corollaries, pleasant and easily reached, are not hard core. When used in the dissertations, these connotations of the word have faded; corollarium does not signify more than a succession in the typographic sense and means a question or a thesis added after the main text of the dissertation and offered to be disputed on. Often, the corollaries follow up the subject of the dissertation, but they need not do so: corollaries can mix topics arbitrarily. Usually, they are called corollaria, but with many exceptions. There are several words which, although they lack the connotation to pleasant garlands,10 connote the same thing: porisma (which is the Greek word for which Boethius introduced the Latin corollarium); auctarium (addition), consectarium (inference), axioma, problema, positio, propositio, and parergon (addition). All of them are usually in the plural. There is a difference between corollaria and parerga, in that the latter indicates a weaker connection to the subject of the dissertation; in some cases, corollaries remaining within the subject of the dissertation are followed by parerga on various topics. But this is no rule; there can be corollaries on anything. The alternatives to corollaria become more common towards the end of the century, which seems to be of some significance (vide below), but I will stick to corollaria as the analytic term for the phenomenon throughout the study. Far from all dissertations have corollaries, only about 11%. They are more frequent during the first six decades of the 17th century, and during that period more numerous in the individual dissertation. They become less frequent towards the end of the century and disappear around 1700.11 They appear in 8  M  ittellateinisches Wörterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, vol. 2, red. O. Prinz et al. (Munich: 1999) 1902; also Zedler Johann Heinrich (ed.), Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexikon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. 6 (Halle – Leipzig, publisher Johann Heinrich Zedler: 1733) 1330. 9  Lewis – Short, A Latin Dictionary 1110; Horn, Die Disputationen 86. 10  There is probably also an association to the conferment ceremony where the magister philosophiae received – and still receives – a flower garland on their head as symbol of their degree. 11  I have looked into about 1750 dissertations and found corollaries in 200 of them. The total number of dissertations in Uppsala during the 17th century is 2841. Östlund K. – Örneholm U., “Avhandlingsspråk vid Uppsala universitet 1600–1855”, Lychnos (2000) 180– 182 at 181.

652

Lindberg

dissertations pro gradu as well as in those pro exercitio and are not connected to any particular discipline or kind of dissertation. 3

Questions and Predications

Formally, corollaries are either questions or predications, usually contained within one sentence. The typical form of a corollary is disjunctive questions to which the respondent indicates an affirmative or a negative answer, or a distinction that he will defend. ‘Is every giver liberal? Denied, with a distinction’. (An omnis dator sit liberalis? Negatur, dist(inguendum.) ‘Is heroic virtue to be found in women? Affirmed’. (An virtus heroica in faeminis reperiatur? Aff(irmatur).) ‘Should Jews be tolerated in a Christian state? Affirmed’. (An judaei in christiana republica sint tolerandi? Aff.) ‘Is the lavish better than the greedy? Affirmed’. (An prodigus melior sit avaro? Aff.) ‘Are the servants of the church, in so far as they are members of the state, subject to secular power? Affirmed’. (An ministri ecclesiae quatenus sunt cives reipublicae potestati saeculari sint subjecti? Affirmatur.)12 The predicative form is less frequent but increases towards the end of the 17th century. It is tempting to use the word thesis for it, but that is the term for the shorter or longer paragraphs into which the text of the dissertations often is divided. The predication implicitly invites contradiction but sounds more positive than the question. Here is an example from 1636. ‘Philosophia is a gift from God that perfects the human intellect.’ (Philosophia est donum Dei intellectum humanum perficiens.) ‘Logic is not part of philosophy’. (Logica non est pars philosophiae.) ‘At times it is allowed to conceal the truth’. (Veritatem quandoque dissimulare licitum et concessum est.)13 12  Brunnius Ericus (Pr.) – Hernodius Ericus B. (Resp.), Disputatio physica de elementis in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1639). 13  Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Rozelius Thomas Jacobi (Resp.), Disputatio philoso­ phica inauguralis theoremata miscellanea physica exhibens (Uppsala, Typis Wallianis: 1636).

Corollaries and Dissertations

4

653

Function

The medieval tradition remained a dominant element in 17th century academic culture, in spite of the advent of the printing press that was eventually to undermine the disputation. As is well-known, the disputation was not only the procedure when dissertations were defended in public. It was also a form of teaching, practiced already in the gymnasium.14 At Swedish universities, Wednesdays and Saturdays were devoted to disputations, as a complement to the lectures. Furthermore, beside the formal education, the students were trained in the art of disputation in their so-called nations, i.e. the provincebased communities to which they belonged; extensive protocols from such exercises are extant from the 18th and 19th centuries.15 Disputing permeated university culture, as a mental exercise, as an application of what had been taught in lectures, and as repetition. In that respect, the corollaries in the dissertations were just another moment in a pedagogic regime. There are no instructions or comments in the sources concerning corollaries and their aim. The university statutes16 do not mention them, nor do the recurrent dissertations dealing with the process of disputation. It is tempting to connect them with the medieval quaestiones quodlibetales, which have come to symbolize the intellectual vitality in scholasticism, but that is probably to exaggerate their ancestry. Instead, corollaries seem to be an early modern product of daily pedagogic practice that became incorporated in the dissertation genre. Sometimes, it is unclear who wrote them, the professor who presided over the disputation or he who defended the dissertation. There are corollaria directly connected to the teaching in private collegia in theology and law17 or revealing a clear intention of a teacher.18 Such corollaries are more detailed and phrased as arguments including the answer, not disputable questions or predications, which indicates that they were given by the professors concerned. 14  As is shown by Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820, Ph. D. dissertation (University of Gothenburg: 2018). 15  Burman L., Eloquent students. Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663– 2010 (Uppsala: 2012) 46–55. 16  Statutes of 1655 are printed in Upsala universitets årsskrift 1890. 17  For instance, dissertations under the presidence of Wilhelmus Simonius (law) 1627 with corollaries related to topics in Roman law, and Johannes Rudbeckius (theology) 23 Disputationes ordinariae theologicae 1611–1613. 18   For instance, ‘Corollaria ad literarum studia pertinentia’ in Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Nicolai Suno (Resp.), Disputatio politica de republica in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1629).

654

Lindberg

Usually, however, the corollaries are shorter and phrased as questions or predications, which indicates that they originate from students;19 their simple fashion and mostly uncomplicated contents confirm that. The actual role of corollaries during the disputation is not clear. There were often more than ten corollaria, sometimes followed by a number of parerga; the disputants cannot possibly have managed to finish that, after the main text of the dissertation had been discussed. Occasional comments introducing the corollaries give no decisive information. Someone presents his corollaries with the remark that they have been added as ‘topics worthy considering and ventilating, should someone have found the subject of the dissertation less fruitful’.20 A similar attitude is visible in a dissertation where corollaries ‘with much to discuss’ are added, ‘so that nobody will consider the subject of the dissertation useless and empty’.21 The respondent also declares that he, if needed, will give the reasons for his corollary during the disputation act.22 Such remarks suggest that corollaries could supplement or even replace the discussion of the actual dissertation, as if something more interesting was offered. Such promises indicate self-confidence on the part of the respondent. One could also imagine that corollaries served to help less advanced respondents. Hanspeter Marti quotes the German professor Apin who, in 1719, supposed that corollaries might offer an alternative for opponents to discuss if they did not think they could cope with the main text of the dissertation.23 Or, for that matter, for the respondent too, if he was not the author the dissertation. If the dissertation did not consist in shorter theses put forward to opposition, but a running text with chapters without separate statements to attack, the task of unexperienced respondents and opponents is likely to have been troublesome. Corollaries formulated as questions or statements made it easier to demonstrate one’s dialectical skill, which was, after all, the aim of the disputation.24 One might have felt a need to 19  This seems to have been practice in Holland, van Miert D., Humanism in an Age of Science. The Amsterdam Athenaeum in the Golden Age, 1632–1704 (Leiden: 2009) 156. 20  Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Folchovius Olaus (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de terra (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632): ‘Ne cui forte minus faecunda videatur hujus disputationis materia, in sequentia addimus themata consideratione ac ventilatione dignissima’. 21  Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Plantius, Nicolaus Benedicti (Resp.), De bello disputationum politicarum secunda de divisione militum eorumque ordinibus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae 1630) fol. C3v: ‘Ne cui videatur materia haecce sterilis et jejuna: addere visum est quaedam Corollaria, quae copiosam disputandi segetem praebebunt’. 22  Ibidem corollarium 2, fol. C4r: ‘ubi pro questionis affirmatione, rationes, si opus fuerit, in disputationis actu, in medium afferemus’. 23  Marti, Philosophische Dissertationen 30. 24  Horn, Die Disputationen 86, describes ‘[…] die Corollaria […] als fassliche Streitsätze für die mündliche Disputation’.

Corollaries and Dissertations

655

defend the disputation as the main academic competence in a time of increasing presence of the printed word. That is not a sufficient explanation of the phenomenon, however, since the vast majority of dissertations lack corollaries. Other factors should be considered too. It is noteworthy that corollaries had an advantage precisely because they were printed. Many of them consisted in comprehensible brief sentences pertaining to elementary learning that students had to account for. Manuscripts from professor Petrus Ericus Liungh’s teaching of moral philosophy in 1660s and 1670s contain the same kind of questions with affirmative and negative answers as those we find in corollaries.25 A list of 186 quaestiones concerning Aristotelian ethics and politics and Pufendorf’s natural law constitute an overview of the field of moral philosophy students were expected to learn. The similarity between Liungh’s questions and the corollaries suggest a possible use of the corollaries: they may have served the memorizing of important topics in various disciplines, or, in modern terms: as study questions. The dissertations were distributed among the students who were their primary audience, not the scholarly world outside the university. Apart from these pedagogical functions, corollaries in all likelihood offered the opportunity to advance scientific assertions. The genre in itself invites to discussion and tempts to phrase provocative statements. It is true that the corollaries were subject to religious and political restrictions, and it is also true that positions deviant from prevailing opinion could be adopted for the sake of exercise and not because the respondent shared them.26 Still, the intellectual and innovative potential of corollaries should not be neglected. An obvious example will be given below. Finally, corollaries were to some extent induced by less scholarly motives. They are sometimes numerous; when seven corollaries are followed by 17 parerga one may trace an atmosphere of joyful rashness in such abundance, a mood that tempts the modern reader to travesty Groucho Marx’ famous dictum about his principles: ‘These are my theses, if you don’t like them, I have others’.

25  Liungh Petrus Ericus, Collegium disputatorium ethico-politico oeconomicum, 1666, ms P 3, National Library, Stockholm. 26  This important aspect of disputations is seldom commented on. See Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Westerman Johan Gerhard (Resp.), Discursus politicus de prudentia civili vera, et falso sic dicta seu simulata (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1628), corollarium 3, where the defense of a position concerning warfare abroad or at home is adopted for the sake of exercise: ‘An satius est belli sedem in fines hostiles transferre, an vero hostem domi expectare? Quamvis utrinque non desint rationes, tamen prius exercitii causa conabimur’.

656

Lindberg

That is an anachronistic interpretation, but undeniably the corollaries were occasionally a forum for academic facetiousness. The German professor Apin quoted above characterized them as ‘plays of genius’ (lusus ingenii). Jesting or provocative features belong to academic culture, especially that of students, and corollaries were a possible forum for that. Such corollaries are not likely to appear in the ideologically delicate disciplines of ethics, politics, and theology, rather in logic and the sciences. A scholastic spirit is traced in the question if something is possible that has never existed, does not exist or will never exist? The answer is yes.27 Or the corollary may have the form of dubious or paradoxical statements, like ‘In the light of nature, the soul of animals is equally immortal as that of human beings’.28 or ‘All error consists in negation’29 or ‘Man’s eye does not see’.30 Behind such statements are probably theories which can explain the paradox; that the eye does not see is explained in another corollary with the Cartesian theory that the eye does not see and the ear does not hear; instead, it is the animal spirit that mediates the perceptions.31 Outright absurd statements appear in mathematics. In a collection of nine corollaries there suddenly is a denial that twice three is six.32 As the last of corollaries on geometry it is stated that the angles of every triangle considered together are not equivalent to two right ones.33 These are examples of deliberately absurd claims. More dubious is the illusive character of the question why health is not

27  Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Wexionius Michael O. (Resp.), Positiones philosophicae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1631), corollarium 2: ‘An aliquid sit possible quod tamen nunquam fuit, est aut erit? Aff.’. 28  Drossander Andreas (Pr.) – Rudbeck Olav (Resp.), Propagatio plantarum botanico-physica (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686), corollarium 2: ‘Brutorum anima, lumine naturae aeque immortalis ac humana judicatur’. 29  Spole Andreas (Pr.) – Serenius Sueno Johannes (Resp.), Effluvia (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686), Appendix: ‘Omnis error consistit in negatione’. 30  Bilberg Johannes (Pr.) – Elvius Pehr (Resp.), Disputatio physica de coloribus (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686), Parergon 6: ‘Oculus hominis non videt’. 31  Drossander Andreas (Pr.) – Folcher Johannes (Resp.), Meditationes physicae de spiritu animali, dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Wallius: 1689), Paradoxon 1: ‘Oculus non videt, nec auris audit, sed anima mediante spiritu animali’. 32  Gestrinius Martinus (Pr.) – Bruzaeus Benedictus Andreae (Resp.), Disputatio mathematica de indivisibilibus (Uppsala, Typis Paulianis – Amundus Grefwe: 1640), corollarium 7: ‘An bis tria sint sex? Negatur’. 33  Norcopensis [Nordenhielm] Andreas (Pr.) – Vallerius Haraldus (Resp.), Disputatio physicomusica de sono, dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Nicolaus Wankijff: 1674), corollarium 5: ‘In omni triangulo rectilineo omnes anguli simul sumpti duobus rectis aequales non sunt’. For this corollary, see Sjökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from the 17th-Century Sweden, Studia Latina Upsaliensia 33 (Uppsala: 2012).

Corollaries and Dissertations

657

contagious, while disease is?34 Finally, one can find examples of melancholy tinged with irony: Is student life difficult? Yes.35 A definite evaluation of the role of corollaria is difficult. None of their functions is unequivocally evident. It is reasonable to assume that they helped to maintain the art of disputation. They may also have facilitated repetition of what had been taught in lectures. They were also a possible arena for polemic and provocative ideas and for academic facetiousness. In sum, they constitute yet another aspect of the polyvalence of early modern academic dissertations. 5

Contents

Corollaries usually stay within the borders of existent learning and academic culture, reflecting hallmarked opinions and standard issues where different answers were possible. Nor do they normally express the opinions of discernable individuals. The attraction of them, not to say charm, is that they extract and render the contents of academic learning in succinctly phrased questions and statements, seemingly promising clear answers. Mostly, they are easily understood, being pleasant also to the scholar, in the mildly derogatory sense of the word corollarium mentioned above. There are corollaries on all disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, rhetoric, law, and medicine. Some dissertations have corollaries from each of the philosophical disciplines, so that the whole faculty of arts is represented. Until the 1670s, topics from the Aristotelian repertoire are numerous in theoretic philosophy and science, ethics and politics. The corollaries deal with topics like the earth, the sky, the elements, the soul, vision, virtue in general and singular virtues, forms of government, and logic. Often they indicate or entail critique of other opinions, but rarely explicitly. A few times the conflict between Ramism and Aristotelianism is commented on. In the field of ethics and politics, Aristotelianism was gradually replaced during the latter 17th century by natural law according to Pufendorf. The change is not dramatic, natural law is rather an alternative than an aggressive intruder. Virtue according to Aristotle becomes less common than duty and 34  Chesnecopherus Johannes (Pr.) – Schroderus Ericus Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio medicophysica de aetatibus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1634), parergon 17: ‘Quam ob rem morbi sint contagiosi et non sanitas? Ut oculorum morbo laborans, morbum ad alium in oculos immittat, non tamen sanus in aegrotum sanitatem immittat’. 35  Istmenius Isaacus (Pr.) – Wattrangius Michael (Resp.), De corporis perfecte misti causis, ejusque proprio accidente (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1646), corollarium 7: ‘An sit difficillimum esse studiosus? Aff.’.

658

Lindberg

obligation according to Pufendorf. In politics, the superiority of monarchy to other forms of government is repeatedly stated, but the king has not his power directly from God. A recurrent topic, well known from dissertations, is slavery, whether it is natural or based on contract. Aristotle taught the former, natural law entails the latter; both answers appear. Another topical issue is whether states would have been erected if the Fall had not occurred.36 Corollaries were not an arena for political provocation. One may be surprised, however at the statement in a dissertation from 1645 that community of property should be tolerated in society.37 However, that too belonged to the standard topics of social theory, originating from the assumption that private property did not exist in the state of innocence before the fall, and the corollary should not be regarded as a sudden outbreak of a revolutionary spirit, possibly, however, as a specimen of the inclination to paradox mentioned above. Different from the topical and partly repetitive contents of corollaries in moral and political philosophy is the relation of corollaries to Cartesianism. Here, they occasionally promoted new ideas. In 1664, the text of a tiny dissertation presided over by the professor of medicine Petrus Hoffwenius was followed by a mantissa physica added by the respondent with 13 corollaries asserting Cartesian propositions. In fact, these corollaries consist the first coherent account of Cartesian physics in Uppsala.38 They maintained fundamental propositions in the new theory: that matter and motion are the principles of the natural body; that matter is extended into all space, and that, therefore, no vacuum exists; that motion is the transference of matter from the bodies immediately attached to it to the vicinity of other bodies.39 These corollaries

36  I give no examples here. For topical subjects in the dissertations, reappearing in corollaria, see Lindberg B., Naturrätten i Uppsala 1655–1720, Ph. D. dissertation university of Gothenburg, Skrifter utgivna till Uppsala Universitets 500-årsjubileum (Uppsala: 1976) 128–129, 134–137, 143. 37  Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Preusius Georgius (Resp.), Inauguralis nucleus psychologiae polemicae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1645), corollarium politicum: ‘An communio bonorum in republica ferenda? Aff.’. 38  Lindborg R., Descartes i Uppsala. Striderna om ‘nya filosofien’ 1663–1689, Ph. D. dissertation university of Uppsala, Lychnos-Bibliotek 22 (Stockholm: 1965) 118. 39  Hoffwenius Petrus (Pr.) – Hiärne Urbanus (Resp.), Artis medicinalis parvae exercitatio III (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664), ‘mantissa physica 2. Principia corporis naturalis sunt materia et motus. 3. Materia est res extensa in longum latum et profundum […] ideo eandem ut indefinite extensam spectamus. 4. Et quoniam nullus locus aut spatium esse potest, quod non sit extensum, hinc omnia loca corporibus sunt plena, ita ut vacuum non detur in rerum natura. […] 6. Motus est translatio unius partis materiae, ex vicinis eorum corporum, quae id immediate contingunt, in viciniam aliorum’.

Corollaries and Dissertations

659

witness of a deliberate intention to advance new, demanding theories, different from the usual subjects known from the teaching. If, as mentioned above, the word mantissa could indicate something worthless, it certainly did not apply here. Maybe it was used ironically. The corollaries offended the theologians who, among other things, found the Cartesian theory of matter incompatible with the dogma of non-corporeal presence of Christ in the Holy Communion. Protracted discussions took place in the University senate and the disputation was finally cancelled. Far from Cartesian but reflecting a practical scientific interest are corollaries in a dissertation on geometry which set out to correct existing current mistakes concerning snakes. They do not sting but bite, and by consequence their tail is not dangerous. Ideas about the magic force of the snake’s tongue are false. They endure months without eating, and it is possible to take them in one’s hands if one is cautious.40 This is useful everyday information, probably based on experience rather than books but showing a confident attitude to science. These corollaries had the predicative form. That seems to be significant. The questions disappear towards the end of the 17th century. Cartesianism, accompanied by Baconian empiricism, and natural law engendered a spirit of modernism. The shift in the form of corollaries from questions to predication may be related to the new climate. The more positive, self-confident attitude of the predication seems to have been more appreciated by the modernists. Questions appear to have been associated with old fashioned learning, as if the disjunction in questions betrayed undue uncertainty. 6

Values and Mentality

Apart from repeating and commenting on standard academic knowledge in brief, the corollaries rather frequently touch on subjects which do not directly pertain to academic disciplines but rather reflect circumstances, tensions and values conditioned by the situation and the role of 17th century Sweden. Partly, the corollaries relate to practical and actual issues, seldom dealt with in the dissertations. In those cases, they indicate more about values and mentality than of learned ideas.

40  Spole Andreas (Pr.) – Lindelius Johannes L. (Resp.), Dissertatio mathematica de trigonometria (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1687), ‘Corollaria nonnulla de serpentibus’.

660

Lindberg

6.1 Religion and War Religion is naturally an actual subject, given the religious wars in Europa and the role of Sweden in them. ‘Can different religions be tolerated in a wellordered state? No’, is the answer in two corollaries, ‘Yes, sometimes’ answers a third. ‘Should Jews be tolerated? Yes, but not without restrictions’. ‘Is it licit to propagate religion by force? No’. But it is allowed to defend religion against external violence, and the authorities should be concerned if neighbour nations are oppressed because they do not confess the official religion.41 The positions reflect Swedish policy in the religious wars. The Swedish intervention in the thirty years’ war was justified as protection of the protestants and could not be described as spreading religion with force. The answers also indicate the tension between religious zeal and economic utility; that Jews can be tolerated is probably because they could be expected to be rich. But the corollaries also expose echoes of a pacifist Christian opinion. ‘Is it permitted for a Christian to revenge?’ and ‘Is it allowed for a Christian to wage war?’ The answer is yes in both cases.42 One can assume that these questions, unexpected in a country where war was so natural, were directed to the anabaptists in the 1520s who had declined loyalty to state authority and the carrying of arms; their dangerous example is mentioned in Swedish 17th century dissertations. Accordingly, the corollaries display a realistic interest in war. It is important, both for external and internal safety to have a standing army.43 Stratagems are not prohibited in war.44 It is preferable to wage war on foreign territory, so that one’s own country is not damaged. (This is what Swedish armies practiced successfully during the 17th century.) On the other hand, it is sometimes advantageous to devastate one’s own territory in order to make the enemy short of supplies.45 At times, it is wise to protract the encounter with the enemy, says a corollary, where the justification probably was a reference to the Roman 41  Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Terserus Johannes Elai (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de de­ coro orationis in communi vita servando (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632), parergon 1; Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Yxtorpius Olaus (Resp.), De amicitia (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1651), corollarium 2. 42  Skunk Samuel (Pr.) – Vulteius Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de superstitiosa divinatione (Uppsala, Typis Meurerianis: 1668), parergon 4; Ausius Henrik (Pr.) – Hathin Andreas Johannis (Resp.), Disputatio civilis de fortitudine (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1643), parergon 1. 43  Magni Jonas (Pr.) – Doberus Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio decima politica de consiliariis eorumq[ue] qualitatibus ac requisitis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1625), corollarium V: ‘[…] paratum semper atque in armis habere exercitum’. 44  Ausius (Pr.) – Hathin (Resp.), De fortitudine, parergon 2. 45  Arrhenius Claudius (Pr.) – 8 students (Resp.), Exercitationum academicarum ogdoas (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1670), decas V, quaestio VIII.

Corollaries and Dissertations

661

commander Fabius Cunctator, who exhausted Hannibal by avoiding battle.46 Likewise, there is a foreseeable counter argument in a corollary raising the question whether it is good for a country that kings expose themselves to risk in battle, like Alexander the Great did. The answer is no, but with a certain reservation since this is what contemporary Swedish kings used to do.47 Interestingly, Machiavelli appears in several corollaries dealing with warfare. Machiavelli had an idealistic concept of warfare in so far as he stressed the discipline and moral quality of the citizen soldiers as the decisive factor in war, more important than money and modern weapons.48 These assumptions are criticized in the corollaries, which here reflect a more realistic attitude, based on the experience of warfare since the time of Machiavelli. The utility of artillery, questioned by Machiavelli, is confirmed.49 Fortresses are not harmful to the state, as Machiavelli thought.50 The importance of money for warfare cannot be denied.51 Furthermore, Machiavelli is blamed for his opinion that the pagan religion of the Romans made the citizens more courageous and energetic, whereas Christianity made people too humble and weak, exposing them to injustice and plunder.52 The last argument is in line with the condemnations that usually accompany Machiavelli when he is mentioned in the dissertations: his realistic recommendations for princely government pave the way for tyranny and godless amoralism. In the corollaries that deal with the more practical subject of warfare, 46  Magni Jonas (Pr.) – Bielke Ture (Resp.), Disputatio decimatertia politica de bello gerendo et finiendo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1625), corollarium 4: ‘Anne aliquando utile sit cum hoste pugnam protrahere? Affirm.’. 47  Arrhenius (Pr.), Exercitationum, decas VI, II: ‘An ex usu regnorum sit, ut Rex bellum gerens, non ipse tantum dux sit, sed maximis quoque periculis se et caput suum objiciat? Neg. L[imitatio]’. 48  Machiavelli N., The Discourses, ed. B. Crick (London: 1983), book II, 10, 16–17, 24. 49  Magni (Pr.) – Bielke (Resp.), De bello gerendo, corollarium 1: ‘An tormentis seu machinis muralibus et fulminalibus (ut vocant) in bello uti liceat? Affirm.’. 50  Norcopensis [Nordenhielm] Andreas (Pr.) – Westhius Johannes, Dissertatio civilis de academia, dissertation Uppsala (Strängnäs, Zacharias Asp: 1677), quaestio 4: ‘An arces et loca munita plus noceant Reipubl. quam prosint? Neg. pr. Aff. post. Cont. Machiavell’. 51  Simonius Wilhelm (Pr.) – Bååk Olaus (Resp.), De monarchiae causa efficiente extraordinaria sive de jure belli (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1627), in added comment to Corollaria. ‘Ne detur vacuum /sc. in pagina/, notentur adversus Machiav. qui negat […] pecuniam esse nervum belli […]’. 52  Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Sternelius Niels (Resp.), Dissertatio politica de cura summi ma­ gistratus circa religionem (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1654), corollarium 5: ‘Num religio ethnicorum animos illis excelsos et ad res magnas fortiter suscipiendas audaces faciat: christianiorum e contra mentes in nimiam humilitatem deprimat, indolem omnem debilitat, et eos injuriae ac praedae objiciat? Neg. contra Machiavellum’.

662

Lindberg

Machiavelli is criticized too, but the attitude is different: here, Machiavelli is unrealistic in his relying on the virtue of citizens and distrust in technical innovations in the art of war. This is confirmed by corollaries dealing with details in warfare like the building of fortifications, military discipline and the elevation of firearms.53 6.2 Importance of Studies A discernible topic in the corollaries is the value of studies and the relative importance of different disciplines. The Swedish build-up of schools (gymnasia) and universities in the 17th century is reflected in the corollaries. In them, the need becomes visible to defend the relevance of scholarly studies when questioned from various quarters. That all human beings seek knowledge, as Aristotle says in his Metaphysics, is an attractive axiom to quote in this respect.54 One position to watch is the legitimacy of philosophy in relation to theology, which until at least the middle of the 17th century was not self-evident. The supremacy of theology is recognized, but there is a radical theological claim to fend off, implying that the study of worldly disciplines is unnecessary or even sinful.55 Hence several unanimous corollaries until the middle of the 17th century stress that philosophy is nothing carnal, no sin, and that it must be tolerated by Christians.56 Teaching ethics – e.g. Aristotelian ethics – is not contrary to theology, even natural science is useful in theology, since it leads us to God by showing his works.57 53  Fontelius Petrus (Pr.) – Dalinus Samuel (Resp.), Disputatio generalem mathematum theoriam exhibens (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1663), corollaria 1–4; Fontelius Petrus (Pr.) – Carlson Carolus (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de statu et studiis imperii Othomannici (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664), quaestio 17–18; Drossander (Pr.) – Rudbeck (Resp.), Propagatio plantarum, corollarium 8. 54  Schefferus Johannes (Pr.) – Alinus Johannes (Resp.), De stylo illiusque exercitiis ad ve­ terum consuetudinem disputatio quarta (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1652), corollarium 5 ‘An omnes Homines scientiam naturaliter appetunt. Affir.’. Also Unonius Olaus (Pr.) – Lundius Ericus Johannis (Resp.), Dissertatio physica de anima rationali ejusque origine (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1653), positio 6. 55  Such claims were made by the professor Johannes Paulinus Gothus. See Sellberg E., Kyrkan och den tidigmoderna staten. En konflikt om Aristoteles, utbildning och makt. (Stockholm: 2010) 196–203. 56  Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Alsbeckius Matthias (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de natura et constitutione physices (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632), corollarium: ‘An philosophia sit opus carnis seu peccatum? N.’. Also Chesnecopherus Johannes (Pr.) – C[olumbus] Jonas Svenonis (Resp.), Disputatio physica de coelo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1614), corollarium 1. 57  Corollaries in dissertations presided over by Chesnecopherus – C[olumbus], De coelo, and Chesnecopherus, Johannes (Pr.) – Nenzelius Segericus (Resp.), Disputatio physica prima, de physiologiae constitutione (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624).

Corollaries and Dissertations

Figure 25.1

663

Corollaria from one of Johannes Schefferus’ dissertations on style (De stylo, 1652, resp. J. Alin). They follow immediately after the text of the dissertation but do not relate to its contents

Defense of philosophy can also be directed against those who for reasons of material utility are skeptical towards philosophy and to learning on the whole. Learned studies have been useful for the country, it is maintained.58 Even those who deliberate on state affairs are in need of logic.59 One must take care of talents. The father of a gifted son is obliged to send him to the university.60 Even he who initially seems less gifted should be taken care of and not debarred from school.61 Interestingly, the question is raised in a corollary if it is legitimate to strife for positions when the virtue of humility is so often praised in the Holy Writ.62 To stimulate studies, it is allowed to hold out the prospect 58  Norcopensis (Pr.) – Westhius (Resp.), De academia, quaestio 1. 59  Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Caustadius Andreas Th. (Resp.), Disputatio practica de temperantia (Uppsala, Typis Wallianis: 1636), auctarium 1. 60  Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Linnerius Petrus Jonae (Resp.), Disputatio politica generalem academiarum ideam exhibens (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1647), corollarium 1: ‘An pater teneatur filium ingeniosum ad Acad. vel scholas addiscendi causa mittere? Aff.’. 61  Chesnecopherus (Pr.) – Schröder (Resp.), De aetatibus, corollarium 3: ‘An nisi quis statim indolem ostendat, a studiis sit removendus? Neg.’. 62  Istmenius Isaacus (Pr.) – Montilius Magnus (Resp.), De elementis respective consideratis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1647), parergon 3: ‘An honorem expetere liceat, cum toties in scriptura sacra praeceptum humilitatis reperiatur? A.D.’.

664

Lindberg

of a career, but students should study what is appropriate to a future vocation, not only for money.63 Public teaching is better than private. Not only practical and specialized studies are needed, but also general and theoretical; proof of that is the progress of mathematics during the last century.64 Thus, learning is defended, not for its own sake but because it benefits both religion and society. Consequently, it can be stated that scholars and students have privileges. It is also reasonable to bestow academic degrees on scholars.65 That last assertion may seem surprising, considering that degrees were a central academic concern as the symbol of the university’s function as the guild of scholars. Obviously, the corollary aims to blame the contempt for academic titles and the striving for them which seems to have been an established topos in the international academic culture and may have been articulated also in Sweden.66 Another question, more urgent in the Uppsala environment, is whether academic degrees are unbecoming for noblemen. The answer is negative.67 The question indicates a problematic aspect of the presence at the university of students from the nobility. Young noblemen were important as lucrative objects for private tuition by professors, but they were pride of birth and did not identify themselves with the university and its rituals. Occasionally, they defended a dissertation, but only as exercise and not in order to take the philosophical degree. The corollary seems to express an uneasiness with the disrespect for academia among these students. 6.3 Latin A potentially problematic issue that becomes visible in the corollaries is the Latin language. Here, it is not the gaze of haughty noblemen or moralistic detractors of ceremonies that are to be fended off, but the possible criticism from guardians of pure Latin, within the country and abroad. According to the humanistic norm, one should write in classical Latin, avoiding neologisms and non-classical phrases. The statutes of the university allowed for non-classical terms when the subject treated made it necessary, insisting at the same time 63  Stigzelius (Pr.) – Alsbeckius (Resp.), De natura et constitutione physicae, corollarium; Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Olai Laurentius (Resp.), Disputatio politica de magistratu politico (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1641), corollarium 6. 64  Stigzelius (Pr.) – Nicolai (Resp.), De republica in genere, corollarium 6. 65  Ausius (Pr.) – Linnerius (Resp.), Generalem ideam academiarum, corollarium 5 ‘An gradus sint conferendi? Aff.’. 66  It is criticized in a congratulation to the respondent in the dissertation, see Arrhenius Claudius (Pr.) – Delphinus Nicolaus (Resp.), Dissertatio metaphysica de ubietate entis trans­cendentali (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1669). 67  Norcopensis (Pr.) – Westhius (Resp.) De academia, quaestio 3 ‘Utrum gradus academicus nobilitatem dedeceat? Neg.’.

Corollaries and Dissertations

665

on good Latin in texts produced by professors and students. Eloquence and philosophy must be combined, is the message of several corollaries. It is blameworthy to write impure Latin, using barbaric vocabulary when it is not necessary. On the other hand, those are mistaken who do not accept non-classical words. Professors of law and medicine do, as do scholars outside the university, why then prohibit them in the arts faculty?68 Thus, both points of view are satisfied. Here, like in other cases, the corollaries express an endeavor to follow the middle between extremes. That strategy was prescribed already in Aristotle’s ethics, but it also represents a cautious prudence on the verge of anxiety characteristic of pedagogic and regulating institutions. Except for comments on controversies with Catholics and Calvinists – which are not particularly numerous – standpoints and judgments are marked by moderation and an ambition to balance the extremes. The rule ‘an eye for an eye’ (ius talionis) is invalid as guiding rule for jurisdiction. Equity is better than the principle ‘summum jus’.69 The question whether the judge always must sentence according to law is answered with a distinction, and so is the problem whether the judge should consider the standing of a person under trial. Occasionally, it is all right to dissimulate truth70 and it is allowed for a wise man to laugh now and then. A moderate aspiration for career (honores) is not blameworthy. The question ‘Should birth and wealth influence the choice of a councillor?’ requires a distinction. The endeavour for moderation can also result in a social consciousness adapted to the estate society: states where the upper classes contemn the lower will not persist for long.71 Somewhat surprising in relation to the middle way ideal, again a propos Latin, is it to find a corollary denying that a state is barbaric that does not cultivate Latin and Greek.72 There may be a patriotic sentiment behind the corollary: the ambition to cultivate Swedish increased towards the end of the century. Another corollary, from a gymnasium dissertation, expresses discontent with the dominance of studies designed for the ecclesiastic career by

68  Stigzelius (Pr.) – Nicolai (Resp.), De republica in genere, ‘Corollaria ad studium literarum pertinentia’; Stigzelius (Pr.) – Folchovius (Resp.), De terra, corollarium 3. 69  Bringius Israel (Pr.) – Spinerus Sueno Gislonis (Resp.), Disputatio civilis de veracitate (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1636), corollaria 2, 4, 5. 70  Stalenus (Pr.) – Rozelius (Resp.), Theoremata miscellanea physica, corollarium 4. 71  Stigzelius (Pr.) – Folchovius (Resp.), De terra, corollarium 16: ‘Respublicae in quibus superiores ordines nimirum prae se contemnunt et fastidiunt inferiores diu salvae esse nequeunt’. 72  Norcopensis (Pr.) – Westhius (Resp.), De academia, quaestio 2: ‘An Barbara censenda sit Natio, quae linguas eruditas Latinam et Graecam non excolit? Neg.’.

666

Lindberg

wryly observing that it is more fruitful for future Swedish state official to know Finnish than Greek ad Hebrew.73 6.4 Women Rather often, there are comments about women. Usually they reflect more or less derogatory stereotypes. Lost virginity is an overarching problem. Should a son or a daughter have married without parental consent and had carnal intercourse, the liaison is void. To avoid major trouble, however, it is more human (humanius) not to break the marriage. In case the bride has lost her virginity, the wedding can be cancelled.74 To decide if a young woman has lost her innocence or already given birth, compressing her breasts is an infallible method: if there is milk she is violated or adulterated.75 Another corollary in the same dissertation addresses the question whether demons can beget witches by sleeping with women; the answer is no, however. Nor should women suspected of witchcraft be tested by being sunk into cold water.76 Married women in normal circumstances should breast-feed their children, unless prevented by the severest causes.77 The reason, implicated in a couple of corollaries, is that the child imbibes the character of the nurse with the milk, which is risky, if breastfeeding is left to someone else than the mother.78 Concerning the behavior of women, it is claimed, in a dissertation on shame, that it is more scandalous for a woman or a wife to be loquacious and

73  Grubb Petrus (Pr.) – Walinius, Olaus Achatius (Resp.), Disputatio constitutionem politicae generatim exhibens (Strängnäs, Typis capituli: 1644), auctarium: ‘Finnonicam Politico Svecano linguam magis, quam Graecam aut Hebraicam forsan non injuria dixerim necessariam’. 74  Simonius Wilhelm (Pr.) – Philipstadius Laurentius (Resp.), De monarchiae definitione et divisione (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1627), corollarium 10. 75  Franck Johannes (Pr.) – Daalhemius Daniel (Resp.), Disputatio publica de innocenti occisorum corporum sanguine, qui ad praesentiam sicarii et homicidae ubertim ex vulnere profluit et extillat (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624), corollarium 5: ‘An ad diagnoscendas prostitutae pudicitiae faeminas virgines et ancillas, mos ille in quibusdam Rebuspublicis receptus et introductus, qui per mamillarum contractationem lactisque emulctionem virginitatis florem explorat, sit probatum, certum et infallibile signum, quo certo concludere et affirmare ausim: Lac habet in mamillis haec virgo. Ergo concipit vel perperit [sic, should be ‘concepit’ and ‘peperit’]: E[rgo sit] violata et corrupta? Aff.’. 76  Ibidem corollaria 3 and 4. 77  Stigzelius (Pr.) – Folchovius (Resp.), De terra, corollarium 12. 78  Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Enaeus Israel O. (Resp.), Disputatio physica de mundo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1644), problema 3; Unonius (Pr.) – Lundius, (Resp.), De anima rationali, positio 11.

Corollaries and Dissertations

667

extravagant in external appearance and gestures than to be too shy.79 The step from conventional prejudice to male indecency is not long. A ‘paradox’ asserts that it is not contrary to nature that a mother who conceived in the evening may deliver a full-born fetus the following day.80 However, it is also maintained in some corollaries, that, women, like all human beings, are capable of heroic virtue.81 And in one of the Cartesian dissertations under Hoffwenius, there is a corollary that seems to refute deliberately a current saying among fellow students: ‘Mulier nec monstrum est, nec viro imperfectior’ (Women are no monsters and not less perfect than males).82 7

Disputation and Dissertation

Corollaries disappear around 1700. There are no instructions, comments or specific circumstances that may explain that, but it is reasonable to connect it to changes in the dissertation genre. It is noteworthy that corollaries become rare at the same time as dissertations increased in number,83 and, one can add, in quality as well. Dissertations became more varied in content towards the end of the 17th century. Less often they just repeated elements from the various disciplines. As mentioned above, topics from natural law and Cartesian philosophy became frequent, sometimes causing controversies and intervention by the academic authorities. The classical frame of reference weakened and gave space to new fields: there were dissertations on Hebrew antiquities, on the contemporary world outside Europe, and, above all, on Swedish topics, ranging from the spelling of the Swedish language, over Swedish metallurgy 79  Brunnerus Martinus (Pr.) – Komstadius Johannes (Resp.), De verecundia (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664), quaestio 4: ‘Sitne majus virgini et matronae opprobrium loquacem nimis cultuque corporis justo et in gestibus liberiorem, quam nimium est verecundam? Aff.’. 80  Elvius Pehr (Pr.) – Laurelius Sveno (Resp.), Disputatio mathematica de telluris axe ejusque inclinatione (Uppsala, Typis Keyserianis: 1700), paradoxon 1: ‘Mulierem, quae nocte conceperat, proxima die perfectum parere foetum, non est contra consuetum naturae cursum’. 81  Brunnius (Pr.) – Hernodius (Resp.), De elementis in genere, corollarium 2: ‘An virtus heroica in feminis reperiatur? Aff.’. Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Stolp Magnus Petri (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de physiologia in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: sine anno), parergon: ‘An virtutes heroicae possint cadere in quemvis hominem? Aff. Dist.’. 82  Hoffwenius Petrus (Pr.) – Daalhemius Daniel (Resp.), Artis medicinalis parvae exercitatio II (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1663), corollarium 2. 83  270 in the 1660s, 479 in the 1690s. Östlund – Örneholm, “Avhandlingsspråk” 181.

668

Lindberg

and descriptions of contemporary towns and provinces to Gothicist history. Ambitious students, often future academics, could, with due permission, choose the subject for their pro exercitio dissertations themselves. They wrote substantial texts indicating a personal commitment to the issue, for instance music, the burial customs of the old Goths or international law. Many dissertations increased in number of pages, which caused complaints about them being not dissertations but treatises, not leaving time for the professors to read them through and censure them.84 During the 18th century, the number of dissertations increased substantially.85 Several professors presided over more than 100 disputations. In some fields, the dissertations were given an unequivocally scientific content, with distinct contributions to natural history (Linnaeus), astronomy, and later on also chemistry, Nordic and oriental philology and history. There was a growing conviction that universities could and should make contributions to the increase of knowledge, first and foremost for the benefit of the country but also with regard to science in general. The fact that, in 1741, dissertations in the new discipline of economics were allowed to be written in Swedish testifies the expectations on the part of the state authorities that the universities might spread useful knowledge. Normally, however, Latin remained the language of dissertations, partly for reasons of tradition, partly because Latin was a means of communicating new findings to the international republic of letters. Linnaeus presided over the defense of 186 dissertations. They were all collected and republished in ten volumes from 1749 onwards, with shortened titles and without peritexts. Considering the increasing importance of the printed dissertation as a means to report scholarly results, it is reasonable to suppose that corollaries, which conspicuously represented the oral academic tradition, became less attractive. It is difficult, however, to identify the decisive mechanism. May be the fact that the scholarly repertory became more variegated made it less important to demonstrate the art of disputing in corollaries. As long as Aristotelian philosophy remained the fundament of learning, most students could profit from corollaries. With a wider repertory and tendencies to specialization, the common ground of learning tended to disintegrate. The disappearance of corollaries could also be due to the slowly increasing displeasure with the disputation per se, either because it was considered 84  Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia, appendix 2, 263, 291. 85  For short introductions in English, see Sjökvist, The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius, 11–13, and Östlund K., Johan Ihre on the Origins and History of the Runes. Three Latin Dissertations from the mid 18th Century, Studia Latina Upsaliensia 25 (Uppsala: 2000) 14–19.

Corollaries and Dissertations

669

sterile and formalistic or because it tended to promote superficial or manipulative quibble instead of solid learning. Mockery with disputations is recurrent in the 18th century. Its prestige as the crown of academic competence obviously declined. However, the system did not yet crumble. The disputation was defended. In Germany, a lot of dissertations on the method of the disputatio were produced the during the decades around 1700, and prominent academics like Christian Thomasius and Christian Wolff were concerned about it.86 Similar efforts were made in Sweden, for instance by Andreas Rydelius, professor in Lund, in a dissertation 1719. Rydelius did not claim that the disputatio was primarily a method to establish truth, as had usually been done. Instead, it was a means to develop and refine one’s intellectual performance. Nor need one always practice the syllogism in argument, as the university statutes required. The disputatio was rather a formal training, he argued; it sharpens the mind, often opening new aspects on problems, and giving respondent and opponents opportunity to demonstrate their ability in the presence of influential people. At the same time, the disputatio was a fair and transparent account of the capacity of students, leaving no space room for corruption and favoritism.87 Rydelius’ arguments were defensive but not desperate. For although several dissertations during the course of the 18th century were given a scientific content, the genre basically did not change. The main function of the dissertations was still to be the object of a disputation. That continued to set its mark on genre. There was a mass fabrication of dissertations, many of which were very modest in quantity and quality. Dissertations consisting in a number of theses or aphorismi still appeared. There was no evaluation of them; to obtain the degree, eight pages were as sufficient as 80. Dissertations pro exercitio were often more ambitious, either because the student was more skilful or because his professor had contributed substantially to the text. The progressive cognitive process suggested in the terms pro exercitio and pro gradu was often illusory. There was also the economic factor to consider. For a poor student without sponsors to support the printing, it may have been necessary to reduce the page-number of the pro gradu-dissertation to a minimum. The economic factor is an under-researched factor in the dissertation culture. Thus, the genre harboured both the oral performance in the disputation and the account of scholarly findings in the printed dissertation. The professor 86  Marti, Philosophische Dissertationen 662, has registered a lot of such dissertations. About Thomasius and Wolff, Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 163. 87  Rydelius Andreas (Pr.) – Anneus Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio gradualis de disputatione vocali et solenni ejusque vero usu et abusu (Lund, Abraham Haberger: 1719) 2–3, 12.

670

Lindberg

of philosophy Pehr Niclas Christiernin, replying to a critic in 1777, defended the cumbersome symbiosis. On the one hand, he asserted, many academics developed their skill in thinking as well as talking through the disputations. On the other hand, with the cooperation of or under the supervision of prominent Swedish scholars many specimens were published which were avidly read with benefit not only at home but abroad as well.88 It is probably not by chance that corollaries reappear in one of the dissertations under Christiernin.89 Now, however, they were called theses or theses respondentis, not corollaria or parerga or the like. Apparently, the word thesis had become reserved for the predicative form during the curse of the 18th century. In a series of dissertations from the year 1800 consisting an edition of source material from Swedish history, each respondent has defended theses of this kind, formulated in one or two sentences without any connection with the subject of the dissertation.90 Here one can imagine that it was rational that the respondents showed their competence by defending separate theses, since he obviously had nothing to do with the actual edition, especially since the edited text was in Swedish and it was becoming to demonstrate one’s ability to use Latin. The same motive for additional theses in Latin is recognizable in a series of sources from Swedish history edited as dissertations around 1820 by the famous historian Erik Gustaf Geijer.91 Other serial dissertations lack Latin theses, however, so there does not seem to have existed a rule or convention that candidates for an academic degree should compensate the absence of a text of their own by defending theses respondentis. To sum up: the development of dissertations to a scientific genre was hampered by the persisting pedagogic regime that made the oral disputation the aim of academic studies. One should keep in mind that the disputatio did not depend on the dissertation; it was currently practiced in teaching contexts even if there was no printed text to defend. The large majority of students 88  Christiernin Petrus Nicolaus (Pr.) – Leufvenius Andreas (Resp.), Dissertatio de exercitationibus academicis (Uppsala, Typis Edmannianis: 1777) 14: ‘Multi enim per has Exercitationes alacritatem tum in cogitando tum in loquendo adquisiverunt. […] In Academiis, doctissimorum hominum opera aut auspiciis, eduntur saepius Disputationes, quae non tantum ab eruditis indigenis, sed ab exteris quoque cupidi, nec sine fructu leguntur’. 89  Christiernin Petrus Nicolaus (Pr.) – Rabenius Nicolaus (Resp.), De peccatis contra conscientiam (Uppsala, Magnus Höijer: 1753) with ten theses ‘a respondente additae’. 90  Neikter Jacobus Fridericus (Pr.) – Bergström Petrus Ericus (Resp.), Monumenta et literae historiam Johannis Skytte senioris illustrantes […] pars prima (Uppsala, Johannes Fridericus Edman: 1800). 91  Geijer Ericus Gustavus (Pr.) – 21 students (Resp.) Acta et litterae ad historiam Suecanam spectantes, 21 dissertations (Uppsala, Zeipel and Palmblad: 1817–1818 – regiae academiae typographi: 1819–1826).

Corollaries and Dissertations

671

never thought of writing a dissertation,92 and the training in argumentation and performance in public the disputation could give, if accomplished the way Rydelius described, was no bad fruit of academic studies. The printing press paved the way for the written word in the oral academic culture, the dissertation was an obvious manifestation of that. It undermined the disputation, but it did not dethrone it. The process described here is compatible with what Ku-ming Chang has found in his article about the transformation of the dissertations in Early Modern Europe, with reference mostly to Germany. Comparative studies have not been undertaken, but the Swedish case seems to deviate foremost by the lack of resources that held back tendencies which were more profiled in Halle, Göttingen, Jena, and Heidelberg. Dissertations were fewer, naturally, and, it seems, usually slenderer.93 The pressure for reform on the part of state authorities was less efficient, and competition between scholars not as strong as it became in Germany. In short, the mechanisms promoting ‘the research university’, as described by William Clark, were less developed.94 But the pattern was similar. 8

Epilogue

During the decades up to the middle of the 19th century, the old system successively disintegrated. Fewer candidates wrote their own dissertation, neither pro exercitio, nor pro gradu. Latin lost ground as language of dissertations, and probably of disputations too. Frequently, professors had the printing of their own scholarly products financed by breaking them up into dissertations defended and paid by the candidates. The defense of some pages consisting such dissertations, brutally chopped out of the larger text, became a farce. A university reform in 1852 prescribed that candidates for an academic degree must write their dissertation themselves. The dissertation pro exercitio was 92  How many students who actually wrote or at least defended a dissertation is not clear. Spot checks of the number of students registered at Uppsala university the years 1680– 1681 and 1740–1741 (Uppsala universitets matrikel vol. 5 [Uppsala: 1911] – vol. 10 [Uppsala 1923]) who appear in Lidén, Catalogus disputationum, suggest that only about 10 per cent are found as respondents in a disputation, and even fewer in a pro gradu disputation. Dissertations are fascinating sources but they do not represent the whole academic culture. 93  According to Chang, “From Oral Disputation” 153, the average length of a dissertation in Germany was 50 pages (in 4:o). Swedish dissertations in the 18th century, in my experience, come closer to an average of 25 pages. 94  Clark W., Academic charisma and the rise of the research university (Chicago: 2006).

672

Lindberg

abolished. The oral disputation lost its function as the decisive moment in the examination of candidates.95 It remained as the act where the dissertation was defended, but the important thing was now the quality of the defended text, passed judgment on by the faculty, not the oral defense. The reform did not pass without discussion. Carl Yngve Sahlin, a philosopher and a future prominent academic in Uppsala, did not want to restore the old order, but praised the disputation as the manifestation of the important ability of a scholar to combine empirical facts with rational explanation, which, he argued, was the essence of the scientific process. The disputation, forces the candidate to have the whole and the parts of a subject present at one instant, not relying on the printed text. Without the disputation, science stops at a dead mass of knowledge, Sahlin argued; with it, the candidate can show that he masters his stuff so well that he has a living knowledge of it.96 Compared to Rydelius’ plea for the disputation 130 years earlier (above p. 669), Sahlin’s apology is marked by his philosophic idealism typical of the time. They both articulate, however, a belief in a kind of formal scientific education that transcends the mere production of scientific results. That could be a possible point of departure for criticism of today’s mass fabrication and distribution of scientific knowledge, but it seems far-fetched to draw such conclusions here. In a few dissertations after the reform 1852, corollaries under the name of theses reappear. They were hardly caused by the arguments proposed by Sahlin, but may be seen as another effort to facilitate and cultivate the art of disputation. Such corollaries soon vanished, but a sympathy for the disputation act has survived in Sweden. According to a regulation of 1851, the committee who evaluated the dissertation for the academic degree should also pass judgement on the defense of the dissertation as well on the dissertation itself. It is not so any longer, – the rule was abolished in 1969 – but the disputation act is still an important event in the Swedish academic system, partly for social reasons, since friends and relatives attend, but also academically. And the announcement of the act is still the same: the future doctor ‘submits the dissertation to public scrutiny’, in Swedish ‘framlägger till offentlig granskning’, which corresponds to the old Latin formula ‘publico examini submittit’.

95  Sahlin C.Y., “Om det akademiska disputationsväsendet med särskildt afseende på Upsala universitet”, Nordisk universitetstidskrift (1857) 48–93. 96  Ibidem 77–81.

Corollaries and Dissertations

9

Appendices: Examples of Full Lists of Corollaries

9.1

Corollaries on Various Disciplines in the Dissertation De tempore (1617)97

673

Generale [General] An philosophia theologiae subordinari debeat? A(ffirmatur) [Should philosophy be subordinated to theology? Yes.] Grammaticum [Grammar] An quatuor sint partes Grammaticae: an vero duntaxat duae? Resp. quatuor. [Are there four parts in grammar or just two? Answer: four.] Logicum [Logic] An logices subjectum sit Ens et non Ens: quatenus non Ens? N.(egatur) [Is the subject of logic Being and Non-Being, in so far as it is Non-Being? No.] Metaphysicum [Metaphysics] An sub latitudine subiecti metaphysices cognitio Dei naturalis tractari possit? R. maxime. [Can the natural knowledge of God be treated within the frame of metaphysics? Yes indeed.] Physica [Physics] An Deus sit in tempore? Neg. [Is God in time? No.] An angeli et sancti in vita aeterna sint in tempore? Neg. [Are the Angels and the Holy in eternity in time? No.] An angelici motus fiant in instanti? Aff. [Do the motions of angels happen in the present? Yes.] Ethicum [Ethics] An institutio ethica sacrosanctae theologiae repugnet? R. Minime. [Does the teaching of ethics conflict Sacred Theology? Not at all.]

97  Magni Jonas (Pr.) – Laurentius Svenus (Resp.), De tempore, affectione corporis naturalis extrinseca, disputatio (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617).

674

Lindberg Politica [Politics] Utrum si Adamus perstitisset in statu integritatis, fuisset magistratus politicus? Neg. [Would political authority exist, if Adam had remained in the state of integrity? No.] Utrum diversae religiones in bene constituta republica sint tolerandae? Neg. [Should different religions be tolerated in a well-ordered state? No.]

9.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

The Corollaries in the Dissertation on Astronomy De stellis in genere (1642)98

An stellae sint ejusdem prorsus naturae cum caelo, in quo moventur? Neg. [Are the stars of exactly the same nature as the spheres in which they move? No.] An stellae differant specie? Aff. [Are the stars of different kind? Yes.] Utrum motus syderum sint aequabiles et ordinati? Aff. Dist. [Are the movements of the stars uniform and orderly? Yes, with a distinction.] An stellarum vis stupenda in ipsas etiam voluntates hominum agat? Neg. Dist. [Does the stupendous power of the stars act on even the wills of human beings?] Num stellae fixae revera scintillent? Neg. [Do the fixed stars really glitter? No.] Utrum astrologi, ex observationibus syderum possint certo futura praedicare? Dist. [Can the astrologers from their observations of the stars foretell the future with certainty? Requires a distinction.] An stellae in usitatas et inusitatas, et an illae in fixas et errantes recte dividantur? Aff. utrumque. [Can the stars rightly be divided in ordinary and extraordinary stars and the former in fixed stars and planets? Yes, to both.] Utrum Galaxia sit meteoron? Neg. [Is the galaxy a meteor? No.]

9.3 The Corollaria in a Dissertation on Economics and Politics De modis acquirendi (1646), Aristotelian Influence Reflected in Number 2, 3, 4, and 599 1. 2.

An monopolium sit licitum? Dist. [Is monopoly allowed? To be answered with a distinction.] An opifices inter cives sint numerandi? Dist. [Should artisans be regarded as citizens? To be answered with a distinction.]

98  Unonius Olaus (Pr.) – Metzenius Suno (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de stellis in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1642). 99  Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Krokius Andreas (Resp.), Disputatio politico-oeconomica de modis acquirendi (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1646).

Corollaries and Dissertations 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

9.4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

675

An monarchia sit anteferenda Aristocratiae? Dist. [Is monarchy preferable to aristocracy? To be answered with a distinction.] An aliquis sit natura servus? Aff. [Is someone a slave by nature? Yes.] An judicium populo sit commitendum? Aff. Dist. [Can jurisdiction be entrusted to the people? Yes, with a distinction.] An vir bonus et civis bonus differant? Aff. Dist. [Is there a difference between a good man and a good citizen? Yes, with a distinction.] An praestet ambulatorium esse magistratum, quam perpetuum? Neg. Dist. [Is it better that government is ambulatory than perpetual? No, with a distinction.] An paterfamilias instar monarchae? Aff. [Is the father as the head of the household to be compared to a king? Yes.] An paterfamilias in regimine suo debet respicere rempublicam? Aff. [Should the father when administrating the household have regard for the state? Yes.]

Parerga from the Dissertation on Politics Subjectio civilis (1686)100

Si anima hominis esset mortalis omnis obligatio juris naturae cessaret. [If the human soul was mortal, all obligation to natural law would cease.] Homo solus aptus est recipere obligationem. [Only human beings can be put under an obligation.] Homo pluribus modis fertur in vitia quam bruta. [Human beings are enticed to vice in more ways than animals.] Maiestas imperii immediate non est a Deo. [State power is not immediately of God.] Ubi una perfecta virtus est, ibi reliquae omnes continentur. [Where virtue is one and perfect, all the others are included.] Qui damnum infert, non semper injuriam. [Who causes damage does not always wrong somebody.]

Bibliography Sources Manuscript

Liungh Petrus Ericus, Collegium disputatorium ethico-politico oeconomicum 1666, ms P 3, National Library, Stockholm. 100  Bilberg Johannes (Pr.) – Limnelius Chrysostomus (Resp.), Subjectio civilis, seu officium boni subditi (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1686).

676 Dissertations

Lindberg

Arrhenius [Örnhjälm] Claudius (Pr.) – 8 students (Resp.), Exercitationum academicarum ogdoas (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1670). Arrhenius Claudius (Pr.) – Delphinus Nicolaus (Resp.), Dissertatio metaphysica de ubietate entis transcendentali (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1668). Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Hathin Andreas Johannis (Resp.), Disputatio civilis de fortitudine (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1643). Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Yxtorpius Olaus (Resp.), De amicitia (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1651). Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Sternelius Niels (Resp.), Dissertatio politica de cura summi ma­ gistratus circa religionem (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1654). Bilberg Johannes (Pr.) – Elvius Pehr (Resp.), Disputatio physica de coloribus (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686). Bilberg Johannes (Pr.) – Limnelius Chrysostomus (Resp.), Subjectio civilis, seu officium boni subditi (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1686). Bringius Israel (Pr.) – Spinerus Sueno Gislonis (Resp.), Disputatio civilis de veracitate (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1636). Brunnerus Martinus (Pr.) – Komstadius Johannes (Resp.), De verecundia (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664). Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Hernodius Ericus B. (Resp.), Disputatio physica de elementis in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1639). Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Plantius Nicolaus Benedicti (Resp.), De bello disputationum politicarum secunda de divisione militum eorumque ordinibus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1630). Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Olai Laurentius (Resp.), Disputatio politica de magistratu politico (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1641). Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Enaeus Israel O. (Resp.), Disputatio physica de mundo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1644). Brunnius Ericus Erici (Pr.) – Preusius Georgius (Resp.), Inauguralis nucleus psychologiae polemicae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1645). Chesnecopherus Johannes (Pr.) – Columbus Jonas Svenonis (Resp.), Disputatio physica de coelo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1614). Chesnecopherus Johannes (Pr.) – Nenzelius Segericus (Resp.), Disputatio physica prima, de physiologiae constitutione (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624). Chesnecopherus Johannes (Pr.) – Schroderus Ericus Johannes (Resp.), Disputatio medico-physica de aetatibus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1634). Christiernin Petrus Nicolaus (Pr.) – Rabenius Nicolaus (Resp.), De peccatis contra conscientiam (Uppsala, Magnus Höijer: 1753). Christiernin Petrus Nicolaus (Pr.) – Leufvenius Andreas (Resp.), Dissertatio de exercitationibus academicis (Uppsala, Typis Edmannianis: 1777).

Corollaries and Dissertations

677

Drossander Andreas (Pr.) – Rudbeck Olav (Resp.), Propagatio plantarum botanicophysica (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686). Drossander Andreas (Pr.) – Folcher Johannes (Resp.), Meditationes physicae de spiritu animali, dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Wallius: 1689). Elvius Pehr (Pr.) – Laurelius Sveno (Resp.), Disputatio mathematica de telluris axe ejusque inclinatione (Uppsala, Typis Keyserianis: 1700). Fontelius Petrus (Pr.) – Dalinus Samuel (Resp.), Disputatio generalem mathematum theoriam exhibens (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1663). Fontelius Petrus (Pr.) – Carlson Carolus (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de statu et studiis imperii Othomannici (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664). Franck Johannes (Pr.) – Daalhemius Daniel (Resp.), Disputatio publica de innocenti occisorum corporum sanguine, qui ad praesentiam sicarii et homicidae ubertim ex vulnere profluit et extillat (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624). Geijer Ericus Gustavus (Pr.) – 21 students (Resp.), Acta et litterae ad historiam Suecanam spectantes , 21 dissertations (Uppsala, Zeipel and Palmblad: 1817‒1818 – regiae academiae typographi: 1819–1826). Gestrinius Martinus (Pr.) ‒ Bruzaeus Benedictus Andreae (Resp.), Disputatio mathe­ matica de indivisibilibus (Uppsala, Typis Paulianis ‒ Amundus Grefwe: 1640). Grubb Petrus (Pr.) – Walinius Olaus, Achatius (Resp.), Disputatio constitutionem politicae generatim exhibens (Strängnäs, Typis capitula: 1644). Hoffwenius Petrus (Pr.) – Daalhemius Daniel, Artis medicinalis parvae exercitatio II (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1663). Hoffwenius Petrus (Pr.) – Hiärne Urbanus (Resp.), Artis medicinalis parvae exercitatio III (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1664). Istmenius Isaacus (Pr.) – Wattrangius Michael (Resp.), De corporis perfecte misti causis, ejusque proprio accidente (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1646). Istmenius Isaacus (Pr.) – Montilius Magnus (Resp.), De elementis respective consideratis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1647). Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Westerman Johan Gerhard (Resp.), Discursus politicus de prudentia civili vera, et falso sic dicta seu simulata (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1628). Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Terserus Johannes Elai (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de decoro orationis in communi vita servando (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632). Magni Jonas (Pr.) ‒ Laurentius Svenus (Resp.), De tempore, affectione corporis naturalis extrinseca, disputatio (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617). Magni Jonas (Pr.) – Doberus Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio decima politica de consiliariis eorumq[ue] qualitatibus ac requisitis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1625). Neikter Jacobus Fridericus (Pr.) – Bergström Petrus Ericus (Resp.), Monumenta et literae historiam Johannis Skytte senioris illustrantes […] pars prima (Uppsala, Johannes Fridericus Edman: 1800).

678

Lindberg

Norcopensis [Nordenhielm] Andreas (Pr.) – Vallerius Haraldus (Resp.), Disputatio physico-musica de sono, dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Nicolaus Wankijff: 1674). Norcopensis [Nordenhielm] Andreas (Pr.) – Westhius Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio civilis de academia, dissertation Uppsala (Strängnäs, Zacharias Asp: 1677). Rydelius Andreas (Pr.) – Anneus Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio gradualis de disputatione vocali et solenni ejusque vero usu et abusu (Lund, Abraham Haberger: 1719). Schefferus Johannes (Pr.) – Alinus Johannes (Resp.), De stylo illiusque exercitiis ad veterum consuetudinem disputatio quarta (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1652). Schwede Johannes (Pr.) – Phragmenius Jonas (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de violentia jucundorum (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1691). Simonius Wilhelm (Pr.) – Bååk Olaus (Resp.), De monarchiae causa efficiente extraordinaria sive de jure belli (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1627). Simonius Wilhelm (Pr.) – Philipstadius Laurentius (Resp.), De monarchiae definitione et divisione (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1627). Skunk Samuel (Pr.) – Vulteius Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de superstitiosa divinatione (Uppsala, Typis Meurerianis: 1668). Spole Andreas (Pr.) – Serenius Sueno Johannes (Resp.), Effluvia (Uppsala, Henricus Curio: 1686). Spole Andreas (Pr.) – Lindelius Johannes L. (Resp.), Dissertatio mathematica de trigonometria (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1687). Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Wexionius Michael O. (Resp.), Positiones philoso­ phicae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1631). Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Rozelius Thomas Jacobi (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica inauguralis theoremata miscellanea physica exhibens (Uppsala, Typis Wallianis: 1636). Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) ‒ Stolp Magnus Petri (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de physiologia in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: sine anno). Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Nicolai Suno (Resp.), Disputatio politica de republica in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1629). Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Folchovius Olaus (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de terra (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632). Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Alsbeckius Matthias (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de natura et constitutione physices (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1632). Stigzelius Laurentius (Pr.) – Caustadius Andreas Th. (Resp.), Disputatio practica de temperantia (Uppsala, Typis Wallianis: 1636). Unonius Olaus (Pr.) – Metzenius Suno (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de stellis in genere (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1642). Unonius Olaus (Pr.) – Lundius Ericus Johannis (Resp.), Dissertatio physica de anima rationali ejusque origine (Uppsala, Johannes Pauli: 1653).

Corollaries and Dissertations



679

Other Printed Sources

Boethius Annius Manlius Severinus, Consolationis philosophiae libri V (Leiden, Officina Hackiana: 1671). Machiavelli N., The Discourses, ed. B. Crick (London: 1983). Sahlin C.Y., “Om det akademiska disputationsväsendet med särskildt afseende på Upsala universitet”, Nordisk universitetstidskrift (1857) 48–93. Statutes of the University of Uppsala 1655, in Upsala universitets årsskrift 1890.



Secondary Sources

Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, part I, II:1, II:2, III:1. III:2, appendix 1–5 (Uppsala: 1877‒1914). Burman L., Eloquent students. Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663‒2010 (Uppsala: 2012). Chang K., “From Oral Disputation to Written text: The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe”, History of Universities XIX/2 (2004) 129–187. Clark W., Academic charisma and the rise of the research university (Chicago: 2006). Gindhart M. ‒ Marti H. ‒ Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Guillaumin J.-Y., “Le nom du ‘corollaire’”, Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 77.2 (2003) 225‒234. Horn E., Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den Deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: 1893). Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620‒c. 1820, Ph. D. dissertation (University of Gothenburg: 2018). Lewis C.T. ‒ Short C., A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: 1879, reprint 1984). Lidén Johan Henrik, Catalogus disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae, atque etiam, a Svecis, extra patriam habitarum, sectio I‒V (Uppsala, Johan Edman: 1778‒1780). Lindberg B., Naturrätten i Uppsala 1655–1720, Ph. D. dissertation university of Gothenburg, Skrifter utgivna till Uppsala Universitets 500-årsjubileum (Uppsala: 1976). Lindborg R., “Descartes i Uppsala. Striderna om ‘nya filosofien’ 1663–1689”, Ph. D. dissertation university of Uppsala, Lychnos-Bibliotek 22 (Stockholm: 1965). Marti H., Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660‒1750, eine Auswahlbibliographie (Munich ‒ New York ‒ London ‒ Paris: 1982). Miert D. van, Humanism in an Age of Science. The Amsterdam Athenaeum in the Golden Age, 1632‒1704 (Leiden: 2009). Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert, vol. 2, red. O. Prinz et al. (Munich: 1999).

680

Lindberg

Östlund K. ‒ Örneholm U., “Avhandlingsspråk vid Uppsala universitet 1600‒1855”, Lychnos (2000) 180‒182. Östlund K., Johan Ihre on the Origins and History of the Runes. Three Latin Dissertations from the mid 18th Century, Studia Latina Upsaliensia 25 (Uppsala: 2000). Sellberg E., Kyrkan och den tidigmoderna staten. En konflikt om Aristoteles, utbildning och makt (Stockholm: 2010). Sjökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from the 17thCentury Sweden, Studia Latina Upsaliensia 33 (Uppsala: 2012). Uppsala universitets matrikel, vol. 5: 1680‒1700 (Uppsala 1911) – vol. 10: 1740‒1750 (Uppsala: 1923). Zedler Johann Heinrich (ed.), Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexikon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, 68 vol. (Halle – Leipzig, publisher Johann Heinrich Zedler – no printer given: 1732–1754).

Chapter 26

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations Peter Sjökvist Summary The first printed dissertation from Uppsala University was published 1602. Just as most early modern dissertations it contains a dedication from the respondent to a person higher in the social hierarchy. The present article aims at describing the development of the dedicatory practices in dissertations printed in Uppsala during their first thirty years. What happens in the dedications at this stage? What is being said there? Why do respondents dedicate? An academic program from 1633 is discussed, in which the vice-chancellor of the university, Laurentius Olai Wallius, accuses the students of mis­using the dedicatory system because of greed, dedicating their publications to too many people and sometimes changing the dedications of the same publications. Seemingly protection, authorization, monetary and professional aid are what the respondents request or thank the dedicatees for. The dedicator’s modesty is an obligatory topos, but not necessarily without self-confidence. At a certain point, the subject of the dissertation starts to be discussed in the dedications as well.

Early modern academic dissertations are a kind of occasional literature. In each specific case the text has been written because of a certain occasion, which is the public disputation act. The paratexts, title pages, dedications, congratulatory texts, etc., locate the people involved and the event in space and time, but also their position in the social hierarchy. The sender of the text is almost always the respondent, since he is the one responsible for the oral defense. He is also usually the one who undersigns the dedication, and he is the addressee in the congratulatory texts, but not necessarily the author of the actual dissertation, and exceptions can be found to almost all general statements concerning this type of material. The intention with this article is to discuss the dedications – the text’s addresses – from Uppsala during the first three decades of printed dissertations, and to give examples of functions, topoi and reasons for dedicating, with a focus on the social aspects of this practice. When a tradition starts, things are moving quickly. That is true also for dedications in academic dissertations. What happens in the dedications? What is being said there? And why do the respondents dedicate the dissertations at all?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_027

682

Sjökvist

Uppsala University was founded in 1477, approximately 20 years after the first bible had been produced with Gutenberg’s new invention in Mainz. Although the first printed items in Sweden were produced already in the 1480s in Stockholm, and although we can safely assume that disputations were an integral part of the activities at the university in Uppsala, no publications saw the light there until much later. Because of the ecclesiastical reformation the university was closed during a long period in the 16th century and higher education entirely missing in the country. It did not reopen until 1595 on the initiatives of Duke Charles (later Charles IX). In the meantime Swedish students usually went abroad, mainly to German cities, starting at Rostock, and then continuing to places like Jena, Marburg and Wittenberg. And just as at the German universities, the theses to be defended at public disputations at Uppsala soon started to be printed and disseminated before the event when the university had reopened. The first dissertation to be so was published in 1602, when Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (‘Some propositions on the causes of the liberal arts, collected from the writings of the foremost philosophers’) was to be disputed upon under the presidency of professor of physics Elias Magni Rhalambius with Sveno Ionae Moderus as the respondent.1 A brief look at the title page is revealing. Some pieces of information that we will later always find on title pages of dissertations is here missing. We do not find there, for instance, any information on faculty or even university, nor any professional titles or personal details. What can be seen, however, is that public disputations are already being arranged. When announcing place and time for the event, it is therefore sufficient only to write horis locoque consuetis. We can also see that the item has been printed in Stockholm by the Royal printer Andreas Gutterwitz. The first printing house at Uppsala did not open until 1613.2 When we turn the page, we meet a grand dedication in prose, covering two and a half pages in the quarto format, composed by the respondent Moderus and addressed to the bishop of Strängnäs Petrus Jonae. This paratextual element is thus there from the very beginning when dissertations start being printed. And this is an interesting piece. At the end of the first page, for instance, Moderus openly states his reasons for dedicating:

1  Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602). 2  Klemming G.E. – Nordin J.G., Svensk boktryckeri-historia 1483–1883 med inledande allmän översigt (Stockholm: 1883) 178.

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

Figure 26.1

683

Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), fol. A1v Photo: Uppsala University Library

684

Figure 26.2

Sjökvist

Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), fol. A2r Photo: Uppsala University Library

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

Figure 26.3

685

Dedication by Sveno Ionae Moderus in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602), fol. A2v Photo: Uppsala University Library

686

Sjökvist

Nec alio sane judicio ego has Theses, ad quas sub praesidio clarissimi ac doctissimi viri M. Eliae Magni Rhalambii, in Academia nostra publice respondere conabar, Reverentiae Reverendissimi Dn. Episcopi, nuncupavi, quam ut Reverendi D. patris patricinio adversus dentes Theoninos liberae latitarent, et hac animi subiectione, benevolentiam aliquam mihi compararem.3 Neither did I by another judgment dedicate these theses, to which I tried to respond publicly in our academy under the presidency of the most illustrious and learned man master Elias Magni Rhalambius, to the reverence of the most reverend bishop, than that they would be free and lie concealed against the teeth of Theon through the patronage of the reverend father, and that I would acquire some benevolence for myself. For just as the sun is the light of the day, Moderus continues, the images and names of splendid men give a certain light and authority to written treatises. In addition, the dignity of the bishop, as well as his generosity for promoting men who practice literary arts, makes Moderus dedicate his dissertation to him. In the following we meet a typical recusatio authoris, the obligatory element in dedications, expressing the author’s modesty and unworthiness for approaching splendid and high-born men with so small gifts: the bishop should appreciate the gift because of the mind of the giver, not because of its value or usefulness. Moderus here refers to Plutarch’s relation of Artaxerxes (5.1), which is a common dedicatory topos in Neo-Latin literature as well. In this story a very poor peasant offers some water in his bare hands to the Persian king, who accepts the gift.4 If the bishop acts like the King in this story, he may consider himself to have acted in a way that is fitting for the glory of God, his own name and the republic of letters, and he would give Moderus a ready encouragement for his studies. At last he confesses his perpetual observance and asks God to protect the bishop. The dedication has been undersigned by Svenno Ionae Moderus subiectus minister. The respondent was obviously a clergyman, and the bishop his own superior in rank. Moderus did not have an established tradition at Uppsala to follow when writing the dedication, and for this reason he has consulted a handbook or 3  Rhalambius – Moderus, Propositiones nonnullae. 4  Helander H., Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620–1720. Stylistics, Vocabulary and Characteristic Ideas (Uppsala: 2004) 533–537, with further references. The story of Artaxerxes can later be found, for instance, also in Jonae Sveno (Pr.) – Tolfstadius Laurentius (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de voluntate humana (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1623).

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

687

another authority. This is obvious from the very first words of the dedication: Qui bene de magistratibus colendis sententiam dederunt suam […] censuerunt (‘Those who have given their view well on how to pay respect to magistrates […] have thought’). That is probably also why this short text contains several aspects and elements that have been considered typical of the dedicatory genre in general in research of our time, both in research on dedications and dissertations. Three aspects, however, are worth stressing in particular: The first is the request for intellectual protection, or authorization, to use the words of Karl Enenkel, who is the Latin scholar that has given early modern dedications most attention.5 The abovementioned Theon, in the phrase reverendi d. Patris patricinio adversus dentes Theoninos liberae latitarent (‘Would be free and lie concealed against the teeth of Theon through the patronage of the reverend father’), proverbially represent people with evil tongues, so Moderus explicitly expresses the wish that the bishop’s name shall protect his theses against slander.6 A bit later he also writes that the mere presence of the name of the bishop shall give authority to his publication.7 By dedicating the text to the bishop, Moderus is authorized to act as an academic writer, yes, he becomes an author thereby. The second is that Moderus mentions that the bishop has a reputation of generosity for promoting men who practice literal arts. This is important for two reasons. On the one hand the receivers of dedications were more or less obliged to give money in return at the time – Stina Hansson discussed and emphasized this circumstance from a Swedish perspective many decades ago, finding support in such scholars as Henrik Schück and Walther Krieg – so the connection between dedications and monetary support is manifest in

5  Enenkel K.A.E., “Reciprocal Authorisation. The Function of Dedications and Dedicatory Prefaces in the 15th- and 16th-Century ‘Artes Antiquitatis’”, in Bossuyt I. – Gabriëls N. – Sacré D. – Verbeke D. (eds.), “Cui dono lepidum novum libellum?” Dedicating Latin Works and Motets in the Sixteenth Century (Leuven: 2008) 35–47; and Enenkel K.A.E., Die Stiftung von Autorschaft in der neulateinischen Literatur (ca. 1350–ca. 1650). Zur autorisierenden und wissensvermittelnden Funktion von Widmungen, Vorworttexten, Autorporträts und Dedikationsbildern (Leiden: 2015). 6  Another example occurs in Tideman Gerhard (Pr.) – Wolfius Hinric (Resp.), Illustrium quaestionum theologicarum decas (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624): ‘Ne autem in hos meos conatus Sinon, Momus, aut Zolius irruat, ad Te, Lumen literatorum […] Mecaenas colende merito confugio, te meis conatibus patronum eligo […]’ (‘Lest Sinon, Momus or Zolius shall attack these attempts of mine, I rightly take my refuge to you, light of the literate, honourable Maecenas, I choose you to be the patron of my attempts’). 7  ‘Clarissimorum virorum imagines ac splendissima nomina, a Thesium vestibulis, quasi lucem quondam et authoritatem addunt scriptis’. Ibidem.

688

Sjökvist

all genres.8 On the other it was later also practice that the respondent should be the one who paid the printing costs for the dissertations. The respondents therefore often had to dedicate the dissertation to a wealthy patron, in order to afford the publication, if they could not do it on their own or by other means. The third aspect is that Moderus dedicated the dissertation to a person of higher ecclesiastical rank. Petrus Jonae was bishop, and Moderus a clergyman. From that perspective, and with the knowledge that one important task of the university was to educate ministers for the church, Moderus’s text could almost also be considered as a job application. The benevolence that Moderus has asked for, most likely meant both monetary aid and professional support. So, the first dedication in dissertations published at Uppsala appears to be quite ambitious and contains elements and topoi that are typical of dedicatory texts in general. Without predecessors in the genre in Uppsala, the author had to consult handbooks in order to write properly. Having gone through all dedications in dissertations from Uppsala during their first three decades – these are several hundred – I have not found other ones that so closely follow instructions on how to compose dedications, although some other early pieces explicitly say they adhere to an established custom. We can, for instance, therefore discern some thoughts on to whom dedications should be made. The dedicatory text by Magnus Magni Aland in De fide (‘On faith’) from 1612 starts by saying that: Usu etiam receptum est, ut illa non divulgarent, quin bonis ac piis quibusdam viris dedicarentur, prasertim iis, quorum opera et auxilio, studia quis inchoasset et ad quos studiorum fructus merito referri oporteat.9 When dissertations started to be printed, it soon became a custom also to dedicate the treatise to some good and pious men, in particular to those by whose help and effort someone had begun his studies and to those who should take the merit of the result of the studies. In 1615 a respondent Jonas Halvardi Fergelandus in a dissertation in De definitione virtutis moralis used similar words: Eo autem cum spectaret animus, ut eam iuxta morem Academicum receptum et probatum, typis subjicerem, doctisque ac 8  Hansson S., “Afsatt på swensko”. 1600-talets tryckta översättningslitteratur (Göteborg: 1982) 111– 112. Cf. von Platen M., Yrkesskalder – fanns dom? Om tillfällespoeternas försörjningsförmåga (Stockholm: 1985) 40. 9  Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Aland Magnus Magni (Resp.), Disputatio ordinaria theologica XIV. de fide (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1612).

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

689

piis quibusdam viris inscriberem (‘He started to think about, as was customary at the academy, to send the text to the printer and to dedicate it to some learned and pious men’).10 The dedicatees, no less than 14 in number, are chosen because of great favours that had been granted by them to the respondent (ob immensa beneficia accepta). In a dissertation De sensibus exterioribus et interioribus (‘On the outward and inward senses’), defended by Jonas Bergius in 1615, the respondent likewise wrote that it pleased him to dedicate his treatise to good men, when he sent it to the printer, in accordance with the established custom.11 When the tradition a bit later has really been established, it is no longer necessary to stress that there is a tradition and custom, and this kind of statements disappear. Moreover, if dissertations were usually dedicated in gratitude of previous assistance, as in one of the previous examples, they were sometimes so also as a kind of request for future assistance. We see that, for instance, in Laurentius Chesnecopherus’s dedication in the dissertation De mundo (‘On the world’) from 1620, made to the hereditary prince Charles Philip, Duke of Södermanland. Some people will surely be surprised, Chesnechopherus starts, to see that this small treatise is dedicated to the prince and wonder why. But he only wishes to express his great humility and submission. If the prince accepts this honour, and embraces the respondent with his favour and mercy, he will ensure that this mercy shall never be regretted.12 The dedication is here, it seems, a way to approach a noble man, probably for both monetary and professional reasons, by promising future loyalty. Talking about the obligatory modesty and submission, this is of course a topos that can much be explained by differences in hierarchy and age. The dedicators are usually younger and students, while the dedicatees are wellestablished in society and of higher rank. This submission, however, does not 10  Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Fergelandus Jonas Halvardi (Resp.), Disputationum philosophiae moralis, tertia, de definitione virtutis moralis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1615). 11  ‘Et cum iuxta morem academicum introductum et receptum typis hanc demandarem, viris probis eandem consecrare placuit’. Holmedal Andreas Torsten (Pr.) – Bergius Johan, (Resp.), Disputatio physica de sensibus exterioribus et interioribus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1615). 12  ‘Mirabitur forsan, ac non immerito […] quid sibi perbreves hae Celsitudini vestrae inscriptae Theses velint […] Ego vero Princeps illustrissime, Thesibus hisce nihil aliud quaero, quam ut animi mei submissionem inclytae Celsitud. Vestrae declarem […] hasce Theses Physicas de Mundo offero, submisse rogans, ut eas illustrissima V. Celsitudo sereno vultu et animo benigno suscipiat. Quod si V. Cel. fecerit, meque suo favore et clementia complexa fuerit, efficiam profecto (adjuvante Deo) ne unquam Celsit. Vestram suae in me clementiae paeniteat’. Chesnecoperus Johannes (Pr.) – Chesnecopherus Laurentius Nicolai (Resp.), Disputatio physica de mundo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1620).

690

Sjökvist

necessarily mean that the respondent always thinks his treatise is useless and without value, although this is often stressed, especially compared to the great name of the dedicatee. In Johannes Botvidi’s dissertation De praedestinatione (‘On predestination’) from 1617, for instance, which has the foremost possible dedicatee, King Gustavus II Adolphus himself, we read: Quanvis autem quod offero, perexiguum, satisque si pagellas numeremus abjectum sit, non tamen ingratum confide, cum res maximas, Ecclesiae Christi hisce deploratis temporibus ad aedificationem, et veritatis coelestis propagationem, utiles contineat. Rogo itaque, qua possum subjectione, ut V. R. M. id serena fronte excipiat, et me meaque studia sibi commendata habeat.13 Although what I offer is tiny and worthless enough if we count the pages, I am sure that it will not be unpleasant, since it contains very useful subjects, for the building of the church of Christ in these deplorable times, and for the propagation of the heavenly truth. I therefore ask, with all humility that I am capable of, that Your Royal Majesty receives this with a serene gaze, and considers me and my studies to be recommended to him. This is a self-conscious man speaking. It is true that he was not an ordinary student. He was 42 years old, already a learned man, and defended his theses under the presidency of God himself for the degree of doctor of theology. Three years later Botvidi was also asked by the king to write a dissertation on the question whether the Russians were Christians or not, and to lead a disputation on it in Uppsala in the presence of the King himself.14 In another case, however, in Petrus Bjugg’s metaphysical dissertation De potentia et actu (‘On potency and performance’) from 1612, the respondent starts his dedicatory text by saying how awkward it could seem to dedicate a metaphysical dissertation to such important men taking care of the affairs of the country as Axel Oxenstierna, Johan Skytte and Petrus Andreae. It can be compared to offering an excellent sword to a priest, or a splendid book to a soldier.15 Also this appears to be a rather self-confident modesty speaking. 13  Botvidi Johannes, Disputatio de praedestinatione. Erroribus Johannis Calvini opposita (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617). 14  Botvidi Johannes (Pr.) – Prytz Andreas Johannis (Resp.), Theses de quaestione, utrum Muschovitae sint Christiani? (Stockholm, Reusner: 1620). 15  ‘Non sum nescius […] fautores colendi, vobis in luce atque oculis totius patriae positis, et de Reipub. Negociis satagentibus, has Philosophicas exercitationes, minus apposite

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

691

The second dissertation to be printed at Uppsala that is still extant was so three years after the first, in 1605 (a problem here is that not all dissertations have been preserved, so we cannot be sure about the exact number).16 This one was also submitted under the presidency of Elias Magni Rhalambius, and several things have developed here. On the title page we meet many more details than in the previous one, details that would then be typical for dissertations during the entire early modern period. We see the name of the university, date and time of the public defense, the title of the professor and the geographical origin of the respondent. The dedication, however, is very much simpler, covering only one page. Of the previously mentioned functions, expressing gratitude for monetary aid is likely to be principal here, but separated on two different dedicatees. The first is a nobleman from the same native region as the respondent, an Arvid Henric de Sillewijk, who is called ‘fautor’ and ‘Maecenas’, the second is the respondent’s own father. The dedication is made as a token of grateful remembrance (‘memoris gratitudinis monimentum’). Their names of course lend authority to the publication as well. From 1610, and onwards, the amount of printed dissertations increases very much, but we do not find dedications in all of them. The next dedications in dissertations that I have found are all from 1611, and show a strikingly different dedicatory pattern than the previous ones. What we often find here is a kind of list of dedicatees, which will be frequently occurring in the following decades. Especially in the dissertations originating in the private college of Johannes Rudbeckius, who was also a professor at the academy, this is the dominant kind of dedication. I will here only discuss four examples, however, all from 1611.17 In these are listed five names or more. The receivers are most often clergymen, but some people in secular offices are addressed as well. The convenire. Quemadmodum enim is qui gladium eximium sacerdoti, vel elegantem librum militi donat, cogruentia personis parum attendit’. Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Bjugg Petrus Jonae (Resp.), Disputatio solennis metaphysica, de potentia et actu (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1612). 16  Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Niurenius Olaus Petri (Resp.), Problemata aliquot physica (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1605). 17  Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Salomonsson Olav (Resp.), Disputatio prooemalis […] de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Nurcherus Simonsson Carl (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica, ordinaria secunda, de definitione et distributione logices (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Paulinus Eric (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica ordinaria quinta de enunciatione (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Raumannus Johannes Sveno (Pr.) – Fegreus Harald (Resp.), Theses de praedestinatione filiorum Dei (Stockholm, Anundus Olai: 1611).

692

Figure 26.4

Sjökvist

Dedication by Olaus Petri Niurenius in Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Niurenius Olaus Petri (Resp.), Problemata aliquot physica (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1605), fol. A1v Photo: Uppsala University Library

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

693

final clause in all four cases thanks the dedicatees in their capacity of ‘fautores’ and ‘Maecenates’. When pinpointing the functions of these dedications, it would of course be wrong to focus merely on one. We should probably assume that all three abovementioned functions (protection, authorization, monetary and professional aid) are always relevant, together with a general networking intention. And certainly the respondent could then benefit from dedicating the dissertation to a lot of people. More people would mean more protection, more monetary and professional aid, and more networking. Nevertheless, I think that the respondent primarily dedicated the dissertation to several people in these cases in order to raise money enough for the printing expenses. It should be added here, within parentheses, since the social perspective is here in focus, that it also becomes a common feature in dedications in dissertations during the 1610s to shortly deal with the subject of the main text; to introduce it, to discuss it, and to explain why it is worth a treatment of the kind that has now been printed. Far from all dedications have this discussion, but when they do, they end with the usual expressions of gratitude, humility and hope of a good and prosperous life for the dedicatee. These abovementioned lists during the first years usually contain between five and ten names of dedicatees, with rather short and standardized opening and ending clauses, where ‘fautor’ and ‘Maecenas’ are the common appellations. And the dedicatees are fewer as they are nobler and wealthier. In these cases there is usually no real dedicatory text, but exceptions occur. With time, however, the number of dedicatees strongly increases. We find, for instance, fourteen names in a dissertation from 1615,18 together with a dedicatory text covering two pages. In 1617, however, something drastic occurs. In De definitione et distributione philosophiae (‘On the definition and distribution of philosophy’), defended under Jonas Magni, we find no less than 35 dedicatees, divided into two different groups.19 The first group contains clergymen, starting with the bishop Jonas Kylander, who is addressed as ‘Maecenas’ and ‘promotor’, and continuing with 15 ministers of lower rank in the same diocese in the respondent’s native region. The second contains important secular addressees, starting with Duke John of Östergötland, who in contrast to the bishop is not addressed with the word ‘Maecenas’ and ‘promotor’, and continuing with officials of lower rank. In the final clause, the respondent states that he dedicates his dissertation to all these 18  Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Fergelandus Jonas Halvardi (Resp.), Disputationum philosophiae moralis, tertia, de definitione virtutis moralis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1615). 19  Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617).

694

Figure 26.5

Sjökvist

Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), fol. A1v Photo: Uppsala University Library

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

Figure 26.6

695

Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), fol. A2r Photo: Uppsala University Library

696

Figure 26.7

Sjökvist

Dedication by Andreas Erici Boreus in Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617), fol. A2v Photo: Uppsala University Library

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

697

‘patres, energetes, Maecenas, praeceptores, promotores, fratres’ and ‘amici’ with a certain hope that they shall help him in his career. Although 35 is an extreme number, the phenomenon recurs constantly during the following years. If we for instance focus on the 50 dissertations that were defended under the presidency of Laurentius Olai Wallius, most of them in the 1620s, we can see that the average number of dedicatees is seven or eight. Six dissertations lack dedications completely, and 19 have ten or more dedicatees. In De mari, fluviis et fontibus, by Daniel Jonae Kylander, under the presidency of Martin Gestrinius, defended at the end of 1632, we find 33 dedicatees and a dedicatory text.20 Defended under yet another prases was the dissertation De constitutione codicis sacri (‘On the constitution of the Holy Bible’) from the end of May in 1633, which counts 26 names.21 Then suddenly the abovementioned professor Laurentius Olai Wallius took up the duty of being Vice-Chancellor at the university for six months. And this was an angry man; his fights with other professors are well-known. Gustavus II Adolphus could stop one of them only after having threatened with death penalty. During Wallius’s time as vice-chancellor he wrote no less than six academic programs in which he complained on the life of the students, for their misconduct during the depositions act, for their drinking and fornication.22 In the first, however, he expressed his disgust with how the students dedicated their poetry and dissertations. Testatum hoc relinquunt studiosorum, falso ita dictorum, quorundam turpes mendicandi technae, cum illorum alii oratiunculas, alii disputationes, alii carmina, Rythmos et cantilenas alii, alii aliud et nescimus quid utcunque scribentes praelo committant, viris bonis inscribant, omnem fere chartam nominibus referciant, imo ter vel quater, ne dicamus octies aut fere saepius, ejusdem materiae furtim et insciis officinarum Typographicarum inspectoribus quandoque varient dedicationem, ut numerosa sit eorum copia, ex quibus non tantum pecuniam exagitant, sed insuper omni sine fronte extorqueant. Unde multis non solum oneri et molestiae, verum etiam taedio et maximo impedimento esse hactenus 20  Gestrinius Martin (Pr.) – Kylander Daniel Jonae (Resp.), Disputationem hydrographicam de mari, fluviis et fontibus […] (Uppsala, Eschillius Matthiae: 1632). 21  Jonae Sveno (Pr.) – Sunthius Gustavus Erici (Resp.), Disquisitionum philologica sacrarum de interpretatione et stylo scripturae s. prima de constitutione codicis sacri (Uppsala, Eschillius Matthiae: 1633). 22  Concerning Wallius’s programs, see further Sjökvist P., Mot depositionsaktens grymheter. Ett akademiskt program av Laurentius Olai Wallius från 1633. Utgåva, med översättning, inledning och kommentar (Uppsala: 2015).

698

Sjökvist

consueverunt. Quin etiam istis suis dedicationibus, eam viris item bonis bonisque literis ac literatis unice caeteroquin faventibus, nauseam crearunt, ut judicaverint praecipue Poëticam hacpropter prorsus abiiciendam, quae nihilominus neutiquam abiicienda est, quia si multi abuntur poëtica, non protinus abiicienda, sed adhibenda cautio, ut fiat salutaris, aiente gravissimo scriptore Plutarcho.23 Some shameful students, as some of them decide to print speeches, others dissertations, others poems, others music and songs, others other things, and I do not know what ever they write, they dedicate them to honourable men, and fill almost the entire document with names, yes three or four, not to say eight or almost even more than that, they sometimes alter the dedication of the same material secretly without the knowledge of the inspectors of the printing houses, so that their amount is numerous, from whom they not only rouse money, but in addition they wrench it out headlessly. Therefore they have until now usually been not only a burden and annoying for many people, but also disgusting and of great hindrance. Yes they have even created disgust by their dedications, and this even to honourable men who otherwise especially favour literature and learned men, so that they consider that poetry in particular should be completely rejected because of this, which nevertheless by no means should be rejected, since if many abuse poetry, it should not be completely rejected, but caution should be taken, so that it becomes sound, as the very authoritative writer Plutarch says. According to Wallius, the students dedicate in this manner, by having long lists of dedicatees and by changing dedicatees, in order to earn as much money as possible. This is of course a confirmation of the assumption that a dedication demanded economical compensation, but also that the long lists were a conscious method with which the students tried to increase their income. Wallius, however, here also mentions another way by which students could increase their income from dedications, viz. by having different dedicatees in different copies within the same issue. Investigating the correctness of such a statement would demand going through many copies of every dissertation, to whenever there are differences. And this has been beyond the scope of this article. I have, however, seen that phenomenon occur in a dissertation on the musical modes defended in 1686 under the presidency of Harald Vallerius, 23  Wallius Laurentius Olai, Laurentius Olai Wallius, Nericiensis […] Veneranda cathedralia et amplissima consistoria […] plurimum et amanter salutat […] (Uppsala: [1633]).

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

699

where copies in the same issue contained two different dedications. One had a dedication to a merchant in Stockholm, and the other to a group of clergymen in Linköping diocese. Some copies did not have any dedication at all.24 Considering the fact that a considerable group of dissertations that I have gone through from the first three decades of the 17th century lacked a dedication, and had a blank page on the verso of the title leaf, we could suspect that this page could be used precisely for this purpose. Here the respondent could print different dedications in different copies, in order to increase the income. He could also write a handwritten inscription there, of course. So did the dedicatory practices change with Wallius’s program? Well, not immediately. The number of dedicatees continues to be high. A dissertation with 17 addressees is published already in 1634, for instance.25 And Wallius himself is one of the addressees in an oration with many names that was printed the same year.26 We can also suspect that we see the reasons why the custom did not change in what seems to be reactions to Wallius’s program. In a dedication in the gymnasial dissertation De natura (‘On nature’), defended in Västerås, and published only one month after the program by Petrus Olai, but printed in Uppsala by Eschillus Matthiae, this is most evident.27 The addressees are five, and in the dedicatory text the respondent writes: Quamvis nullus ignorem venditari hodie dedicationes complurium scriptorum ad eliciendam pecuniam, quam novimus quidem esse necessariam studiorum suppellectilem, vix tamen facit introducta haec consuetudo ut evitando suspicionem petacitatis theses hae nullis inscribantur. Cogitanti itaque quo potissimum hoc exercitio eam ne communis hujus vitii suspectus esse debeam, vos occurritis, qui exercitia mea unice amatis et vobis grata esse significatis. Ut enim sanguine mihi estis propiores ita vestra sponte in sublevanda rerum mearum difficultate semper adfuistis, nec dubito in posterum facturos si facto opus erit.

24  S jökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from 17th-Century Sweden (Uppsala: 2012) 289. 25  Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Sucyraeus Carolus Stephani (Resp.), Theses physicae de elementis in specie (Uppsala, Petrus E. Waldius: 1634). 26  Moderus Smolandus Jonas Laurentii, Oratio de gratitudine (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1634). 27  Benedicti Simon (Pr.) – Olai Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio physica de natura (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae, 1633). I thank Dr. Axel Hörstedt for having made me aware of this dedication.

700

Sjökvist

Although I am aware that the dedications of many authors are nowadays sold in order to elicit money, which we indeed know is necessary in order to finance the studies, this established custom nevertheless does not mean that these theses are not dedicated to anyone in order to avoid suspicion of greed. You, who cherish my studies in a special way and who show that these are appreciated by you, you now meet me when I am considering how I should act with this exercise, lest I will be suspected for this common vice. For since you are relatives to me, you have always voluntarily helped me to ease the difficulties in my living. Neither I hesitate that you will do so in the future if it is necessary. Most students lived a hard and poor life.28 What Petrus Olai writes is that he is aware of the abuse of the dedicatory system, but that he cannot but take the opportunity to dedicate his dissertation to a several people, in order to finance his studies and to afford the printing of the dissertation. In another case, from December 1633,29 however, the respondent explicitly denounces economical profit from dedications. His mind is not for sale. Seemingly, Wallius’s criticism met reality in this text by Petrus Olai. People realized that the dedicatory system was misused, but felt forced to continue, not since they wanted to become rich, but since they were so very poor. In the long run however, these dedicatory lists disappear. I have not seen any from the 18th century, for instance. Be that as it may, in the dedications in early dissertations at Uppsala, protection, authorization, and monetary and professional aid are seemingly what the respondents request or thank the dedicatees for. The dedicator’s modesty is an obligatory topos, but not necessarily without self-confidence. At a certain point, the subject of the dissertation starts to be discussed in the dedications as well. In these respects dedications in Uppsala are very similar to dedications in general, I presume. But the dedicatory list, which eventually meets the explicit disgust of an angry professor, how common is it? I know that it occurs in dedications in dissertations in Tartu, but that university was a sister of Uppsala. I still wonder if it is a rather Swedish phenomenon.

28  Cf. von Platen, Yrkeskalder – fanns dom? 23. 29  Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Andreae Daniel (Resp.), Dissertatio practica de temperantia (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1633).

Dedicatory Practices in Early Uppsala Dissertations

701

Bibliography Benedicti Simon (Pr.) – Olai Petrus (Resp.), Disputatio physica de natura (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1633). Botvidi Johannes, Disputatio de praedestinatione. Erroribus Johannis Calvini opposita (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617). Botvidi Johannes (Pr.) – Prytz Andreas Johannis (Resp.), Theses de quaestione, utrum Muschovitae sint Christiani? (Stockholm, Reusner: 1620). Chesnecoperus Johannes (Pr.) – Chesnecopherus Laurentius Nicolai (Resp.), Disputatio physica de mundo (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1620). Enenkel K.A.E., “Reciprocal Authorisation. The Function of Dedications and Dedicatory Prefaces in the 15th- and 16th-Century ’Artes Antiquitatis’”, in Bossuyt I. – Gabriëls N. – Sacré D. – Verbeke D. (eds.), “Cui dono lepidum novum libellum?” Dedicating Latin Works and Motets in the Sixteenth Century (Leuven: 2008) 35–47. Enenkel K.A.E., Die Stiftung von Autorschaft in der neulateinischen Literatur (ca. 1350 – ca. 1650). Zur autorisierenden und wissensvermittelnden Funktion von Widmungen, Vorworttexten, Autorporträts und Dedikationsbildern (Leiden: 2015). Gestrinius Martin (Pr.) – Kylander Daniel Jonae (Resp.), Disputationem hydrographicam de mari, fluviis et fontibus […] (Uppsala, Eschillius Matthiae: 1632). Hansson S., “Afsatt på swensko”. 1600-talets tryckta översättningslitteratur (Göteborg: 1982). Helander H., Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620–1720. Stylistics, Vocabulary and Characteristic Ideas (Uppsala: 2004). Holmedal Andreas Torsten (Pr.) – Bergius Johan (Resp.), Disputatio physica de sensibus exterioribus et interioribus (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1615). Jonae Sveno (Pr.) – Tolfstadius Laurentius (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica de voluntate humana (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1623). Jonae Sveno (Pr.) – Sunthius Gustavus Erici (Resp.), Disquisitionum philologica sacrarum de interpretatione et stylo scripturae s. prima de constitutione codicis sacri (Uppsala, Eschillius Matthiae: 1633). Klemming G.E. – Nordin J.G., Svensk boktryckeri-historia 1483–1883 med inledande allmän översigt (Stockholm: 1883). Loccenius Johannes (Pr.) – Andreae Daniel (Resp.), Dissertatio practica de temperantia (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1633). Moderus Smolandus Jonas Laurentii, Oratio de gratitudine (Uppsala: Eschillus Matthiae: 1634). Raumannus Johannes Sveno (Pr.) – Fegreus Harald (Resp.), Theses de praedestinatione filiorum Dei (Stockholm, Anundus Olai: 1611).

702

Sjökvist

Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Moderus Sveno Ionae (Resp.), Propositiones nonnullae de artium liberalium causis ex praestantium philosophorum monumentis collectae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1602). Rhalambius Elias Magni (Pr.) – Niurenius Olaus Petri (Resp.), Problemata aliquot physica (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1605). von Platen M., Yrkesskalder – fanns dom? Om tillfällespoeternas försörjningsförmåga (Stockholm: 1985). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Nurcherus Simonsson Carl (Resp.), Disputatio philo­ sophica, ordinaria secunda, de definitione et distributione logices (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Paulinus Eric (Resp.), Disputatio philosophica ordinaria quinta de enunciatione (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Salomonsson Olav (Resp.), Disputatio prooemalis […] de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1611). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Aland Magnus Magni (Resp.), Disputatio ordinaria theologica XIV. de fide (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1612). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Bjugg Petrus Jonae (Resp.), Disputatio solennis meta­ physica, de potentia et actu (Stockholm, Andreas Gutterwitz: 1612). Sjökvist P., The Music Theory of Harald Vallerius. Three Dissertations from 17th-Century Sweden (Uppsala: 2012). Sjökvist P., Mot depositionsaktens grymheter. Ett akademiskt program av Laurentius Olai Wallius från 1633. Utgåva, med översättning, inledning och kommentar (Uppsala: 2015). Stalenus Johannes Laurentii (Pr.) – Sucyraeus Carolus Stephani (Resp.), Theses physicae de elementis in specie (Uppsala, Petrus E. Waldius: 1634). Tideman Gerhard (Pr.) – Wolfius Hinric (Resp.), Illustrium quaestionum theologicarum decas (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1624). Wallius Laurentius Olai, Laurentius Olai Wallius, Nericiensis […] Veneranda cathedralia et amplissima consistoria […] plurimum et amanter salutat […] (Uppsala: [1633]). Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Fergelandus Jonas Halvardi (Resp.), Disputationum philosophiae moralis, tertia, de definitione virtutis moralis (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1615). Wexionensis Jonas Magni (Pr.) – Boreus Andreas Erici (Resp.), Disputatio de definitione et distributione philosophiae (Uppsala, Eschillus Matthiae: 1617).

Chapter 27

Disputing and Writing Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius’ Περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς (Uppsala, 1658) Tua Korhonen Summary The 1626 statutes of the University of Uppsala declared that disputations and orations could be held in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. At least 20 dissertations were written entirely in Greek and published between 1627 and 1688 in the universities and gymnasia of the Swedish Empire. Besides four Greek dissertations, which were published in Swedish Gymnasia, there are 23 manuscripts of dissertations from the Västerås Gymnasium between 1659–1670. The university dissertations were almost solely contributions by two Greek professors, Henricus Ausius in Uppsala (five during 1648–1658) and Johannes Gezelius (Sr.) in Tartu, Estonia (nine or ten during 1644–1647), in a sense that they were also written by these professors. This article first lists the Greek dissertations and discusses then briefly the background to writing long Greek treatises like dissertations. After that, the focus is moved on Petrus Aurivillius’ dissertation on virtue (1658) supervised by Ausius. Aurivillius later become the professor of Greek in Uppsala. Περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς is an ambitious enterprise using Classical authors, especially, of course, Aristotle. By comparing the manuscript of the dissertation with the published version, this article examines the publication process of Greek dissertations and claims that Aurivillius was the main writer of the dissertation and not his supervisor, professor Ausius.

Olaus Plantin, a Swedish priest, published his Hellas sub Arcto in Wittenberg in 1736, in which he presented Swedes as meritorious in their knowledge of the (ancient) Greek language. Among other things, he states that ‘northern Muses’ delight in ‘disputationibus praeterea, Graece conscriptis, eademque lingva utrinque impugnatis et defensi’. Plantin mentions Johannes Gezelius the Elder as a supervisor of Greek dissertations and gives the titles of four presided by Henricus Ausius.1 In this paper, I will briefly list all the known Greek disserta1  Plantin Olaus, Vindemiola literaria, in qua Hellas sub Arcto, sive merita Svecorum in linguam Graecan brevissime et modeste exponuntur (Wittenberg, Zimmermannus: 1736) 77–78;

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_028

704

Korhonen

tions from the Swedish Empire – the era of Swedish expansion during the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries – before concentrating on analysing one Greek dissertation based on Aristotle’s ethical works containing several references to classical authors. Published in 1658, this most ambitious Greek dissertation on a non-theological subject printed in ‘Great Sweden’ is a case in point due to the coincidence that its manuscript is also preserved. 1

Greek Dissertations from the Swedish Universities and the Language of the Disputations

The 1626 statutes of the University of Uppsala declared that disputations and orations could be held in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.2 Besides the medieval university of Uppsala, which was re-founded as a Protestant University in 1593 and reorganized in 1610, the statutes also concerned the three universities founded in the 17th century in Tartu, Turku and Lund.3 At least 20 dissertations were written entirely in Greek and published between 1627 and 1688 in the universities and gymnasia of the Swedish Empire. Greek dissertations were almost solely contributions of the above-mentioned two professors, Ausius in Uppsala (five during 1648–1658) and Gezelius in Tartu (nine or ten during 1644–1647). Both Turku (Finland) and Lund were short of Greek dissertations: only one from Turku (1688) and none from Lund. Furthermore, at least four Greek dissertations were published in Swedish Gymnasia (1627, 1650, 1668, 1671).4 In general, the Nordic dissertations were influenced by German practice.5 One train of influence for Greek dissertations was obviously the one responded Korhonen T., “The dissertations in Greek supervised by Henrik Ausius in Uppsala in the middle of the seventeenth century”, in Päll J. – Volt I. – Steinrück M. (eds.), Classical tradition from the 16th century to Nietzsche, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 3 (Tartu: 2010) 92, n. 16. 2  Korhonen, “The dissertations” 89. 3  Greifswald belonged to Sweden from 1648 to 1815. However, the University of Greifswald kept its own constitution. 4  There were at least five dissertations written in Hebrew; see Lidén Johan Henrik, Catalogus disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae […]. Sectio I: Disputationes Upsalienses (Uppsala, Edman: 1778) 301–303. One of them is the short dissertation, which was supervised by Johannes Lambergius in 1649; the respondent was Jordanus Edenius. See Annerstedt C., Uppsala universitets historia I: 1477–1654 (Uppsala: 1877) 392. 5  Klinge M. et al. (eds.), Helsingfors universitet 1640–1990 I: Kungliga akademien i Abo 1640–1808 (Helsinki: 1988) 384. On German dissertations (disputation practice, authorship questions etc.), see Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016), especially articles

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

705

by Gabriel Holstenius at Halle City Gymnasium in 1620. After returning to Sweden, Holstenius became Greek teacher at the Västerås Gymnasium and supervised a Greek dissertation in 1627. Later on, his nephew Ericus Holstenius was both a respondent and supervisor of Greek dissertations in Tartu. Moreover, Gezelius studied at the Västerås Gymnasium when the German-educated Gabriel Holstenius worked there as a teacher and Rector.6 Ausius, for his part, might have got his inspiration to supervise Greek dissertations from Gezelius’ example. The title pages, including the printing information, were written entirely in Greek. In the list (named as List A) here – containing the lost ones in brackets – the titles are given in slightly shortened form: List A 1. Gabriel Holstenius (Pr.) – Matthias Erici (Resp.), On courage according to Aristotle (Västerås Gymnasium 1627). 2. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Ericus Harckman (Resp.), The first pneumatological study on the uncreated spirit (Tartu 1644). 3. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Henricus Hiertzelius (Resp.), The second pneumatological study on the created spirit (Tartu 1644). 4. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Laurentius Mellerus (Resp.), The third pneumatological study on the good and evil angels (Tartu 1644). 5. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Ericus Holstenius (Resp.), The fourth pneumatological study on the origin of soul (Tartu 1646). 6. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Christianus Jheringius (Resp.), The fifth pneumatological study on the immortality of the rational soul (Tartu 1646). 7. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Ericus Munthelius (Resp.), The sixth pneumatological study on the potentialities of rational soul separated from body (Tartu 1647). 8. [Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – ? (Resp.), The seventh pneumatological study (Tartu ?).] by Marian Füssel (“Die Praxis der Disputation”) and Michael Philipp (“Konstellationen und Kontexte”). On Greek dissertations published in Germany and Sweden, and on the German influence on the Swedish practice, see Janika Päll’s article in the current volume and its Appendix containing the list of dissertations (with shortened Greek titles) as well as Päll J., “Hyperborean Flowers: Humanist Greek around the Baltic Sea (16th–17th Centuries)”, in Constantinidou N. – Lamers H. (eds.), Receptions of Hellenism in Early Modern Europe: 15th–17th Centuries (Leiden: 2020) 425–427, especially the Table on p. 426. 6  Korhonen T., “Classical Authors and Pneumatological Questions. Greek Dissertations Supervised by Johannes Gezelius the Elder at the University of Tartu (Academia Gustaviana 1644–1647)”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 160–163 and J. Päll’s article in this volume.

706

Korhonen

9.

[Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – ? (Resp.), The eighth pneumatological study (Tartu ?).] 10. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Elias Enochi (1647) The ninth pneumatological study on the blissful life of soul in Heaven (Tartu 1647). 11. [Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – ? (Resp.), The tenth pneumatological study, Tartu ?] 12. Henricus Ausius (Pr.) – Petrus Rezander (Resp.), The education of the young according to Aristotle’s Politics 8.1 (Uppsala 1648). 13. Johannes Gezelius (Pr.) – Johannes Emporagrius (Resp.), Purity of man (Stockholm Gymnasium 1650). 14. Henricus Ausius (Pr.) – Sveno Steen (Resp.), On courage (Uppsala 1650). 15. Henricus Ausius (Pr.) – Johannes Enagrius (Resp.), Civil happiness according to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 1 (Uppsala 1650). 16. Ericus Holstenius (Pr.) – Johannes Sundius (Resp.), On ethical virtue in general (Tartu 1652). 17. Henricus Ausius (Pr.) – Petrus Aurivillius (Resp.), The ethical study on virtue in general (Uppsala 1658). 18. Henricus Ausius (Pr.) – Petrus Stalenus (Resp.), The practical philosophy and some theoretical ponderings (Uppsala 1658).7 19. Andreas Thermaenius (Pr.) – J. Skulth (Resp.), Various topics (Västerås Gymnasium 1668). 20. Simon Paulinus (Pr.) – Georgius Aenelius (Resp.), Shiloh (Turku 1688). 21. Andreas Thermaenius (Pr.) – Johannes Hedemoraeus (Resp.), Miscellaneous theses (Västerås Gymnasium 1671). Besides these published dissertations, there are 23 manuscripts of dissertations (located in Uppsala University Library, U176) supervised by two successive professors of Greek at the Västerås Gymnasium between 1659–1670. They are short (in average four pages long) consisting of questions or theses, which are mostly both in Greek and Latin. The other supervisor, Johannes Sundius, has himself been a respondent of Greek dissertation in Tartu in 1652 (see number 16 in the List A above). The List B includes four which are without the date or names of praeses and respondent: 7  Title pages include the date of the disputation expressed by the months of the old Attic calendar, so it is possible to conclude which one of the dissertations of the same year was defended first. However, No. 18 has the month Poseideôn, which referred to December/January. Early modern lexica and grammars often interpret it as December. So, the date is probably 1658/12/11 not 1658/1/11. I thank Patrik Granholm for information concerning the dissertation number 19 (Thermaenius – Skulth) and Johanna Akujärvi for the gymnasial dissertation number 21 (Thermaenius – Hedemoraeus) and many comments on this list.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

707

List B 1. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Johannes Laurentii Hasselberg (Resp.), Homiletical theses (1659). 2. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Laurentius Ingevaldi Elingius (Resp.), Theses on friendship (1660). 3. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Petrus Andreae Brevichius (Resp.), On education of children (1661). 4. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Samuel Gustavi Himmelsbergius (Resp.), General theses on ethical virtue (1661). 5. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Laurentius Laurentii Arosiensis (Resp.), On Prudence (1662). 6. Petrus Wintherus (Pr.) – Ericus Matthiae (Resp.), On Freedom and Magnificence (1663). 7. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Ericus Laurentii Hedemoraeus (Resp.), Physical theses on cosmos (1663). 8. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Johannes Hellenius (Resp.), Philosophical theses (1663). 9. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Petrus O. Ambigenius (Resp.), Theses on philosophy in general (1664). 10. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Andreas O. Hesselius (Resp.), Philosophical theses (1664). 11. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Ericus Laurentii Hedemoraeus (Resp.), Hagiographical theses (1665). 12. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Andreas O. Hesselius (Resp.), Hagiographical theses (1665). 13. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Petrus O. Ambigenius (Resp.), Hagiographical theses (1666). 14. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Johannes Solenius (Resp.), On the authenticity and translations of the Scriptures (1667). 15. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Johannes Barchius (Resp.), Theological aphorism [1] (1667). 16. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Johannes Hedemoraeus (Resp.), Theological aphorism [2] (1668). 17. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Jacobus Boetius (Resp.), Theological aphorisms [3] (1669). 18. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Daniel Georgii (Resp.), Theological aphorisms [4] (1669). 19. Johannes Sundius (Pr.) – Olaus Monthelius (Resp.), Theological aphorism [5] (1670).

708

Korhonen

20. Sine nominibus, On ethical and theological virtues, similarities and differences (sine anno). 21. Idem. 22. Sine nominibus, On friendship according to Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum analysed in accordance with Aristotle (sine anno). 23. Idem. However, some of these dissertations are identical (No. 12 = No. 13; No. 20 = 21; No. 22 = No. 23) so that the actual number of dissertations is 20.8 The sum of published and unpublished Greek dissertations is then 41. Although the number is tiny compared to the tens of thousands of Latin dissertations, the time-frame of Greek dissertations fits nicely with the peak of the power of the Swedish Empire, an era of great cultural pride in Sweden. The title page of Gezelius’ Greek dissertation disputed at the Stockholm Royal Gymnasium in 1650 (No. 13 in the List A) states that the subject of the dissertation had been ordered by Queen Christina (ἐπὶ τῷ κελεύσματι […] τὴς βασιλίσσης). Two years earlier, the Queen might have even attended the disputation of the Greek dissertation supervised by Ausius at Uppsala (No. 12 in the List A).9 As such, this is not unusual: Swedish noble and royal persons sometimes attended public disputations held in the universities and gymnasia. But if a dissertation was written in Greek, was the disputation held in the same language? Besides Gezelius’ ‘pneumatological’ series, we have 28 title pages of Greek dissertations belonging to Gezelius’ ‘theological series’, all having the same year of publication, 1648. That they were only title pages suggests that they functioned as topics for oral disputations, not written dissertations.10 However, the title page might be in Greek, but the disputations could, of course, be held in Latin. Nevertheless, according to Plantin in the above-mentioned passage of Hellas sub Arcto, dissertations were both disputed and defended in Greek (‘impugno’ and ‘defendere’). If a Greek dissertation was not only written (usually by a professor) but also orally disputed (by opponents) and defended (by a respondent) in Greek, it would obviously have demanded an incredibly good command of Greek. Some Swedish scholars of that time, like Johannes Rudbeckius (1581–1646), had solid confidence in the possibilities of acquiring an active 8  Although they have proper title-pages, invocations included, there is no evidence that these dissertations were ever published. On numbers 20–23, see J. Päll’s article in this volume, p. 747 and 772. 9  Korhonen T., “Christina of Sweden and her knowledge of Greek”, Arctos 43 (2009) 53–54. Lidén, Catalogus 53. 10  Korhonen, “Classical Authors” 169–170, for the subjects of these dissertations see 169 n26.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

709

knowledge of Greek. Rudbeckius studied first at Uppsala, then in Germany, matriculating at Wittenberg in 1603. He was appointed professor of Greek and Hebrew at Uppsala in 1606, then bishop of Västerås in 1619, where, in 1623, he founded the very gymnasium where the above-mentioned Gabriel Holstenius supervised the first Greek dissertation of Sweden and which Gezelius attended and where the unpublished Greek-Latin dissertations were defended (the List B above). Before moving to Västerås, Rudbeckius had kept a short-term private collegium (Collegium Rudbeckianum) in Uppsala during 1610–13, where Greek instruction had a remarkable place compared to the general curriculum in Swedish universities and gymnasia; that is, besides New Testament Greek, Euripides’ Cyclops, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Demosthenes’ first Olynthiac speech were also read. Moreover, Rudbeckius supervised writing exercises in Greek and it is said that he even spoke in Greek with his students.11 Due to the influence of Rudbeckius’ collegium, the school order of 1611 included writing exercises in Greek, but there is no mention of conversation exercises.12 However, the new statutes for Uppsala university in 1655 instructed Greek professors to give writing and oral exercises (‘declamatio’ and ‘disputatio’).13 Conversing in Greek could have been seen as an ideal. In 1639, the tutor of the Lord High Chancellor of Sweden, Count Axel Oxenstierna’s son Erik reported in a letter to the Count that 15-year-old Erik had learned both to read and speak Greek, French and Italian.14 In Tartu, Johannes Gezelius published a (koinê) Greek translation of Jan Comenius’ encyclopaedic textbook for learning languages (Janua linguarum reserata aurea, 1631) by the name Janua linguae Graecae (1648). On the title page it is stated that ‘primum privatis exercitiis destinata, jam vero in gratiam φιλελλήνων, quos Graece scribendi, loquendi ac disputandi desiderium tenet’. The book was dedicated to the above-mentioned Erik Oxenstierna, the then 24-year-old Governor of Estonia. In his dedication, Gezelius states that this book will make possible ‘intra paucos menses ex Cathedra Graece dicere et ad quamcumque propositam materiam respondere’. In Turku in 1668, Gezelius – who was appointed bishop of Turku – published the Greek discussion manual written by the Rostock Greek Professor 11  P  alm J., “Griechisch”, in Carlsson L. (ed.), Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: Linguistic and Philology (Stockholm: 1976) 35. Lagus V., Studier i den klassiska språkundervisningens historie i Finland (Helsinki: 1890) 18–19. 12  Korhonen, T., Ateena Auran rannoilla. Humanistikreikkaa Kuninkaallisesta Turun akatemiasta (Helsinki 2004) 84; Hanho J.T., Suomen oppikoululaitoksen historia I: Ruotsin vallan aika (Helsinki: 1948) 24–25, 215–218; Lagus, Studier 21. 13  Schybergson C.M., “1655 års universitetskonstituioner i översättning”, Åbo Akademis årsskrift (1918) 225. Korhonen, Ateena 375. 14  Annerstedt C., Uppsala universitets historia. Bihang I, Handlingar 1477–1654 (Uppsala: 1877) 365–367 (No. 111).

710

Korhonen

Johannes Posselius the Elder (1587). In sum, some professors may have encouraged students not only to write in Greek but also to speak Greek, although oral disputations in Greek were quite improbable in Sweden. However, to sprinkle Greek words and phrases among spoken Latin – and sometimes even among the vernacular – was a common practice. Unlike Gezelius’ Greek dissertations, which discuss pneumatological and theological subjects with classical allusions coming sometimes from secondary sources,15 Ausius’ Greek dissertations contain more varied allusions to classical authors and in general manifest the mid-century neo-Aristotelianism with an excessive use of Aristotle’s works and method of analysis. This is already evident from the titles of two dissertations (No. 12 and No. 15 in the List A above). Unlike Gezelius, Ausius (1603–1659) had studied abroad as well, namely in Oxford and Leiden. He was appointed professor of Greek in 1640, a post he held until his death. The unpublished Greek-Latin dissertations (1659–1670) from Västerås gymnasium do include non-theological subjects, but they contain almost no references to classical authors.16 Regardless of writing exercises, we may suppose that, as with Latin dissertations, Greek dissertations were mostly written by professors. However, in the case of Ausius, the last two (Nos. 17 and 18, List A) were probably written by the respondents. Both were published in 1658, the first in May, the second in December. The respondent of the last one, Petrus Stalenus, characterized himself as ‘author and respondent’ (‘Auth. et Resp.’) in the signature of his dedication. The penultimate disputation is the longest, consisting of 22 pages. Its respondent Petrus Aurivillius later followed Ausius as professor of Greek at Uppsala. 2

Petrus Aurivillius as a Writer of Greek

Aurivillius (1637–1677) was the son of a pastor in Knutby, near Uppsala, and was enrolled in the University at the age of thirteen. Eight years later (1658) he defended his Greek dissertation and after a few years two dissertations in Latin: on Augsburg Confession presided by Ericus Odhelius, the professor of 15  Korhonen, “The Dissertations” 177–178. Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Rahvusarhiivi toimetised. Acta et commentationes archivi nationalis Estoniae. Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust 1, 32 (Tartu: 2017) 182–237. 16  Numbers 3 and 20–23 are the exceptions (the List B above) with their references to Plutarch, Isocrates and Aristotle.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

711

theology, in 1660, and on ‘Seven miscellaneous theses’ supervised by another professor of theology, Olaus Unonius, in 1661, the latter dissertation being ‘pro Gradus Philosophici honoribus’. In 1663, he delivered a Greek funerary oration on behalf of two sons of the prominent Swedish noble family De La Gardie, the title page bearing the titulus ‘student of theology’. In July of the same year he began his peregrinatio academica visiting Wittenberg, Leipzig, Jena, and Helmstedt, among other German cities, as well as Holland, returning nearly a year later, in August 1664.17 Aurivillius continued his studies in the ‘higher’ faculty of theology after his matriculation in the philosophical faculty and disputed on a theological subject (Laurentius Stigzelius, an ardent Aristotelian, was praeses) in 1665 and was then appointed as adjunct of the theological faculty. Four years later he became a professor of logic and metaphysics (1668) and finally the professor of Greek as well as professor extraordinarius of theology in 1674. Because of his early death at the age of 40, he worked as the professor of Greek for only three years.18 Aurivillius was a prolific academian: besides being a respondent for four dissertations as a student, he supervised 50 dissertations in his brief career as a professor (1670–77).19 The topics of the dissertations were various, not just logic and classical philology. Thus he presided over dissertations on the three phases of the Platonic Academy (1672), on Aristotle’s theology (1670) and on the Epicurean concept of pleasure (1676). He discussed Homer’s theology (De theologia Homeri) in his inaugural speech for the Greek professorship in 1674. Apart from dissertations, Aurivillius wrote a textbook on logic (Elementa logicae peripateticae) in 1672, which had its sixth publication in the 1690s and was still republished six more times during the next century. Besides (and because of) this work, Aurivillius is remembered in the Swedish history of science as an ‘unyielding Aristotelic dialectician’, being a part of the neo-Aristotelian movement, which argued against Ramism (Ramistic logic) on the one hand and the rising Cartesianism on the other.20 17  Aurivillius’ Album Amicorum contains names from his peregrinatio. The Stammbuch is digitised in the database ALVIN (http://www.alvin-portal.org) by the Library of the University of Uppsala. 18  Nelson A., Svenskt biografiskt lexikon 2 (Stockholm: 1920) s.v.; Andersson, A.; Uppsala Universitets matrikel 3: 1650–1665 (Uppsala: 1902) 124; Lidén, Catalogus 457 (wrong year for Stigzelius–Aurivillius dissertation). 19  See the database LIBRIS for the union catalogue of the Swedish university libraries (https:/libris.kb.se). 20  Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria 2: stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975) 138. For editions of Aurivillius’ Elementa, see LIBRIS (https:/libris.kb.se).

712

Korhonen

But Aurivillius was known for his active knowledge of Greek too. He was 16 years old when he published his first Greek occasional verse, a poem of congratulation to his ‘compatriot’ Johannes Mostadius, who defended a dissertation supervised by Isaacus Isthmenius in 1653. Besides this, Aurivillius wrote at least 21 other short congratulatory texts in Greek for dissertations. Furthermore, he composed a Greek poem of congratulation for an inauguration – to the abovementioned Stigzelius on his installment as rector in 1667,21 a propempticon to Axel Oxenstierna in 1671 and a congratulatory poem (16 eleg.) to his student, Andreas Liedbergh congratulating him for his oration on the memory of Ebba Brahe De La Gardie in 1674.22 Thus, Aurivillius wrote 24 occasional poems in Greek. The most notable of his extant Greek texts is, however, the above-mentioned funerary oration in verses (264 verses in hexameter) commemorating Magnus De La Gardie’s two sons: Jacob August had died in a riding accident in a horse race and Johannes Carol after an acute disease. Most of the lines are dedicated to the former, an Uppsala alumnus. Count Magnus was the Chancellor of the university.23 Furthermore, Aurivillius wrote another Greek oration, in prose, on ‘the Christian Church wonderfully survived’. It was not published, but the manuscript is intact (12 pages, 194 lines). The long captatio benevolentiae refers to an early date so that the oration was probably written before the Greek dissertation, between 1653–1658, and delivered at the University of Uppsala.24 In all, Aurivillius’ Greek oeuvre consists 24 occasional poems, two Greek orations – and functioning as a respondent for the Greek dissertation under discussion (No. 17, the List A above). The Ausius–Aurivillius Greek dissertation has an elaborate beginning: the verso of the title page is given over to citations on virtue: by Pindar, Theognis

21  Floderus Johannes, De poëtis in Svio-Gothia Graecis (Uppsala, Edman: 1785–88) 43 note c; Ericus Michaelis Fant, Historiola litteraturae Graecae in Svecia (Uppsala, Edman: 1778– 1785) II, 11–12; Korhonen, Ateena 487. 22  These two poems, missing in both Floderus and Fant, are in the Uppsala University Library, Sv. Personvers. Fol. I owe the information on these two poems (plus eight Greek congratulations for dissertations) to Johanna Akujärvi. 23  On the content of the poem, see Floderus, De poëtis 42. 24  Aurivillius refers twice to his youth (p. 2, lines 17 and 32) and that he is still inexperienced as a Greek writer (p. 2, ll. 21–22). This oration (Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάντι χρόνῳ θαυμαστῶς πεφυλαγμένης) is among other Aurivillius’ manuscripts in the Uppsala University Library (MS R 24, Manuscripta aliquot), which is digitised in the database ALVIN, http://www .alvin-portal.org. First Aurivillius discusses the persecutions of Christians by Roman Emperors, then tyranny in general, ending up with good monarchs, like Constantinus the Great and the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus. After that, he briefly deals with heresies, mainly Arianism.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

713

and Isocrates.25 What is more, the dissertation is preceded by a versed prologue (Προοίμιον, 46 eleg.), which follows the Hesiodic topic on the difficult path to virtue.26 The Ausius–Stalenus dissertation (No. 18, the List A above) also contains a poem (11 hex.), though put on the title page. Both these paratextual poems were probably written by the respondents, by Aurivillius and Stalenus, not by professor Ausius.27 At the end of the Ausius–Aurivillius dissertation, there is a congratulatory poem by Petrus Aurivillius’ brother Olaus in Latin and another in Greek by a medical student, Petrus Hoffwenius, who praises Aurivillius for having disputed (διαλογίζεσθαι) in a learned way in Greek (ἑλληνιστί) about virtue.28 What is missing is a dedication, which is often put on the verso of the title page. This is quite surprising because printing Greek was obviously more difficult and therefore more expensive than printing Latin.29 Dedicatees were often supposed to share in the expenses of printing. Was the publication then paid solely by the respondent Aurivillius? At least, the title page may imply that: instead of mere ἀποκρινόμενος NN (‘respondent NN’), it has: δημοσίᾳ ἐκδιδομένη παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποκρινομένου Πέτρου τοῦ Αὐριβιλλίου (‘made available to public by the agency of respondent Petrus Aurivillius’). Was the dissertation then written by Aurivillius? When it was published (1658), Aurivillius was 21 years old and had produced only one occasional poem in Greek (1653) and probably delivered the Greek prose oration on Christian Church. Some clarification for the question of authorship might be found in the manuscript of the dissertation. 3

Manuscript of the Dissertation and Inspection of Greek Dissertations

The manuscript of the Ausius–Aurivillius dissertation contains several corrections and a chapter that is omitted from the printed version.30 In the end, there 25  Pindar, Olympian odes 6.121–122 and Olympian odes 10.24–25, Theogis 315–318 and 1003– 1004 and Isocrates, De pace 3 (orat. 8). 26  The prologue is summarized by Floderus, De poëtis 39. 27  At Turku, one Latin dissertation has a Greek preface written by the respondent in 1684. Korhonen, Ateena 390–392. 28  Hoffwenius studied later in Leiden and became a professor of medicine; some of his dissertations cause bewilderment because of their Cartesianism. Christesson J. (ed.), Signum svenska kulturhistoria: stormaktstiden (Lund: 2005) 118. 29  The dedication is also missing in the copy deposited in the National Library of Finland. 30  I thank Erkki Sironen and Anna Fredriksson for locating the manuscript in the Uppsala University Library. The Aurivillius manuscript (see above note 24) includes five dissertations (one containing only paratexts and Prefatio) and three orations: one in Latin and

714

Korhonen

are two signatures by different hands, one below the other: ‘subscripsi ego Olaus Unonius p.t. fac. phil. Decanus. / Henricus Ausius, Graecar. L. professor’. Dean Olaus Unonius (1602–1666) was a professor of logic and the supervisor of Aurivillius’ pro gradu dissertation in Latin in 1661. The Dean and supervising professor had to inspect the academic quality of dissertations before publication. We may assume that although Unonius had a basic knowledge of Greek, an even better knowledge was needed to read this long dissertation. Besides inspecting the Greek, Ausius might thus also explain the content to Unonius. Does this then prove that the writer was Aurivillius? Or, may the emphasized ego before Unonius suggest that it was only the Dean who inspected the dissertation written by Greek professor Ausius? Surely professor Ausius could not, in the natural way of things, give the imprimatur to his own work? As nowadays, academic theses had to be inspected before publication in order to ensure adequate scholarly standards. Besides, not only academic publications but all kinds of writings went through some kind of censorship during the age of high Lutheran orthodoxy in Sweden (1600–1685). It was not so much the quality but the religious reliability, even orthodoxy of the content, especially of theological dissertations, which was in focus. It had to be ensured that anything which offended religious or royal institutions should not be printed. In 1617, the Chapter of Uppsala published directions for printing houses that all academic publications should be submitted to the inspection of the Archbishops, Rector, or Dean. The constitution of 1626 stated that a librarian and a professor should ensure that all publications were sent to be scrutinized.31 The Ausius–Aurivillius dissertation combines Aristotelian premises of virtue with Christian ethics so that its content might have contained controversial emphases. The manuscript does not include the title page or the paratexts (quotations and the poems of congratulation by two fellow students),32 only the dissertation text proper and its versified prologue, all written by one hand. If we assume that the verse prologue was most probably composed by Aurivillius, this would be another argument that the writer of the dissertation was Aurivillius. Professor Ausius functioned then as the supervisor of the dissertation and corrector of Greek. However, it also seems that most of the corrections were two in Greek. The manuscript has obviously suffered from moisture, which has partly damaged the upper corners of the paper. 31  Laine T. (ed.), Kirjahistoria. Johdatus vanhan kirjan tutkimukseen (Helsinki: 1996) 196–197. Klinge, Helsingfors 422 and 435. Kallinen M., Change and Stability. Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku 1640–1713 (Helsinki: 1995) 20. 32  Congratulative texts were inspected too because their content might be controversial like the dissertation text proper. Klinge, Helsingfors 422, 436.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

715

surely made by the same hand that wrote the text. Aurivillius had then given his manuscript with some last-minute corrections to be inspected; professor Ausius might have found some minor errors but his function was mainly to explain the content to Dean Unonius. This does not rule out that Ausius had considerably helped the 21-year-old Aurivillius write the thesis by giving references and by correcting and helping with the Greek. All the corrections in the manuscript had been taken into account in the printed text, although some of them were understood mistakenly – obviously by the printer. For instance, the correction for line 18 of the Προοίμιον concerns the word order: ταύτῃ as the next to last word should be moved as the last word; this has been taken account of in the printed version but instead of ταύτῃ it has curious τωϊτῇ.33 There are unusually many cases in the printed version where the space between words has been neglected (περὶἄς)34 – on page Bv there are five such instances. Sometimes a space is put between compound words (θεόσ δοτον) and occasionally letters have been dropped (ἐχάτιον).35 These were surely printer’s mistakes too. But sometimes words or phrases have been deleted for apparent and justifiable reasons (like repetition).36 In two cases the omission is, however, conspicuous. One of them is two lines crossed out heavily but still legible as a reference to Plato’s Laws (12.963a2–3) that the sole object of laws is their aiming at virtue (p. 12). The context is that the Aristotelian mean (μεσότης) had to be determined by right principle, ὀρθὸς λόγος (cf. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1107a1; 6.1.1138b20–34): ‘orthos logos’ is then equated with νόμος (‘law’). Plato’s concept of law in the passage is, however, not ethical but political (with some religious overtones). Therefore, it is reasonable why the reference to Plato has been deleted: it was not perfectly fitting for the context (p. B3, Thesis 14). The most notable erasure is near the end: Chapter 30 (θέσις Λ), containing 18 lines on page 27 in the manuscript, has been omitted from the printed version [Fig. 27.1]. Therefore, the manuscript has 32 theses, that is, chapters (the number of the last chapter is ΛΒ), the printed version has 31 (ΛΑ). The omitted chapter has been lightly ‘smudged’ but it is completely readable. It begins with the word Δεύτερον (‘secondly’). Therefore, its omission makes an illogical shift in the third part of the printed version, which has ‘firstly’ in Chapter 29, 33  Sometimes an important word has been accidentally dropped, when the sentence has been corrected, like Μετρίοτητα, which is in ms (p. 22), but not in print (C3) (Thesis 23). 34  Other cases: τοιγαροῦνἀλλήλων (fol. Bv in print, p. 8 in the ms), πάλαιφιλόσοφοι (fol. C2v, p. 8). 35  Other cases: οἶ οί τ᾿ (fol. B, οἶοί τ᾿ p. 7), προς αγορεύομεν (fol. C3, p. 22), πουδαίοι (fol. A3r, p. 6), μσότητι (fol. Bv, p. 9). 36  Unnecessary περὶ τούτων on p. 10 in the ms (Thesis 11) and χωρις without accent on p. 18 (Thesis 18).

716

Figure 27.1

Korhonen

Aurivillius Petrus, Περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς, 1658, [27]. A manuscript of the dissertation on virtue supervised by Henricus Ausius and responded (and most probably mostly written) by Petrus Aurivillius. Uppsala University Library, MS R 24, Manuscripta aliquot. The manuscript is digitalised in the Swedish database ALVIN, http://www.alvin-portal.org > Aurivillius, p. 69

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

717

‘thirdly’ in Chapter 30 and ‘fourthly’ in Chapter 31 but no ‘secondly’. However, the omission has been taken into account in the numbering of chapters. The reason for the deletion might have been mere lack of space – there had to be half a page for the two congratulatory poems at the end (fol. D1v). The content of this omitted chapter is interesting relative to the topic of the dissertation and will be returned later. One of the main reasons that the dissertation may not have been written by Aurivillius is that ethical subjects were not his research interest, based on the evidence of the dissertations responded and later supervised by him. However, virtue was a basic subject of the liberal arts as such and therefore a convenient subject for a young student for his first dissertation. Furthermore, subtleties of the Aristotelian ethics was not the main concern of professor Ausius either. He focused more on practical ethics, not on theory of ethics. One strong argument for that Aurivillius was the author is that the unpublished Greek prose oration on the survival of the Christian Church and the manuscript of dissertation are written by the same hand. However, stylistically it is hard to say that they are by the same author because the religious topic of the unpublished Greek prose oration dictates a complete different vocabulary than the philosophical dissertation on virtue.37 Yet, at least the eighteenth-century professor of Greek at Uppsala, Johannes Floderus, states that Aurivillius was the author or coauthor (‘a se conscriptam dissertationem’).38 In the following, the dissertation is called Aurivillius’ dissertation. The question of authorship will be revisited after the content and the omitted chapter have been discussed in the concluding remarks of this article. 4

The Ethical Study on Virtue (1658)

The title page of the published dissertation gives the name as Διάλεξις ἠθικὴ περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς γενικῶς (‘The ethical study on virtue in general’).39 On the first text page (fol. A2), the title of the first part is Διασκέψεως τῆς περὶ ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς τῷ γένει θέσις πρώτη (‘First thesis of the analysis on ethical virtue in respect of its genus’). ‘Ethical virtue’ may sound like a pleonasm, but virtue is divided into ethical and intellectual virtues both by Aristotle, for instance, in the Nicomachean Ethics (2.1.1103a14–18; on intellectual virtues, see Nicomachean 37  See above note 24. A different vocabulary is even used in the votum of the oration and the dissertation. 38  Floderus, De poëtis 41. 39  Lidén, Catalogus 54 (No. 31).

718

Korhonen

Ethics Book 6), and by Plutarch in his essay On Ethical Virtue, which is largely based on Aristotelian terminology (Moralia 440d–452d). While intellectual virtues, like wisdom (σοφία), are increased by education, ethical (ἠθική) virtues are essentially established by habit (ἔθος). Aurivillius’ dissertation contains twenty-three references to Nicomachean ethics and five to Plutarch’s essay. There is also a short discussion on ethical virtue in Stalenus’ dissertation (No. 18 in the List A) published a half year after Aurivillius’.40 Without any references to sources, Stalenus begins with a statement that although ethical virtue is a gift of the God, three things should be in harmony (συντρέχειν) in order to reach it, namely φύσις, λόγος or μάθησις, and ἔθος; that is, as Stalenus clarifies, the natural endowments had to be advanced by learning and constant practice (Chapter 1.3, fols. Ar–v). Aurivillius discusses this tripartition at greater length (Theses 15–17, fols. B3v–C1) and quotes the source, The Education of Children (Moralia 2a8–b5), the essay attributed to Plutarch that was a common text in elementary Greek instruction in early modern universities, including Sweden. Aurivillius’ dissertation contains more diverse references to ancient writers than any other Greek dissertation in the Swedish Empire. There are allusions to ancient philosophers but more often to exact works, usually with citations (the locus or sometimes only the name of the work is given). Besides Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemian Ethics, Magna Moralia), there are citations from Hesiod, Pindar, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato (Epinomis, Meno pro Gorgias,41 Theaetetus), Isocrates, Plutarch (The Education of Children, On the Opinions of Philosophers, On Moral Virtue), Phocylides, Aelian and Galen.42 40  For an outline of the content of this dissertation, see Korhonen, “Classical” 103–105. Furthermore, three non-published Greek dissertations from Västerås gymnasium – all written after Aurivillius’ one – discuss the same subject; see the numbers 4 (1661), 20 (s.a.) and 22 (s.a.) in the List B above. 41  The quotation, which Aurivillius claims to be from Gorgias, is in fact from Meno (88c1–3) with a reference to Socrates. 42  Thesis 1: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.4.1095a33–1095b2, 4: Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1106a15–19, Nicomachean Ethics 6.13.1144b4–9, 5, Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1106b36– 1107a1, 7: Nicomachean Ethics 2.5.1106a3–4, 8: Nicomachean Ethics 6.13.1144b18–19, Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.9.5, 9: Nicomachean Ethics 2. 4.1105a32–34, Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.110b23–5, Nicomachean Ethics 3.1.111a3–6, 11: Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1107a16, Nicomachean Ethics 2.7.1107b1–4, Magna Moralia 1.8.1186a28–36, Eudemian Ethics 2.5.1222a10–12, 12: (the Pythagoreans, unidentifiable fragment), Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1107a9, Plato, Epinomis 989b, Plutarch, De virtute morali 451c, 13: Nicomachean Ethics 2.7.1107a9 and 15–15, 14: Nicomachean Ethics 6.13.1144b32, Plato, Meno 88c2, Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1107a1, [Plato, Leges 12.963a2–3], 15: Nicomachean Ethics 1.9.1099b12, Jas 1:16, Plato, Epinomis 989d, Ps-Plutarch, De liberis educandis 2a–b, Nicomachean Ethics 3.5.1114b13 and 6.13.1144b9, Pindar, Nemean 3.41–3, Thucydides, 1.138 (Themistocles), 16: Plutarch, De virtute morali 451c, Cicero, De senectute 28–38, Galen, Ars medica 315,

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

719

A popular passage from Hesiod’s Works and Days (287–292) on the difficult path to virtue is the only indented quote (Thesis 17). Nearing the end of the dissertation, quotations from the New Testament begin to occur. Cicero is the only Roman referred to (without locus), and no modern authors are either quoted or alluded to. However, Aurivillius does not always interpret his references adequately. The first chapter (θέσις) serves as a short methodological preface. Aurivillius states that when one is going to study a philosophical subject, the method one uses needs to be reflected; Aristotle put much thought into it when he approached ethics from the first principles, which ‘is evident in the first book of the Nicomachean ethics, chapter four’. Aristotle, indeed, speaks about beginning from the first principles, ‘what is known’, but he divides it into what is known ‘for us’ and what is known ‘in itself’ (Nicomachean Ethics 1.4.1095a33– 1095b2). Aurivillius may also refer here to Aristotle’s distinction between arguments that ‘start from the first principles and those that lead to first principles’ (cf. Nicomachean Ethics 1.4.1095a31–2). The dissertation is divided into three uneven parts. Μόριον πρώτον comprises Theses 2–23 beginning in the customary scholastic method with nominal definitions (‘onomatology’)43 – like the etymology of ἀρετή: five possible origins are given – before moving to ‘pragmatology’, to ‘real definition’ (‘definitio realis’), that is, the analysis of what virtue essentially is.44 The second part (Theses 24–28) discusses the opposite of moral goodness, ‘bad ethics’ (ἡ κακία ἠθική). This phrase occurs in the works of some commentators of Aristotle in late antiquity but not in the Aristotelian or Plutarchian corpus.45 The third part (Theses 29–31) poses specific questions with emphasis on Christian ethics. Ps-Plutarch, De liberis educandis 2c, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.3.1104b12, Phocylides, frag. 13 (Bergk) (apud Ps-Plutarch De liberis educandis 3f), Ps-Plutarch, De liberis educandis 4c, 17: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.1.1103a16–18, Ps-Plutarch, De liberis educandis, 3a, 2f–3a, Thucydides 1.123, Hesiod, Opera et dies 287–292, Pindar, Nemean 3.41–3., 18: Eeudemian Ethics, 1221b32, Plutarch, De placitis philosophorum 9.61, Plutarch, De virtute morali 442a–b (the Pythagoreans, unidentifiable fragment), Plato, Respublica 435a, 20: Plutarch, De virtute morali 447b, 21: Plutarch, De virtute morali 440e (Menedemus, Ariston of Chios, Zenon), 22: Plato, Theaetetus 176c, Epinomis 989b, Isocrates, Ad Demonicum 13.1– 2, Aelian, Varia Historia 2.33, 23: Nicomachean Ethics 2.7.1107b31, 27 Nicomachean Ethics 2.8.1108b33–34, 28: Lk 12:47, Jas 4:17, Nicomachean Ethics 7.7.1150b19–29 (akrasia) pro Nicomachean Ethics 2.7, 30: Rom 2:15, 31: Chrysippus, unidentifiable fragment, 1 Cor. 6:14. 43  On the practice of nominal definitions, see Friedenthal M., “Nominal Definition in the Seventeenth-Century University Disputations of the German Cultural Space,” in Feingold M. (ed.), History of Universities vol. XXIX / 1 (Oxford: 2016) 65–87. 44  On scholastic method in 17th-century dissertations, see Kallinen, Change 55–59. 45  For instance, Didymus Caecus (4th c. AD), Fragmenta in Psalmos 1232; see Mühlenberg E., Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, 1. Patristische Texte und Studien 15 (Berlin: 1975) 121.

720

Korhonen

A part of ‘onomatology’ is ‘homonymia’, meaning different implications of the concept in question. Aurivillius first differentiates two aspects of virtue: that of the God and of mortal things (Thesis 4). The latter is divided into the virtue of non-humans and humans, both of which are then divided in turn. The point here is the non-ethical use of the term ἀρετή – that it can also denote excellence in general. Aurivillius refers to Nicomachean Ethics 2.5, but in fact it is in the next chapter (Nicomachean Ethics 2.6) where Aristotle discusses the effect (‘ergon’) of virtue/excellence, which makes human, animal or an organ, such as the eye, function well.46 The definition of ἀρετή, the task of ‘pragmatology’, takes ten chapters (Theses 5–14). First, Aurivillius gives two definitions by anonymous ancient philosophers before citing Aristotle’s that virtue is a habituation, ‘hexis’ (ἕξις), which guides the choices of actions and emotions based on one’s observation of the mean (μεσότης) relative to us (cf. Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1106b36–1107a9) (Thesis 5). Although Aurivillius expresses that he is not entirely satisfied with the definition, he displays his schedule for analysing the definition in the next, short chapter (Thesis 6): Τοῦτον τὸν ὁρισμὸν ὡς μάλιστα τῇ ἀρετῇ ἐπιτήδειον παραυτίκα ἐπιχειρήσομεν διηγεῖσθαι κατὰ τὰ ἐξαίρετα τὰ αὐτοῦ μέρη· ἅτιν᾿ ἔστι τὸ γένος, ἕξις, ἡ διαφορὰ κατὰ γένος, προαιρετική, πρὸς ἣν καὶ παραβλήδην σημειοῦται τὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἠθικῆς ὑποκείμενον πρῶτον δεκτικόν, ᾧπερ ὡς τὰ ἄλλα συμβεβηκότα ἐνυπάρχει, ὅ ἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς λογιστικῆς ὄρεξις, ἡ καὶ βούλησις καλεῖται· κατὰ εἶδος δὲ ἡ διαφορά, ἡ μεσότης, καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς αἴτια καὶ συναίτια ἐνεργητικαὶ καὶ τελικά.47 We set out now to discuss this definition of virtue according to these chosen parts: what is its genus – ‘hexis’ – what are the differentiae according to the genus; what the choices (‘prohaireseis’) which determine the essence of moral virtue, according to which all its other aspects are established, and what is soul’s rational desire (‘orexis’), which is called 46  N  icomachean Ethics 2. 6.1106a15–19. After referring to the virtue of the horse, Aristotle moves on to the virtue of man. Later on in the same chapter (Thesis 4), Aurivillius discusses virtue as bestowed by nature, referring to Nicomachean Ethics 5.13 although the correct reference is to the sixth book of Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle gives children and wild animals with good natural dispositions as examples (Nicomachean Ethics 6. 13.1144b4–9). 47  Accents and other diacritical marks are amended to correspond to the modern practice. The printed dissertation is digitalised by the Library of the University of Uppsala, in: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-250045.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

721

intention (‘boulêsis’). From the formal point of view, for virtue, there are the differentiae, mean (‘mesotês’) and causes (‘aitia’) – and additional causes, namely causes for virtuous actions and final causes. As this excerpt shows, Aurivillius has chosen to discuss the very basic and complicated concepts of Aristotelian ethics (‘hexis’, ‘prohairesis’, ‘mesotês’, ‘boulêsis’) with quite awkward syntax. He continues by ‘imitating’ (μιμούμενοι φάμεν) Aristotle’s renouncement that virtue is not emotions (πάθη), not some capacity (δύναμις) but habituation (ἕξις) (cf. Nicomachean Ethics 2.5.1105b19– 1106a14). Aurivillius quotes part of this passage verbatim: ‘[…] virtues are certain modes of choice, or at all events involve choice’ (Nicomachean Ethics 2.5.1106a3–4) – though only stating ‘so said Aristotle’ (Thesis 7). After pondering the importance of rationality and knowledge for moral virtues – with, again, an imperfect reference to Aristotle (Thesis 8)48 – Aurivillius returns to the concept of prohairesis along with the state of mind necessary for virtuous actions (Nicomachean Ethics 2.4.1105a34–34) (Thesis 9). In the next two chapters, the phrase πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ‘relative to us’, in Aristotle’s definition of virtue is under scrutiny: the right middle (μεσότης) depends on circumstances too, so that the mean is relative to us (Theses 10–11).49 Furthermore, Aurivillius considers the concept of ‘extreme’ (ἀκρότης) in Aristotle’s definition; virtue is thus not only the mean but also extreme with regard what is best and right (Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1107a9) (Thesis 12). But there are some emotions and actions that are extreme in themselves, like justice on the one hand, and theft on the other – Aurivillius quotes here Nicomachean Ethics 2.7.1107a13–15 (Thesis 13). The concepts of ‘right principle’ (ὀρθὸς λόγος) and ‘practical wisdom’ (φρόνησις), which determine choices, are discussed next with a reference to Plato’s Meno (88c2) and Laws (12.963a2–3) – the last one then omitted from the printed version (see above p. 715) (Thesis 14). As mentioned earlier, the consideration of the causes (αἰτία) for virtue (nature, education and practice) begins with a quotation from the Education of Children (Moralia 2a–b) attributed to Plutarch. Although the discussion on natural endowments concentrates on mental characteristics, Aurivillius acknowledges ‘physical virtue’, like excellence in sport too, as ‘inborn glory’ by an allusion to Pindar in Thesis 15 and by giving the reference (‘the 3rd Nemean 48  The reference is without the book number, but it certainly refers to Nicomachean Ethics 6.13.1144b18–19, where Socrates is said to be mistaken stating that virtues are mere forms of (practical) wisdom (φρόνησις). 49   However, instead of πρὸς ἡμᾶς Aurivillius has καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς. Aurivillius refers among other things to the Eudemian Ethics (cf. 2.5.1222a10–12). Cf. Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.1196a32–1196b29.

722

Korhonen

ode, 2nd epode’) and a quotation at the end of Thesis 17.50 The usefulness of education both for good and bad is confirmed by another quote of Education of Children (Moralia 2c) and, furthermore, the connection between virtue and habituation is confirmed by quoting the same work again (Moralia 2f–3a) (Theses 16–17). After essential aspects of Aristotle’s definition and the causes (‘aitia’) of virtue have been discussed, Aurivillius presents some criticism. He explains the basis for irrational desire (ἄλογος ὄρεξις) by original sin and criticizes the idea of the rational part of soul as immortal: for him, soul as a whole is immortal. When discussing disturbing emotions, the Stoic concept of ‘apatheia’ (‘freedom from emotions’), is overruled: in Aurivillius’ view, emotions are able to be bridled by reason (Theses 18–20). Next Aurivillius poses the question of plurality of virtues: are there many virtues or only one called by many names? He mentions Menedemus of Eretria, Ariston of Chios and the Stoic Zenon referring then to On Moral Virtue, where Plutarch presents these three as against the notion of the plurality of virtues (Moralia 440e–441b) (Thesis 21). In the next chapter, Aurivillius emphatically brings in his own opinion by returning to the passing remark he made earlier on God’s virtue (Thesis 4): no, moral virtue is not one, but divided into two, divine and human, the former referring to virtues in regard to the God, like piety. As evidence that ancients worshipped and respected gods he refers rather inadequately to Plato’s Theaetetus and Epinomis as well as to Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum and Aelian’s Various History – Isocrates’ speech was a part of the standard Greek curriculum in Sweden.51 Furthermore, virtue in regard to other humans is defined by the ancient term for good citizenship (καλοκαγαθία) (Theses 22–23). Despite his criticism, Aurivillius keeps his respect for ancient writers and their concepts. The subject of the second part (Theses 24–28), moral badness, is seen as an opposite to moral goodness, and therefore, Aurivillius states, the treatment can be much shorter. A person who is ethically bad chooses badly and he falls away from temperate actions either because of the excessive or deficient nature of 50  Pindar’s passage (Nemean 3.41–3) is, however, an underestimation of education: a man having only education and not high birth is a ‘shadowy’ figure without any firm decisions. 51  Plato states that the most just person is most similar to the god, and that knowing this is wisdom and true virtue (Theaetetus 176c), not merely that ‘knowledge of the God is true virtue’ as Aurivillius puts it. That piety is the most important virtue is claimed in Epinomis 989b2–3 and Aurivillius supports this by quoting Isocrates’ speech, in which sacrificing to the gods is seen rather as a token of material prosperity than virtue (Ad Demonicum 13.1–2). The reference to Aelian (Varia Historia 2.33) is quite odd too because Aelian discusses worshipping rivers with sculpted statues which are in the form of bulls and humans.

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

723

his character (cf. Nicomachean Ethics 2.6.12.1106b23–24). Eating and drinking, for instance, are ‘necessary and natural actions’ and irrelevant as such for questions of moral badness or goodness. But excessive eating, drinking and sexual pleasures are examples of moral badness. Furthermore, besides being a lack of restraint, badness is irresponsibility (εὐχέρεια) and acting against ‘law’ (κατὰ νόμον), while virtue is ‘ease’ or ‘facility’ (εὐκοπία) because a good person is functioning according to established custom, ‘law’. At the end of Thesis 27, Aurivillius refers to ‘Nicomachean Ethics 2.8’. In this passage (Nicomachean Ethics 2.8.1108b14–15), Aristotle determines vice as being of two kinds of disposition – excess (ὑπερβολή) and defect (ἔκλειψις) – whereas virtue is of one kind, namely, the middle (μεσότης). The third part (Theses 29–31) deals with four questions of which the second one was omitted from the printed version [Fig. 27.1]. The first question (Thesis 29) asks is it in the human nature that there is a war between reason and sensual desires? The answer is positive: reason and passion (ὄρεξις αἰσθητική) truly fight against each other in every human soul. Is there, then, a divine meaning of this weakness of reason? Aurivillius concludes that no, it was the Devil who deceived the protoplasts (Adam and Eve), which meant the birth of free will (αὐτεξούσιον) and finally bad kinds of desires (Thesis 29). The second question, deleted from the printed version (see above pp. 715–716), concerns the problem of whether one can reconcile ethical virtues with ‘theological virtues’ – a new concept thus far.52 As for the conclusion, Aurivillius states that pagans’ concepts of virtue are often adequate as such but they are acted on without faith and therefore serve only the temporal world. Theological virtues for their part are based on faith, which is confirmed by references to Rom 14:23 and Heb 11:4. Thus, a sharp distinction between Christian and Classical ethics is here put forth in a manner that is alien to the previous discussion with its constant quotations from classical authors. The next two questions confirm the shift of concentration onto Christian ethics. The third question asks is the law of God the most essential thing concerning ethics and the answer is positive: the first and last yardstick for ethical actions is that it is in accordance with God’s law. The evidence is given by citing the Epistle to the Romans on the law written in human hearts (Rom. 2:15) (Thesis 30). The fourth and last question queries whether it is possible that good can exist without its opposite. Aurivillius attributes the apophatic view that virtue and vice mutually need each other to exist to the Stoic Chrysippus without 52  The difference between theological virtues and Aristotelian concept of virtue was the very subject of some unpublished dissertations from Vesterås gymnasium, especially Nos. 20–21 (List B, above).

724

Korhonen

further comment. He supports his refutation to the apophatic view by again citing the Apostle Paul: light and darkness have nothing in common nor justice and injustice (2 Cor. 6:14). The religious emphasis leads in an expected way to the votum, which ends the dissertation (Thesis 31). Because of its expansive focus, Aurivillius’ dissertation is more challenging to read than other Swedish Greek dissertations on the same subject – Ericus Holstenius’ in Tartu in 1652 (No. 16 in the List A),53 and the short unpublished dissertations from Västerås (Nos. 4, 20 and 21 in the List B) written after Aurivillius’ dissertation. In all these cases, but especially concerning Aurivillius, the text is complicated not only by Aristotelian terminology on virtue but also by neo-Aristotelian, scholastic disposition. As neo-Aristotelian theses, they are implicitly against the Cartesian idea of human intellect as a sufficient basis for moral judgement and continue the medieval task of combining Aristotelian and Christian ethics. A Greek dissertation published at the University of Altdorf in 1712 was anti-Cartesian in a more explicit way. Ὁ Καρτησιὸς ἀντίγραφος (‘An anti-Cartesian treatise’) was supervised by Greek professor Christoph Sonntag and defended by Henricus Sonntag. Although Sonntag’s dissertation attacks Cartesianism with the help of Christian theology, the work is not neo-Aristotelian in regard to its disposition which is clear and ‘modern’ without any kind of neo-Aristotelian arsenal.54 5

Concluding Remarks

The 1655 statutes of the University of Uppsala included no stipulation on the languages of dissertations. This meant that they were allowed to be written in vernacular. However, it also meant that the ‘heyday’ of Greek dissertations was nearly over in the Swedish Empire: excepting the unpublished ones from Västerås gymnasium (1659–1670), universities and gymnasia published only four Greek dissertations after 1655, Aurivillius’ item one of them. One of the public functions of the Greek dissertation was to proclaim the great cultural progress of the Swedish Empire, which was manifested in the founding of new universities. Greek was held in high esteem and publishing Greek 53  Holstenius’ dissertation consists of short theses and is composed in a clear, simple style. On this dissertation, see Korhonen “Classical Authors” 159 n5. 54  I thank prof. Hanspeter Marti for mentioning this dissertation to me. It is available in the Internet: http://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10968024-4 [accessed 20.09.2019]. In the second chapter, the writer opposes Cartesian dualism along with the idea that animals are automata, unable to feel pain and form judgements, by giving a long list of positive examples from the animal kingdom (ox, swallow, stork, dog, horse, elephant, bee, spider, ant, and snail).

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

725

dissertations could be seen as part of creating a good impression of Swedish educational institutions – which Plantin’s Hellas sub Arcto (1736) promoted as well. Students who defended their professors’ Greek dissertations had to have a good knowledge of Greek but topics of Greek dissertations and the elaboration on the subject complied with that of Latin dissertations. Still, Greek was an asset when one presented topics targeting Aristotle’s philosophy, ethics, politics, or metaphysics, because one could use Greek terminology and modified sentences taken from ‘the Philosopher’. When a student was a writer of a Greek thesis, the professor’s supervising work was naturally increased. For a student, writing longer Greek texts, like orations and dissertations, was to put oneself to the front: it was a procedure to separate oneself from the masses. There is no reason to assume that the 21-year-old Aurivillius could not be the writer of the dissertation – with substantial help from professor Ausius. Even a cursory comparison of the manuscript of this dissertation with other survived manuscripts bearing Aurivillius’ name shows that they are written by the same hand, that is, by Aurivillius. Most of the corrections were made by him too. Thus, in all probability, Aurivillius gave his manuscript with some last-minute corrections to be inspected to the professor of Greek Henricus Ausius and the Dean of the philosophical faculty of the Uppsala University Olaus Unonius (as the signature at the end of the manuscript of the dissertation shows). Their division of work was that Ausius inspected Greek and Unonius the content of the dissertation, especially from the religious point of view. An interesting detail of Aurivillius’ dissertation is the missing dedication, which meant that he (and his family) had probably paid for the printing himself. Comparison of the manuscript with the printed version shows that many minor mistakes appeared on account of the printer. Perhaps proper funding would have resulted in fewer mistakes? The omitted chapter (Thesis 30 in the manuscript) does not include any religiously discreet material; it just consolidates the shift of emphasis from Aristotelian ethics to Christian ethics. Its removal made space for two congratulatory poems, one written in Greek, the other in Latin by Aurivillius’ brother. That the text was shortened for the sake of these congratulatory poems speaks of the importance of this subgenre of occasional poetry. From the point of view of professor Ausius, both the thesis and the poems of congratulations had pedagogical function: they were writing practices and displays of skill.55

55  This article was written under the auspices of the project Helleno-Nordica, Swedish Research Council, grant 2016–01881.

726

Korhonen

Selective Bibliography Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Aurivillius Petrus (Resp.), Διάσκεψις ἠθικὴ περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς γενικῶς [‘Ethical study on virtue in general’] ([Uppsala], Ἰωάννου τοῦ Παύλου: 1658). Ausius Henricus (Pr.) – Stalenus Petrus (Resp.), Τὴν φιλοσοφίαν πρακτικὴν καὶ πορίσματα θεωρητικά [‘The practical philosophy and some theoretical ponderings’] ([Uppsala], Ἰωάννου τοῦ Παύλου: 1658). Andersson A.; Uppsala Universitets matrikel 3: 1650–1665 (Uppsala: 1902). Annerstedt C., Uppsala universitets historia I: 1477–1654 (Uppsala: 1877). Christesson J. (ed.), Signum svenska kulturhistoria: stormaktstiden (Lund: 2005). Fant Ericus Michaelis, Historiola litteraturae Graecae in Svecia I–II (Uppsala, Edman: 1778–1785). Floderus Johannes, De poëtis in Svio-Gothia Graecis (Uppsala, Edman: 1785–1788). Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Rahvusarhiivi toimetised. Acta et commentationes archivi nationalis Estoniae. Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust 1, 32 (Tartu: 2017) 183–238. Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016). Kallinen M., Change and Stability. Natural Philosophy at the Academy of Turku 1640–1713 (Helsinki: 1995). Klinge M. et al. (eds.), Helsingfors universitet 1640–1990 I: Kungliga akademien i Abo 1640–1808 (Helsinki: 1988). Korhonen T., “Classical Authors and Pneumatological Questions. Greek Dissertations Supervised by Johannes Gezelius the Elder at the University of Tartu (Academia Gustaviana 1644–1647)”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 158–184. Korhonen T., “The dissertations in Greek supervised by Henrik Ausius in Uppsala in the middle of the seventeenth century”, in Päll J. – Volt I. – Steinrück M. (eds.), Classical tradition from the 16th century to Nietzsche, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 3 (Tartu: 2010) 89–113. Korhonen T., “Christina of Sweden and her knowledge of Greek”, Arctos 43 (2009) 41–56. Korhonen T., Ateena Auran rannoilla. Humanistikreikkaa Kuninkaallisesta Turun akatemiasta. Abstract, Summary, and Table of Contents in English, e-thesis (Helsinki: 2004). Lagus V., Studier i den klassiska språkundervisningens historie i Finland (Helsinki: 1890). Laine T. (ed.), Kirjahistoria. Johdatus vanhan kirjan tutkimukseen (Helsinki: 1996).

Dissertations in Greek: Petrus Aurivillius

727

Lidén Johan Henrik, Catalogus disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae […]. Sectio I: Disputationes Upsalienses (Uppsala, Edman: 1778). Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria 2: stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975). Nelson A., Svenskt biografiskt lexikon 2 (Stockholm: 1920). Palm J., “Griechisch”, in Carlsson L. (ed.), Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University: Linguistic and Philology (Stockholm: 1976). Plantin Olaus, Vindemiola literaria, in qua Hellas sub Arcto, sive merita Svecorum in linguam Graecan brevissime et modeste exponuntur (Wittenberg, Zimmermannus: 1736). Schubergson C.M., “1655 års universitetskonstituioner i översättning”, in Åbo Akademis årsskrift (1918) 168–243.

Chapter 28

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities and Academic Gymnasia in the 17th and Early 18th Century Janika Päll Summary During the 17th and early 18th century, all over Germany and the Swedish kingdom, disputing in Greek took place, but this practice has never been an object of any general study. This paper gives an overview of the nascence and spread of this practice, connecting its birth to the popularity of different rapid language learning methods, as the ones by Philipp Glaum and Jan Amos Comenius. It also shows, that soon after the practice started to spread in Germany, it was brought to Sweden by Gabriel Holstenius, at first to the Gymnasium of Västerås and then, by others, to the universities of Tartu, Uppsala and Turku. In Germany the disputations took place in several gymnasia and universities (Basel, Giessen, Halle, Magdeburg, Altdorf, Strasbourg, Wittenberg, and Frankfurt am Main) between 1604 and 1721; however, in both countries the main bulk of the disputations was connected to a small number of enthusiastic professors, such as Johannes Steuber in Giessen, Johannes Gezelius in Tartu and Henrik Ausius in Uppsala Universities, Petrus Winther and Johannes Sundius in Västerås Gymnasium, Balthasar Scheidt in Königsberg and Strasbourg and Christoph Sonntag in Altdorf Universities. The paper demonstrates that the goals of these disputations were mainly twofold: at first, to practice Greek as living language and to consolidate the students’ language skills and their knowledge of certain important topics of (moral) philosophy and theology; and secondly, to serve as tokens of merits for the students at the end of their studies (or stages of studies) or at the beginning of their professional careers. The paper presents an overview of 147 known occasions of disputing in Greek between 1604 and 1625, and is accompanied by an Appendix which includes a short title catalogue of all attested Greek disputations from this period.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_029

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

1

729

Introduction1

The research and cataloguing of Early Modern (Latin) disputations and studies on Humanist Greek have led to the nascence a new, albeit small topic of research: Greek disputations.2 In order to avoid terminological confusion, the notion ‘dissertation’ is reserved below for different kinds of printed scholarly discussions in Humanist Greek, which are closer to the modern meaning of the word and not primarily connected to the oral context of university disputing,3 which had produced the Early Modern Greek disputation prints, disputation manuscripts and disputation practice that are discussed below.

1  This article was written at the Tartu University Library and College of Foreign Languages and Cultures in the framework of the Swedish Research Agency project Helleno-Nordica (Vetenskapsrådet 2016-01881, led by Johanna Akujärvi, Lund), but is also largely a continuation of my Estonian Research Agency Project PUT 132 (2013–2016). I am also thankful for a scholarship at HAB Wolfenbüttel in the autumn of 2017 and to Johanna Akujärvi and Meelis Friedenthal for discussions concerning the forms and functions of Greek disputations. The orthography of Greek has been unified in this article in all places where it is not relevant for the discussion. 2  For the state of research, see Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R., “Einleitung”, in iidem (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 7–5; Korhonen T., “The Dissertations in Greek supervised by Henrik Ausius in Uppsala in the Middle of the Seventeenth Century” in Päll J. –Volt I. – Steinrück M. (eds.), Classical Tradition from the 16th Century to Nietzsche, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 3 (Tartu: 2010) 89–13; Korhonen T. “Classical Authors and Pneumatological Questions. Greek Dissertations supervised by Johannes Gezelius the Elder at the University of Tartu”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 158–184; Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt [On Pneumatology in General and on Gezelius’ Greek Pneumatological Disputations in Particular]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridusja kultuurielust, Acta et Commentationes Archivi Nationalis Estoniae 1 (32) (Tallinn: 2017) 182–207; Päll J. – Friedenthal M. (eds.), “Johannes Gezeliuse esimene pneumatoloogiline disputatsioon [Johannes Gezelius’ First Disputation on Pneumatology]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust, Acta et Commentationes Archivi Nationalis Estoniae 1 (32) (Tallinn: 2017) 208–235. 3  For example polemical treatises by Greeks, such as Alexander Helladios or Anastasius Michael Macedo. See: Minaoglu Ch., “Anastasius Michael Macedo and his Speech on Hellenism”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 115–129.

730 2

Päll

The Emergence and Disappearance of Greek Disputations: General Framework

The Teaching Context and the Financial Conditions of Greek Disputation Practice According to our present knowledge, over the course of about 120 years, from 1604 to 1725, disputation in Greek was more or less constant in the German and Swedish realms [Fig. 28.1].4 The first and last known Greek disputation prints reveal how this practice started and how it ceased to be habitual. The bilingual Greek-Latin disputation print Περὶ κρίσεων (‘About the turning points’), presented by candidatus medicinae Johann Siglicius (1576–1620) from Halle (Saxony) before the Faculty of Medicine at Basel University, refers to the Professor of Medicine Felix Platter Sen. (1536–1614) not as its praeses but as the Dean of the 2.1

Figure 28.1

Greek disputations in 1604–1725. Greek Disputation according to extant prints (separate and in series). Other information about disputations in Greek (including extant disputation manuscripts, disputations partially in Greek and information about manuscripts or prints)

4  Three Uppsala disputations from 1815 and 1828 and partially Greek translation disputations from 1866 and 1871, as well as the doctoral dissertation of Etienne Gros from 1835 have been published after a qualitative change in the practice and are therefore mainly omitted from the present account (but mentioned in the Appendix under corresponding years, see p. 758ff.). All university dissertations by ethnic Greeks, presented in European or Greek universities, have been left out of consideration. I thank Johanna Akujärvi for the information and photos of the 19th century Swedish disputations.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

731

Faculty,5 unlike many Latin medical disputations connected to Platter, where his role as praeses is indicated. This omission points to the greater importance of Siglicius, probably to his role as the author [Fig. 28.2]. Siglicius might have even been the initiator of this Greek disputation, importing Halle practices to Basel; indeed, the role of Greek in some of his Latin disputations is eminent, to the extent that these might almost be called macaronic.6 The greater importance of Latin, both on the title page and within the disputation proper, seems to reflect firstly the novelty of public disputing in Greek, for which rules had yet to be established, and secondly, the practice of using Latin disputations as models for those in Greek. The only other known Greek disputation from Basel, a pro loco disputation by Johann Rudolf Wettstein from 1667, is bilingual (presenting the main text both in Greek and Latin), but its abundant notes in Latin seem to indicate that the idea of a purely monolingual Greek disputation was not familiar in Basel.7 Similarly, the earliest Greek disputations in Germany from Giessen (see Appendix, years 1615–1619) include relatively more Latin than the main bulk of the Greek disputation corpus, which dates from the middle and the end of the 17th century. One of the earliest known Giessen disputations by Johannes Steuber (Appendix 1615, Steuber – Ellinger) is bilingual, but not as a usual bilingual pair of text and translation, but as an almost macaronic mixture of Greek and Latin, whereas it appears that the disputation had been translated into Greek (probably by the student) from an original in Latin. This conclusion is based on the fact that its Quaestio No. 3 and 4 are only partially translated and that the Latin language which is in Quaestio 1 and 2 used mainly for short conclusions and explanatory remarks, becomes more and more prevailing towards the end of the disputation and remains the only used language in its Corollaria. A typical example of the macaronic mixture of the two languages can be seen in the passage from Quaestio No. 3 (the Greek notions of the original are presented in italics in the translation): 5  See Siglicius Johann, Περὶ κρίσεων (Basel, Schröter: 1604) and the Appendix, 1604). For Siglicius, see http://thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp01022907 [accessed 15.12.2019]. For Platter, see Pastenaci, S. ‘Platter, Felix’ in Neue Deutsche Biographie 20 (2001) 518sqq. [Online-Version]; URL: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd118594915.html [accessed 15.12.2019]. 6  See Siglicius Johann, Περὶ διαγνώσεως καὶ προγνώσεως τῆς ἐπιληψίας (‘About the diagnostics and prognostics of epilepsy’) (Leipzig, Lamberg: 1606), VD17 14:084670D, pro loco disputation without a praeses, Siglicius Johann (Pr.) – Hagendorn Johann (Resp.), De dysenteria (Leipzig, Glück: 1617), VD17 14:064482H and Siglicius Johann (Pr.) – Mestner Georg (Resp.), De vulneribus sclopetorum (Leipzig, Glück: 1619), VD17 14:076851Q, including a macaronic Greek-Latin gratulation by Valentin Hartung. 7  See Appendix, 1667, Wettstein – Ryhiner.

732

Figure 28.2

Päll

The title page of the disputation by Johann(es) Siglicius, […] Peri kriseōn : authoritate Nobilissimor. Basileensium Medicor. tota Europa inclytorum […] Basileae Rauracorum: imprimebat Johannes Schroeter, ineunte mense Septembri vertentis anni 1604. Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Diss 17:21, https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-18270, Public Domain Mark (CC)

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

733

Talis erit τουτου απορηματος nostra εξετασις. Possumus hanc quaestione διττως considerare, vel θεολογικως vel φιλοσοφικως; sive quod idem est, vel in foro αγιογραφιας et in foro λογου. This will be our scrutiny of this question. And we can look into it in a double way: either theologically or philosophically; or, what is the same, either in the field of hagiography or in the field of argument.8 Translation from Latin sources can also be observed in the middle of the 17th century: Alsted’s encyclopaedia had been the main source for Johannes Gezelius’ pneumatological disputations in Tartu (see below, 3.1, sec. 2), and further studies will probably reveal even more examples of translation from Latin sources. It also appears that during the initial period, the orthography of Greek posed some difficulties for the students. At least two disputations presided over by Steuber in Giessen (see Appendix 1615, Steuber – Ellinger and 1619, Steuber – Beltzer) have been printed in Greek, but almost entirely without diacritic signs (as can be seen in the quotation above). However, other Greek disputation prints under Steuber’s direction and his gratulations in Greek, all printed by the same typographer in the same period, used standard Greek orthography. Therefore the reasons for lacking diacritic signs were clearly not typographic, but reflect the initial stage of learning to dispute in Greek; this might additionally also point to the possible authorship of these students (who preferred – as is also often the case today – to omit the diacritics when they wrote in Greek). The last examples of continuous Greek disputation practice come from the beginning of the 18th century. In 1725, Christian Gottfried Stentzel (1698– 1748)9 published a Greek-Latin Διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου (‘Treatise about sleep’, see Appendix 1725). In its preface Stentzel complained about the decline of Greek studies and his failure to find a respondens: PRAEFATIO. Exulat fere praesenti seculo amor, quo maiores nostri erga Graiam flagrabant linguam, eaque dialectus, quam olim Principes in deliciis habebant,a) atque ad quam, ante inuentam artem typographicam, inferioris sortis hominibus haud patebat aditus, iis iam sordet, quibus ualdopere necessaria, ac quibus hanc addiscendi maxima iam datur 8  See Steuber Johann (Pr.) – Ellinger Johann (Resp.), Απορηματα ηθηκα [sic] [‘Ethical Questions’] (Giessen, Hampel: 1615), fol. A3 (in the Appendix, 1615, Steuber – Ellinger). 9  For his biography, see “Stentzel, Christian Gottfried, Indexeintrag” Deutsche Biographie, https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd129729248.html [accessed 15.12.2019].

734

Päll

facultas. Ea, inquam, lingua, quae suauitate atque utilitate nulli secunda, et literatis ualde necessaria, erudito nunc exulat orbe. Nihil iam comme­morabo de Graecae linguae, in rite addiscenda Theologia et Iurisprudentia, emolumento, sed, quae huius in genuina studii Philosophici et Medici cultura, sit praestantia, paucis saltem ob oculos ponam. Dissertatione mea Graeca περὶ τῆς εὐφυίας καὶ ἀφυίας, brevi et perspicua sylloge iam demonstraui, quod uix uereque docti Medici nomen promereatur, qui Graecam ignorat linguam. a) uid. Goetzii Princeps Graece doctus. Grynaeus Praefat. ad Lexic. Graec. VValderi. In our century, love for the Greek language is almost in exile, yet our forefathers were inflamed with a passion for this dialect, which had once been among the delights of the princes and to which the lower sorts of people had almost no access before the invention of the art of typography. And now it is despised by those who require it greatly and to whom the best possibilities for learning it have been granted! This language, I say, second to none because of its sweetness and usefulness, and strongly needed by the literates, is now almost exiled from the erudite world. I am not going to praise the advantages of the Greek language for due studies of Theology and Law, but I shall present before your eyes a few words about its superiority for truly dedicated studies of Philosophy and Medicine. In my Greek dissertation, About good nature and unfit nature I have already demonstrated in a short and clear summary that the name of a true and learned physician cannot be given to those who are ignorant of the Greek language. a) See Princeps Graece doctus by Götze, and Grynaeus in the preface of Walder’s Greek Lexicon.10 […] Has ob causas praeterito anno iam dictam dissertationem Graecam luci mandaui publicae, et iam iterum in animo habebam, alteram in uulgus edere; Cum uero, qui Respondentis uices obiret, et sumtus hic necessarios persolueret, desideraretur, necessitate coactus praesentem ex eadem tractatum confeci, atque eundem Bibliopolae, Graeco solummodo idiomate imprimendum tradebam, hoc uero monente et desiderante,

10  See Stentzel Christian Gottfried, Διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου [‘Treatise about the Sleep’] (Frankfurt – Leipzig, Knoch: 1725), fol.):(5r. (Cf. the Appendix 1725, Stentzel, and the Appendix, 1724, Stentzel – Herrenbauer).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

735

eundem in Latinam transtuli linguam, adeoque utroque idiomate istum Tibi B.L. legendum offero. […] Because of these reasons, I brought in the last year into public light the above-mentioned Greek dissertation, and had already plans in my mind to publish another one. However, I was missing someone who would perform as a respondent and pay the necessary fees, therefore I had to finish this treatise under the constraints of necessity. And I gave it to the bookseller for printing in Greek idiom solely, but translated it into Latin because he really admonished me and wished it. So I offer it to you, my well-meaning reader, for reading in both languages.11 These passages reveal how insecure the status of Greek had become by the beginning of the 18th century. Greek disputing tradition faded away into the same bilingual Greek-Latin context in which it had emerged a century before, whereas the author had to obey the rules of the market and add a Latin translation on the demand of his printer. We also see changes in performance practice: Stentzel refers to his Greek prints as dissertationes and tractatus, which is compatible with a more modern practice and the purposes of university dissertations. And indeed: his Διατριβή was reprinted in Gdansk in 1745 (see Appendix), indicating that it found readers in a new function as a handbook for physicians (its use as a handbook was facilitated by indices, which accompanied both prints). But Stentzel also mentions that students did not wish to pay for the high printing costs of his disputation (no wonder, as the Διατριβή is the longest of Greek disputations with its 185 pages of main text). This explicit remark about the financial side of printing, namely that the professor had to pay for the disputation and not the respondens, seems to point to an aberration from the usual practice.12 However, there are some other cases when professors financed Greek disputation prints themselves. Johannes Gezelius the Elder (1615–1690), Professor of Greek and Hebrew at the University of Tartu (more famous for his later activity as Bishop of Turku), is known to have self-financed his prints, as indicated by the remark ‘cura et

11  See Stentzel, Διατριβή, fol.):(8rv. 12  For a more thorough discussion of the financial side, see Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 32–37, 41, 47 [27–48].

736

Päll

sumptibus’ (‘with his concern and costs’) on the title pages of his manuals13 and in the catalogue of his books (Index librorum). In the latter, Gezelius mentions publishing single Greek disputations in the years 1641–1643 and 1650, as well as two Greek theological disputation series: from 1644–1645 and from 1648.14 Although the information in Gezelius’ Index seems partly incompatible with our knowledge of his extant prints (see below and the Appendix under the named years), it allows to believe that Gezelius personally financed most of his Greek disputations (either entirely or in part). Moreover, the structure and wording of the title pages of his disputations are entirely uniform (quite unlike some other university professors who presided over several Greek disputations), revealing if not authorship, then at least the strong control that the praeses had over the printing process. Balthasar Scheidt (1614–1670),15 Professor of Greek and Hebrew at Strasbourg University, published two prints of disputation series on the exegesis of the New Testament in 1668 and 1669 (the latter is a reprint of his disputations from 1641, see the Appendix). In the dedication of his series from 1669, Scheidt claims: ‘[…] has XX. disputatiunculas […] iterum typis exscribi curavi’ (‘I took care […] to have these 20 short disputations reprinted’).16 Here the word ‘curavi’ appears to mean not only writing and publishing, but also taking care financially. This interpretation is supported by two coinciding facts: firstly, the disputations constitute a series (pointing to the more important role of the presiding professor, who was in such cases often the author), and secondly, the praeses himself has written the dedication. On the basis of similar indications we can also suppose that Adam Brendel’s two disputations 13  See Kolk K. “Dissemination and Survival of a Book Printed in 17th-Century Tartu: The Case of Johannes Gezelius’ Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (1649)” in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 144–145, 155 (144–157). 14  See Gezelius Johannes, Index librorum et tractatuum etc etc. cura et sumptibus J. G. d. ep. Ab. Variis locis et temporibus, maximam partem recentioribus annis, in usum ecclesiae et scholarum in magno ducatu Finlandiae editorum (Turku, Winter: 1683, 2. ed. 1688). See the catalogue in the Appendix under the named years and the discussion below in the text. 15  See Zoepffel R.O., “Scheidt, Balthasar”, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie vol. 30 (1890) 709–710. 16  See Scheidt Balthasar, Τῶν διατριβῶν φιλολογικῶν εἰκάς (Strasbourg, Schütz: 1669), fol.)(4r (in the Appendix, 1669) and below. The printing of the first three disputations of the original series in Königsberg in 1641 was probably financed by the responding students, who dedicated the prints (cf. also the formula Fautoribus et Moecenatibus under the dedication by Andreas Broeselius in disputation number two and Fautoribus et Promotoribus under the dedication by Johannes Wegner in disputation number three (Appendix, 1641).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

737

about sleeping in sanctuaries (Appendix 1701, Brendel – Drechsel and Brendel – Huth) were financed and possibly also authored by Brendel himself. But along with the financial side, there are other aspects of disputing to consider, such as the reasons for performing Greek disputations in public. 2.2 From private collegia to the Public: Producing specimina Since the Academy of Aldus, the active practice of language has been one of the underlying principles of teaching Greek among westerners.17 Vague references to discussing and disputing in Greek, as well as vocabulary in conversation manuals point to the possibility that Greek disputes emerged in the Collegia Graeca of the 16th century.18 As long as Greek disputations were held only as preparatory exercises in the closed community of private collegia, they were not printed. The need for public display and printing became important in the case of public rituals. Such ritual was important in the above-mentioned case of the Basel pro gradu medical disputation by Johann Siglicius, which he dedicated to the Elders of his home town Halle as a token or proof of merit (Δεῖγμα), as seen from the accompanying verses: Τῆς κατ’ ἀκεστορίην διὰ ταῦτ’ ἐς Πατρίδα πέμπω Δεῖγμα παρὸν προκοπῆς, ἀλλοδαποῖσι μετών. Therefore being among foreigners, I’m sending to my homeland present evidence of my advances in the field of medicine.19 Public ritual was also an important context for the other above-mentioned Greek-Latin disputation by the prolific Greek poet Johann Rudolf Wettstenius, 17  Cf. Lowry M.J.C., “The ‘New’ Academy of Aldus Manutius: a Renaissance Dream”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58 (1976) 378–420; Pagliaroli S., “L’Accademia Aldina”, Incontri triestini di filologia classica 9 (2009–2010) 175–183. See also Saladin J.-C., La bataille du Grec à la Renaissance (Paris: 2013). 18  See e.g. chapter De dialectica, Loc. LX in Benz Johann, Thesavrvs pvre loqvendi et scribendi graecolatinvs novvs (Strasbourg, Zetzner: 1594) 705–712. A vague indication of presenting disputations next to declamations in Latin and Greek is to be found already in the rules on disputing practice at Wittenberg Academy: ‘Sexta. Exercitium disputationum multas vtilitates adfert. […] Vt autem et latine scribendi exercitium habent Scholastici, alternis disputationes instituantur a Magistris, et recitentur a Scholasticis declamationes. Et Magistri qui Grammaticen Dialecticen aut Rhetoricen tradunt. Item qui latinos aut graecos scriptores interpretantur, mandent auditoribus ut scribant et recitent declamationes’. See Academiae Witenbergensis Leges (Wittenberg, Klug: 1545), fol. Aiij rv. 19  See Siglicius, Περὶ κρίσεων, fol. A1v, v.3–4.

738

Päll

when he applied for the post of Professor of Greek at Basel University. The title of his disputation is appropriately Specimen hoc philologicvm (‘This token in Philology’) (Appendix, 1667). Proof of assiduous work20 and examples (specimina) of advancement in studies were also demanded by the families of the students. In the preface of his Greek disputation, the respondens (and possibly author) Johannes Specht writes: Praefatio. A Reverendo sene parente meo carissimo specimine edere jussus, quamnam eligerem materiam diu mecum cogitavi. Donec auctoritate VIRI MAGNI hanc quam vides disputationem typis exprimi sivi. Dum enim si Graece quiddam conscriberem, in Graeciam missum iri dicebatur, magnam illam de aeterna Spiritius S. processione, quae totam ecclesiam, Graecam a Latina separando, distraxit, controversiam movere operae pretium duxi. Preface. When I was ordered by my dearest, old and honourable father to publish a token (of my studies), I thought for a long time, which subject to choose, until, with the authority of the Great Man, I let to print the disputation that you see. And because it has been told that if I would write something in Greek, it would be sent to Greece, I considered it worthwhile to remove the controversy concerning the emanation of the Holy Spirit, which tears apart the whole church, separating the Greek one from the Latin.21 Specht’s preface reveals that disputations had multiple target audiences: the parents and home towns of the authors considered these mostly as tokens of merit, but there was also another goal: to instruct the readers. For Specht, the additional goal was to teach the Orthodox Greeks. The function of instructing or defending one’s positions in a controversy also appears in other disputations from the late 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, revealing a development towards modern dissertation practice (as already seen in the case of Stentzel). 20  See Gustavus Haraldi from Skara for Johannes Enagrius: ‘argumentum suscepisti dignum, quo tuam virtutem ac industriam probes’ (‘You took upon yourself a worthy argument in order to prove your virtue and diligence’), Ausius Henrik (Pr.) – Enagrius Johannes (Resp.), Περὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας πολιτικῆς (Uppsala, Mattson: 1650), fol. A6r and Appendix, 1650, Ausius – Enagrius. 21  See Faust Johann (Pr.) – Specht Johann (Resp.), Συζήτησις ἣν περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκπορεύσεως (Strasbourg, Spoor 1694), fol. A2r and Appendix, 1694, Faust – Specht.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

739

Another aspect of ‘coming out’ from private collegia is presented by Balthasar Scheidt in the first of his Strasbourg prints: memor scilicet Apostolici illius partim voti, I Cor. XIV.5, velim omnes vos loqui linguis: partim praecepti, v. 39 loqui linguis ne prohibete. Quare privatim saepius, publice autem semel et hic Graecum illud colloquendi et disputandi exercitium recolui; nulla quidem mea culpa, sed studiosorum incuria interdum neglectum. Superiori anno resucitatus est fere soporatus aliquandiu affectus ille in has literas, quorundam φιλελλήνων Studiosorii, loquutioni [!] isti se assuefieri cupientium: quos hactenus variis privatis exercitiis, bono cum Deo, ita formavi, ut jam in publicum prodire, et specimen aliquod diligentiae suae edere audeant. So I remembered partly the wish of the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV: “I wish you could all speak in tongues”, and partly his teaching in v. 39: “don’t forbid speaking in tongues”. Therefore I restarted this practice of conversing and disputing in Greek, more often in private, but once also before the public – it had been neglected meanwhile, not by my fault, but because of the lack of assiduity among the students. Last year this, for a while almost dormant, passion for these studies was resuscitated when the philhellenic students themselves wished to get accustomed with this language. Until now I’ve taught them in private exercises with the help of benevolent God so that they now dare to come out before the public and present an example of their diligence.22 Here Scheidt refers to his private exercises in Königsberg from 1641 and to their revival in Strasbourg as a specimen diligentiae. He quotes a passage from the New Testament that has frequently been used as an argument in favour of the study of Greek. But even more importantly, his words reveal a crucial aspect of the practice of living Greek: it needs something extra, a desire or passion (being a φιλέλλην), and this on the part of both sides, the professors as well as the students. We may thus conclude that public disputations in Greek took place in those universities and gymnasia where alongside already institutionalised and compulsory elementary exercises in Greek, some philhellenic students and professors were also present.

22   See Scheidt Balthasar, Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν ἑπτάς (Strasbourg, Schütz: 1668), fol. A2rv and Appendix, 1668.

740

Päll

2.3 New Methods of Language Teaching and Greek Disputations With the Ramist reform in education, teaching succinctly, pleasurably and cheaply became an important trend in many European universities and gymnasia. As far as fast and easy language learning is concerned, the most famous method is by Jan Amos Komenský, whose Ianua was a great success. But Komenský was not the first one to offer fast and easy teaching methods. On 20 October 1630, he wrote to his fellow educator Sigismund Evenius: […] De Glaumio et Glaumianis (pace tua dixerim) nescio quid polliceri sit. […] Vidi enim quidquid Holstenius et Barthold. Ernst in lucem edere: sed mihi reperio unde vel unum vestigium divinae illius methodi (quam sic appellare gaudent) notare liceat. […] About Glaum and Glaumians (I’d say, with your consent) I don’t know what there is to gain […] I have seen something that Holstenius and Barthold Ernst have produced, but I keep asking myself where at least one trace of “this divine method” (as they happily call it) could be seen.23 This letter helps to see the background of the initial flowering of this practice during the first half of the 17th century. Komenský’s addressee Sigismund Evenius, more famous for his teaching in vernacular German, had presided over two Greek disputation prints (See Appendix, 1620, 1625). The respondens in the first of these was Gabriel Holstenius, referred to as ‘Glaumianus’ above. Although Holstenius’ adherence to Glaum has been mentioned in his biography,24 the importance of Glaum for the development of the Swedish (and before this, the German) practice of Greek disputations has escaped the notice of researchers. Most likely, Glaum’s impact is not only behind Gabriel Holstenius and through him the whole lot of Swedish Greek disputations,25 but also behind the Greek disputations of Glaum’s colleague at Giessen University,

23  Early Modern Letters Online: http://tinyurl.com/ybmvwjmu [accessed 15.12.2019]. For metadata and abstract, see http://emlo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/profile/work/e1f57204-479c -4e79-94c1-500e425dfbbe [accessed 15.12.2019]. 24  See Fant, Historiola vol. I 52–55. 25  See Päll J. “Humanist Greek in Early Modern Estonia and Livonia” in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 72–73 (whole article 57–112).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

741

its Professor of Greek Johannes Steuber, as well as Sigismund Evenius, whose connection to Glaum is hinted at by Komenský’s remark pace tua.26 Philipp Glaum (Glamius, Glumius, de Gloum) has remained in the shadow of great figures such as Komenský, Evenius and (Wolfgang) Ratke, and not much is known about his life. He was born around 1580–1585. He had studied in Heidelberg (imm. 1598, appears as gratulation author, respondens and praeses in several Heidelberg prints from 1600–1603) and travelled about in Germany, introducing his method in Erfurt, Steinfurt, Herborn, Halle and Marburg (possibly also in Rintelen, see below). He appeared in Giessen prints already in 1612 and was a professor of law at Giessen in 1616–1621.27 In the above-mentioned letter, Komenský refers to two treatises from the end of 1620s, by Bartholomeus Ernst28 and Gabriel Holstenius, popularising Glaum’s method. Gabriel Holstenius, who become lecturer and rector at Västerås gymnasium after his studies in Germany, introduced Glaum’s method in his treatise Clärliche Anzeigung (‘Brief demonstration’), presenting it in the form of questions and answers, and including examples of disputations in different languages (but not Greek) at its end; the printer of this treatise was Karl Unckel in Frankfurt, who had also printed other works by Glaum and Glaumians.29 Holstenius writes that he had studied Glaum’s method in Halle (then Gymnasium) and continues by describing stages of education in different subjects, which were taught at the Faculty of Arts, in Law and Languages. A week for each was foreseen for elementary education in dialectica, rhetorica, ethica and jus feudale, four weeks for the study of the elements of politica, institutiones juris et civilis, processus civilis, processus criminalis and modern languages, such as Italian, Spanish, French, English, Swedish and Belgian (see pp. 5–6). According to this method, modern languages needed to be studied 26  See above and Evenius Sigismund, Methodi linguarum artiumque compendiosioris scholasticae demonstrata veritas (Halle, Gormann: 1621), http://purl.uni-rostock.de/rosdok/ ppn777864541 [accessed 15.12.2019]. 27  See Glaum Philipp (Pr.) – Pincier Conrad (Resp.), Disputationum exercitia (Giessen, Chemlinus: 1612), VD17 1:012906P, for biography, Jöcher Christian Gottlieb – Adelung Johann Christoph, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexikon. Bd. 2 (Leipzig: 1787) col. 1482–1483 and Dickson D.R., Tessera of Antilia (Leiden: 1998) 121, n. 109. 28  See Ernst Barthol., Langbegehrte Proben und Specimina (Frankfurt am Main, Unckel: 1629), http://iip.bu.uni.wroc.pl/index.php?s=OSD_402225_402228&p=5 [accessed 12.01.2020]. 29  Full title: Clärliche Angeig [recte Anzeig] oder Bedeuttung / Was und wieviel ein Jedweder in divina methodo Glaumiana, Nemblich Eine Kunst oder Sprach respective inwendig VIII oder XIV Tagen, III.IV oder nach Gelegenheit mehr Wochen mediocriter zuerlernen […] Durch Gabrielem Holstenium Noraemontanum Svecum (Frankfurt am Main, Unckel: 1628), VD17 23:289564Y.

742

Päll

after German and Latin, whereas the latter two, together with Greek and Hebrew, were to be studied over the course of 6 months. However, according to Holstenius, students would already have been able to produce written specimina after 2 months of study. According to leges collegii, mentioned by Holstenius, different stages of (language) studies had to include: 1) speaking with fellow students in the language that they were learning (p. 9); 2) studying and discussing elementary questions over the course of one week (or one month); 3) presenting an ex tempore disputation on studied topics at the end of the week (month); 4) recording in writing one’s ex tempore disputation (p. 8); 5) presenting (or at least being able to present) one’s ex tempore disputation in public (p. 12); 6) examination by the professor after 8 days, 2 weeks and a month, in order to ensure that the material had been mastered well (p. 13). According to Holstenius, students were allowed to preside in disputations on Feudal Law after their studies, but only after having presided in philosophical disputations first. (Although it was unusual) they were allowed to propose disputations without a praeses if they answered the possible objections by philosophers during the dispute (pp. 12–13). Holstein’s own disputations from 1620 and 1627 (see Appendix) can be regarded as Glaumian, although he does not mention Glaum’s name and presents only theses nudae, without using the question-answer structure which was the basis of Glaumian disputations by Smidios and Steuber. The clearest example of Glaum’s method of teaching Greek is a Greek disputation by an otherwise unknown Georgios Smidios from Ubii (Köln?), presented possibly at Rinteln and printed by Karl Unckel in Frankfurt am Main in 1619. The disputation includes a prologue, an epilogue and 30 short theses,30 called θέμα. Its title page describes its writing context: ΔΙΆΛΕΞΙΣ ἙΛΛΗΝΙΚΉ, περὶ ΤΩΝ ΧΩΡΙΩΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΙΩΤΙΚΩΝ, καὶ τοῦ αὐτῶν δικαίου, ἥνπερ Κατὰ τὴν πολλάκις δεδοκιμασμένην μέθοδον τοῦ μεγαλοψύφου [!] καὶ σοφωτάτου Νομικοῦ, κυρίου ΦΙΛΊΠΠΟΥ ΓΛΑΜΊΟΥ, τοῦ τῶν νόμων καὶ κανόνων Διδασκάλου, etc. ἐν εἰκοστῇ ἑβδομῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἑλληνικῶν ἐμοῦ

30  It is interesting that each of the 4 longer disputation exercises from Fant’s Collectanea (see under presumably also disputation exercises from Västerås) also includes 30 theseis nudae like the printed disputation presided over by Gabriel Holstenius in Västerås. Were they following his example?

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

743

σπουδασμάτων, ΑΥΤΟΣΧΕΔΊΩΣ ΣΥΝΈΓΡΑΨΑ, | καὶ | […] | […] ἐν ἑλληνικῷ ἰδιώματι ἐπιχειρήσω διαλάττειν [!]. Greek disputation on the fiefs of knights31 and law concerning these, which I wrote ex tempore on the 27th day of my Greek studies, according to the much appreciated method of the most generous and wisest Lawyer Philipp Glaum, the Professor of Law […] and which I shall endeavour to present [?] in the Greek language.32 This title page may seem too boastful, but the introduction and the epilogue confirm its words: ΠΡΟΟΙΜΙΟΝ. ἘΠειδὴ ἐσπούδασα διὰ τεσσάρων ἑβδομάδων, περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ἑλληνικήν, καὶ συνέγραψα ἐπιστολάς τινας καὶ διαλέξεις ἀσκήματος ἕνεκεν, ἤδη ἤρεσεν συγγράψαι ἐσχάτην ἐμοῦ διάλεξιν αὐτοσχεδιαστικήν, κατὰ τοὺς τοῦ συλλόγου ἡμῶν νόμους. Ἔσονταί τινες λέγοντες, ἐπιζητεῖσθαι πλείονα χρόνον, εἰς τὸ διδάσκεσθαι γλῶτταν, καὶ συγγράφειν διάλεξιν: Ἀλλ’ ὁ Διδάσκαλος καὶ πρόεδρος ἡμῶν (λέξω παῤῥησιαστικῶς) μήποτε ἠθέλησε διδάσκειν γλώττας, μηδὲ ἐδυνήθη πρόσαναλίσκειν ἔτη καὶ ἡμίση ἔτη εἰς τὸ διδάσκειν μίαν γλῶτταν, ἀλλὰ πρῶτος αὐτοῦ σκοπός ἐστιν, ἐκάστῳ ἀνδρὶ παιδευτῷ ἀποδεικνύναι ὀφθαλμοφανερῶς, ὅτι αἱ τέχναι καὶ γλῶτται δύνωνται διδάσκεσθαι καὶ μανθάνεσθαι, διὰ ἐπιτομωτέρας μεθόδου. After I had studied the Greek language for four weeks and written some letters and disputations for the sake of exercise, I wished to write my last ex tempore disputation, according to the rules of our collegium. There are some who say that it takes more time to learn a language and write a disputation, but our teacher and praeses, (I’ll say freely) has never wished to teach languages nor had he been able to waste years, even a half year, on teaching one language, but his primary goal is to demonstrate visibly to each man who is to be educated that the arts and the languages can be taught and learned by a more succinct method.33 Schmidt’s conclusion asks for the benevolence of the reader, once more underlining the brevity of his studies:

31  Explained in thesis 3 as Ritter- oder Lehengut. 32  See Smidios Georg, Διάλεξις ἑλληνικὴ περὶ τῶν χωρίων στρατιωτικῶν (Frankfurt am Main, Unckel: 1619). 33  Smidios, Διάλεξις 3 (=fol. A2r).

744

Päll

οὕτω ἔγωγε ποιήσω τὸ τέλος τῆς ἐμοῦ διαλέξεως καὶ συζητήσεως, ὑπομνήσας τὸν ἀναγνώστην βραχέα χρόνον (τεσσάρων δηλονότι ἑβδομάθων [!]) ταύτην τὴν γλῶτταν, καὶ μὲν ὅτι ἔγραψα οὐκ ἀκριβολογίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν διάλεξιν αὐτοσχεδιαστί, κατὰ τοὺς τοῦ συνθήματος καὶ συλλόγου ἡμετέρου νόμους. I’m going to end my disputation and discussion, reminding the reader of the short time (namely four weeks) [which I spent learning] this language, and that I did not write an exact account, but an ex tempore disputation according to the rules of our convention and collegium.34 Schmidt’s disputation also reflects the usual linguistic context of teaching Law (Latin, and vernacular): most of its themata present explanations in Greek of German termini technici, whereas the marginal notes in Latin indicate thematic subdivisions. Law is unique among the topics of Greek disputations, corresponding to the loss of the knowledge of Greek among lawyers from the beginning of the 17th century onwards.35 The reason for this exceptional choice of subject is without doubt Glaum’s own interest in teaching Law. 3

An Overview of Greek Disputations

3.1 Information Concerning Greek Disputations Thanks to electronic cataloguing and the inclusion of language information in metadata, finding Greek disputations has become easier, but searches still have to be conducted according to key-words from title pages (‘disputatio graeca’, διάλεξις, συζήτησις, ἀποκρινόμενος (-μένου), καθηγητής, προστατοῦντος etc.). Fant’s Collectanea Graeca and Historiola include most disputation prints from Sweden,36 the bibliography of Giessen prints and the obituary of Christoph Sonntag provides information on uncatalogued or lost prints from Germany.37 All Greek disputations known to the author are presented chronologically in the short title catalogue of Greek disputations, presented as an Appendix to 34  Smidios, Διάλεξις 7 (=fol. A4r). 35  Excluding some exceptions, see Troje H.E., Graeca leguntur: die Aneignung des byzan­ tinischen Rechts und die Entstehung eines humanistischen Corpus Juris civilis in der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jahrhunderts (Köln: 1971). 36  Fant Ericus Michael, Collectanea Graeca, Uppsala University Library ms. U-176, No. 9 (folio pages not numbered); Fant Ericus Michael, Historiola litteraturae Graecae in Svecia (Uppsala, Edman: 1775–1786). 37  See Schüling H., Verzeichnis des von 1605–1624 in Giessen erschienenen Schrifttums (Giessen: 1985) 281–286 (in https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56343129.pdf [accessed 15.12.2019]) and Rink Eucharius Gottlieb, Rector Vniversitatis Altorphinae Fvnvs perlvctvosvm Domini Christophori Sontagii indicit (Altdorf, Kohlesius: 1717), fol. ϯϯϯϯ 2rv.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

745

this paper (see Appendix, p. 758ff.). These disputations can be divided into the following groups: 1) 48 extant Greek disputation prints from different gymnasia and universities, which were printed as separate books or booklets; in these cases, involved persons, subjects, locations and dates have been indicated on the title pages; there are references to another 6 possibly still existing prints which could not be autopsied for this article but have been included in the appendix.38 Sometimes these individual prints formed a longer numbered series of disputations. One of these includes 7 disputations, which belonged to a series on pneumatology (including at least 9 disputations), presided over by Johannes Gezelius at the University of Tartu in the years 1644 (Nos. 1–3), 1646 (Nos. 4–5) and 1647 (Nos. 6 and 9). All extant disputations have been printed as separate quires with their own title pages, but disputations 1 to 5 have continuous numbering from quire A to E, and Nos. 7 and 8 of the series are missing. Gezelius’ discussion of pneumatology (combining metaphysics and theology) is based on Alsted’s encyclopaedia, which was an important authority in Lutheran universities.39 These disputations were presented at the Faculty of Philosophy, which explains why theology was not mentioned on the title page. Gezelius most probably refers to this series in the index of his works as the first ‘theological’ series from 1644 and 1645.40 Another series of individual prints from 1641 included Balthasar Scheidt’s disputations on the Gospel of St. Luke (three of them are extant, the series was reprinted in 1669, see also below, sec. 3);41 38  A disputation presided over by Christoph Sonntag (see Appendix, 1697) and 5 disputations by Johannes Steuber (Appendix, 1615–1618). Two disputation prints from Västerås, presided by Andreas Thermaenius (Appendix, 1668 and 1671) can be counted as synodal disputations. 39  See Korhonen, “Classical Authors” 170–178, Friedenthal – Päll, “Pneumatoloogiast ül­di­selt”, 188–204, Päll – Friedenthal (eds.), Gezeliuse esimene pneumatoloogiline disputatsioon. 40  See Gezelius, Index and Appendix, 1644, 1645. The disputations which were presented in the year 1646 (Nos. 4 and 5) could be missing from the Index because they were already printed in 1645, before the time of presentation (which would also explain the continuous numbering). As disputations Nos. 6 and 9 (from 1647) have independent pagination (thus being less coherently incorporated into the series) and there is no contemporary or later information on the missing disputations Nos. 7 and 8, it is possible that Gezelius did not finance the printing of these. This would explain the absence of any reference to the disputations under the year 1647 in his Index. But it seems even more probable that the incoherence between printing years on the title pages and in the Index resulted from a mistake of reference after a lapse of 30–40 years. 41  Scheidt mentions his Königsberg disputations twice. Firstly he refers to 12 presented disputations: ‘vigesimus sextus jam agitur annus, ex quo primum Regiomonti Borussorum divina gratia, adhibitis privatis studiis, duodecim publicas disputationes, Graeco idiomate

746

Päll

2) The lost disputations Nos. 7 and 8 from the disputation series on pneumatology by Johannes Gezelius the Elder in Tartu. The hypothesis of the existence of these disputations (both in manuscript and in print) is based on the numbering of the extant ones (Nos. 1–6, 9), although it is possible that these two were never printed and were already lost by the 18th century (see the previous section and the Appendix, 1647); 3) Two prints from Strasbourg with two disputation series on the New Testament, presided over by Balthasar Scheidt (see the Appendix, 1668 and 1669): the title of the first Strasbourg series from 1668 refers to 7 disputations (ἑπτάς) and the names of 7 respondentes are presented in it, but without further information on the disputing occasions. This disputation series is presented as one continuous whole, divided into 4 chapters; in 1669, a reprint of an earlier series of disputations on the Gospel of St. Luke was printed in Strasbourg. The print (with continuous numbering and only one title page) includes 20 separate disputations, each with a numbered title. 15 respondentes are named at the beginning of the print, but with no further information on the disputing occasions. The series had first been presented in 1641 by 11 respondentes in Königsberg, where at least three first disputations were also printed (see above, under 1 and Appendix, 1641). Together with the above-named single disputation prints from Königsberg, Scheidt had provided theses for at least 39 different Greek disputing occasions; as only 33 respondentes are named, several must have disputed more than once (only one of them, Scheidt’s brother Johann Valentin is known to have participated in both series); 4) Manuscript theses for 19 disputation exercises from Västerås gymnasium, presented in the years 1659–1670 (see the Appendix). These are short lists of theses (usually from 3–5) in Greek and Latin. Each one begins by indicating its praeses, the lecturers of Greek Johannes Sundius42 and Petrus Winther,43 as well as the names of respondens, topics, time and place of disputation; habui’ (‘it is already the 26th year since I had 12 public Greek disputations in Königsberg of Prussia, with the help of God and as a result of private exercises’). Scheidt, Τῶν συζητήσεων, fol. A2r. However, in 1669, Scheid names 11 respondentes of his disputations in Königsberg (Scheidt, Τῶν διατριβῶν, fol. A2v). This difference might indicate that one student participated in more than one disputation (as in the case of the disputation series from 1669, where 15 respondentes were named for 20 disputations, see Scheidt, Τῶν διατριβῶν, fol. A4v). The extant three Königsberg disputations from 1641 have been printed as a series in continuous pagination (see Appendix, 1641), the fate of the others is unknown. 42  See Fant, Historiola vol. VI 5–6, according to him, these disputations were from the years 1653 [mistaken for 1663]–1670, a present to him by Jacobus Boetius (who the respondens of Historiola in 1669). 43  Not much is known about him, see Muncktell J.F., Westerås Stifts Herdaminne (Uppsala: 1844). https://www.zenker.se/Historia/Herdaminne/lindesberg.shtml#kh9 [accessed 12.01.2020].

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

747

5) Two sets of disputations in manuscript, consisting of 30 theseis nudae in Greek (see the Appendix, after 1668): firstly, two disputation exercises in the same hand (probably Andreas Andreae, who signed the manuscript); and secondly, one copy of each of these two exercises (one signed by Isaacus Eliae, another by Johannes Olai Schedviensis).44 These lists of theses, although they begin with a title and include signatures at the end, are not furnished with any information on the disputing occasion, such as place, time, and the names of praeses or respondens. Only their existence in the same corpus as the 19 manuscript disputations from Västerås, where they are included among the others (see above, under 4 and the Appendix), allows these 4 texts to be dated in the period 1659–1670 and to locate them in Västerås. There are different possibilities for reconstructing the context for these disputations: a) there were two disputing occasions where Andreas Andreae, who signed two different sets of theses, was the original author and/or praeses, and the other two persons, Isaacus Eliae and Johannes Olai, acted as respondentes or opponentes. If Andreas Andreae is identical with Andreas Andreae Littorinus, who was active in the Västerås Consistorium toward the end of the 1660s and was connected to the school in 1668,45 this scenario is plausible: his position at the Gymnasium was important enough for him to act as a praeses (and be the author). In this case at least two of these four disputation manuscripts (if not all four) could be dated to 1668 (cf. Appendix); b) corresponding to practice in private collegia, all participants of the collegium could have copied the theses given by the professor. In this case we cannot know with certainty the roles of the persons who signed the manuscripts;46 c) the disputations written and/or presented initially by Andreas Andreae could have been reused on an entirely different occasion by the other two persons (Isaacus Eliae and Johannes Olai), or vice versa; 6) Title pages of 28 numbered Greek disputations in theology presided over by Johannes Gezelius the Elder in Tartu in 1649, indicating the subjects, time, place and names of the praeses and respondentes (see the Appendix, 1649). 44  In Fant, Collectanea Graeca, Uppsala University Library ms. U-176, No. 9 (folio pages not numbered). 45  See “Apologist i Westerås skola i 1668”, in Muncktell, Westerås, under ‘öfrige Tjenstemän wid Consistorium och Gymnasium’, https://zenker.se/Historia/Herdaminne/gymnasium .shtml [accessed 12.01.2020]. 46  For practices in private collegia, see Schlegelmilch U., “Andreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationskollegiums zur Psychologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 58–61, 70–76 (whole article, 49–88).

748

Päll

In Gezelius, Index, a 2nd theological series is mentioned under the year 1648. It could be identified with this series of title pages.47 The difference in its date (1648, whereas all the title pages bear dates from the beginning of 1649) could have resulted from the fact that title pages (or whole disputations) were printed together before the actual disputing took place. It remains unclear whether the disputations themselves were printed: the title pages could have served to announce the public dispute, but also (if the theses were printed as well) as publicity for the prints; the first version seems more plausible because announced disputations have never been found, although the reference in the Index points to the possibility that the prints had once existed as well; 7) Information concerning 2 manuscript disputations (not found) from Altdorf University, presided over by Christoph Sonntag, together with titles, times and names of respondentes;48 8) A treatise by Christian Gottfried Stentzel from 1725 (and its reprint from 1745, see the Appendix), which had originally been written as a disputation (see the discussion above), but was not presented as such. The disputation is furnished with Latin translation and index, corresponding to its new function as a medical handbook; 9) Prints of disputations, which are prevalently in Latin, but include Greek theses or corollaria (see the Appendix under 1619 and 1624); 10) References by the authors of Greek disputations to their other disputations in Greek, not counted among existing disputations because of the vagueness of the information. These include: Christian Gottfried Stentzel’s ‘elaborate dissertation in Greek, which he had ready, About the only and truthful temperament of Adam before original sin’ from 1745 (when he was a professor at Wittenberg University);49 Balthasar Scheidt’s reference to his planned Greek disputation series on St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians;50 Johannes Gezelius’ references in his index of publications to Greek disputations from 1641, 1642 and 1643,51 and a reference to the following disputation in his 9th pneumatological disputation;52 47  See Gezelius, Index. 48  See Rink, Fvnvs perlvctvosvm, fol. ϯϯϯϯ 2v and the Appendix. 49  ‘Iam in promptu celaboratam [!] habeo dissertationem Graecam περὶ τῆς μιᾶς κἀληθινῆς κράσεως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ πρὶν ἁμαρτάνειν’, see Stentzel Christian Gottfried, διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου. De somno. Altera editio (Danzig, Knoch: 1745), fol.)(6v, (note e). This note is missing from the preface of the first edition (see Stentzel, Διατριβὴ from 1725 and the Appendix), which has otherwise been repeated without many changes, thus the disputation must have been written between 1725 and 1745. 50  See Scheidt, Τῶν διατριβῶν, fol.):(4r (cf. Appendix, 1669). 51  See Gezelius, Index and the Appendix under the corresponding years. 52  See the Appendix, 1649. This hypothesis is by Korhonen, “Classical Authors” 166.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

749

Altogether we thus have information on 147 events of disputation in Greek between 1604 and 1724 (see Fig. 28.1).53 Upon closer examination, it is clear that a small number of professors made most of the contributions to this practice: the vast majority of events of disputation in Greek, namely 127, were presided over by only 8 professors (out of 19 known praesides): Johannes Steuber in Giessen (presided over 10 disputations in 1615–1619), Johannes Gezelius the Elder in Tartu and Stockholm (38 in 1642–1650), Henrik (Ericus) Ausius in Uppsala (5 in 1648–1658), Balthasar Scheidt in Königsberg and Strasbourg (39 in 1641–1669) and Christoph Sonntag in Altdorf (14 in 1694–1716), as well as Johannes Sundius (13 disputations in 1663–1670), Peter Winther (6 disputations in 1659–1663) and Andreas Thermaenius (2 synodal disputations in 1668 and 1671) at Västerås Gymnasium (see Appendix). Not only the professors, but also certain students were more active than others, and several of them later became praesides of Greek disputations. For example, Gabriel Holstenius, who had disputed as a respondens in Halle, became a praeses in Västerås; his student from Västerås, Johannes Gezelius became a praeses of multiple disputations in Tartu; the respondens of one of Gezelius’ disputations in Tartu (and the nephew of Gabriel Holstenius), Ericus Holstenius, acted as a praeses in Tartu, whereas the respondens of his Tartu disputation, Johannes Sundius later presided over multiple disputations in Västerås. [Fig. 28.3]. The number of known persons who had participated in Greek disputations either as praeses or respondens (145) is thus almost equal to the number of disputation events and not double, as it would be if each person would have been involved in only one disputation. The list of places where Greek disputations where presented includes 14 higher schools, either Protestant universities (Basel, Giessen, Strasbourg, Königsberg, Wittenberg, Tartu, Uppsala, Turku, Altdorf) or academic gymnasia (Soest, Halle, Magdeburg, Västerås, Stockholm). Another school, presently yet unidentified, Λυκεῖον Βουκουρεῖον (in a print from Frankfurt by Karl Unckel) could be Rinteln.54 As in the case of professors, only a few schools have provided most of the disputations, such as: Giessen, Königsberg, Västerås, Uppsala, Tartu, Strasbourg and Altdorf. However, although the currently known information does not point to the involvement of large numbers of professors and schools, the extant manuscripts 53  In the case of 4 manuscript disputations from Fant’s Collectanea (probably from Västerås), it is unclear whether there were 2 or 4 disputation events (see above). 54  Unckel also printed other disputations by Glaumians, presented in various higher schools. The Greek name has to be a translation of an illustre name of a university or gymnasium. The best correspondences seem to be Rinteln or Oxford, but Rinteln seems closer because of its connections to Glaum.

750

Päll

Halle 1620 S. Euenius P.

G. Holstenius R. Västerås 1627

G. Holstenius P.

M.E. Arosiander R. Tartu 1646 Joh. Gezelius P.

E. Holstenius R. Tartu 1652

E. Holstenius P.

Joh. Sundius R.

Västerås 1663-1670 Joh. Sundius P.

Figure 28.3

13 different students as R.

Dissemination of disputing in Greek: from respondens (R.) to praeses (P.). Direct lines from Halle to Västerås and from Tartu to Västerås, probably also from Västerås to Tartu (Johannes Gezelius had studied in Västerås in 1626–1637, and E. Holstenius was the nephew of G. Holstenius)

and several references infer that the oral tradition (especially in Germany) was much more extensive than suggested by disputation prints. 3.2 Occasions and Topics of Greek Disputations The most common framework for Greek disputations is public disputation pro exercitio. Explicit references to exercises can be found in several disputations presided over by Steuber, Scheidt, Gezelius, Ausius, Sundius, Winther and Ericus Holstenius.55 Although all title pages do not mention the context of the exercitia, we can assume, at least in the case Gezelius’ disputations, that when the title pages of one or two disputations mention exercitia, the whole series had been presented during public exercises. 55  E.g. title page of Paulinus – Ainelius (Appendix, 1688): Ἐλευθέρας τῆς ἀσκήσεως ἕνεκα; Ausius – Aurivillius (Appendix, 1658): ἐλευθερίου γυμνασίας εἵνεκα; Ausius – Stalenus (Appendix, 1658): hoc academicum exercitium; Steuber – Schönberg (Appendix, 1615): Publicitus exercitii gratia; Steuber – Dieterich (Appendix, 1619): Publici exercitii gratia; Gezelius – Harckmann (Appendix, 1644): hanc disputationem ἀσκητικήν; Holstenius – Sundius (Appendix, 1652): Exercitium hocce academicum and Scheidt – Rosteuscher, Scheidt – Broeselius, Scheidt – Wegner: Authoritate superiorum ex privato collegio publice proposita (Appendix, 1641).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

751

The first known disputation by Johann Siglicius (see above) is pro gradu, as well as at least one disputation presided over by Steuber,56 and Gabriel Holstenius’ disputation from Halle:57 ‘editoque 1620 Halae Graecae eruditionis specimine, renunciatus est philosophiae Magister’ (‘After having published in Halle the example of erudition in Greek, he was proclaimed Master in Philosophy’). This is also very probable in the case of one disputation by Brendel and Huth.58 In cases of pro gradu disputations, the Greek disputation was probably additional to one in Latin. The only known pro loco disputation by Johann Rudolf Wettstenius (see above) discusses teaching Greek, as is appropriate for a man who disputed for obtaining the post of professor of Greek. Usually the function of the disputation is to present a specimen of the student’s ability (see Ch. 2 above). However, public disputation could also have functions other than just proving one’s language skills. Two disputations from Sweden had been dedicated to Queen Christina: one had been presented explicitly by her orders in the year of her coronation in Stockholm (See Appendix 1650, Gezelius and Emporagrius).59 Another disputation had been presented in her presence, as the handwritten remark on the title-page of the disputation indicates: ‘habita d. 19. Decemr. 1648, in praesentia S.R.Mtis’ (‘held before the S. Majesty the Queen on the 19th day of December, in 1648’).60 As both the date of the Peace of Westphalia (24 October) and her birthday (8/18 December) are very close to this time, a supplementary function can be suggested: to congratulate the Queen both for her birthday and for the end of the 30 Years’ War. And indeed, in this case the congratulation of the disputation by J.A. Freinshemius seems to consider not only the student and his topic (education), but also (and even more) the State, its Wars and Peace, and its Queen: Si quis […] Sveciae fata expenderit, […] inclytum hoc regnum, et pace et bello […], Et bellicos quidem Gothorum triumphos […] praetereamus: Pacem autem quos attinet, quod non videt, instrumentum ejus 56  See Steuber – Ellinger, Ἀπορήματα, presented by Philosophiae candidatus (cf. Appendix, 1615). 57  See Fant, Historiola I 52. 58  ‘[…] Ego vero, qvi Tibi faveo, et impense de re bene gesta gratulor, auguror, fore, ut summosqve Tibi decreti sunt in Arte medica honores’ (‘Indeed, while I support you and congratulate you for the well-done deed, I wish that you’ll receive the utmost honores of Medical art’), Brendel Adam (Pr.) – Huth Johann Christoph (Resp.), Ἐν διαλέξει μαθηματικῇ (Wittenberg, Kreusig: 1702), fol. A1v (cf. Appendix, 1702). 59  See Appendix, 1650 and discussion in Korhonen, “Classical Authors” 169–179. 60  See Ausius, Henrik (Pr.) – Rezander, Petrus (Resp.), Περὶ τῆς τῶν νέων παιδείας (Uppsala, Mattson: 1648), the title page and digitalisation in http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn: se:uu:diva-251141 [accessed 03.01.2020] (cf. the Appendix, 1648).

752

Päll

praecipuum aut potius unicum, doctrinas artesque liberales hic florere maxime? […] invitante partim praemiis amplissimis, partim sanctissimo exemplo suo, Augustissima Illa Christina, cui nihil par esse, nihilque secundum vere dixeris. If anyone […] would discuss the fate of Sweden, this famous state, in peace and in war […] And let us leave aside the triumphs of Goths in war: because who among those who care about peace don’t see that its most important, and possibly even only, instrument is that free sciences and arts flourish the most here? […] Having been invited partly by the greatest awards, partly by the holiest example of our most august Christina, to whom nothing is equal and even second, you could truthfully say.61 Thus we see again that the grounds for praising a monarch are often based on their role as (at least official) promoters of education: a disputation on the subject of liberal arts thus invites praise for their defender.62 As we have seen from disputation occasions, the topics of Greek disputations were not too diverse either, when compared to Latin ones. Although one of the topics in different Laudes linguae graecae is the usefulness of Greek for lawyers,63 the discussion of feudal law in the disputation by Georg Smidios is an exception, to be considered as publicity for the teaching method of the Law Professor Philipp Glaum (see above). Another unique topic among Greek disputation exercises is the discussion of the mathematics of Euclid (Brendel 1702), although in the 16th century, Euclid was often studied at the universities in Greek. Although Greek has been praised as being of utmost importance for medicine, topics concerning medicine and physiology are discussed in only 4 disputations, which (except for the first one by Johann Siglicius) date from the beginning of the 18th century and have been presided over by professors of medicine. The most popular disputation subjects of Greek disputations are philosophy and theology. Philosophy is the topic of almost 25 disputations, discussing 61   Ausius – Rezander, Περὶ τῆς τῶν νέων παιδείας, fol. A5v. 62  For the panegyrics of kings, see Helander H., Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620–1720 (Uppsala: 2004) 482–483, Päll J., “Panegyrics for Gustavus II Adolphus at Academia Gustaviana and Academia Gustavo-Carolina”, in Nilsson A.M.H. – Damtoft P.A. – Svensson J. (eds.), Humanitas. Festskrift till Arne Jönsson (Göteborg – Stockholm: 2017) 488–510 (for praise of Gustavus II Adolphus and Queen Christina as defenders of liberal arts). 63  See the discussion in Päll J., “Hyperborean Flowers: Humanist Greek around the Baltic Sea”, in Constantinidou N. – Lamers H. (eds.), Receptions of Hellenism in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2019).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

753

mainly moral philosophy and virtues or philosophy’s general foundations. Although Aristotle is frequently referred to in these disputations, the manner in which the subject is presented resembles Latin manuals of ethics and general encyclopaedic works more than Aristotle’s Ethics, with the exception of the Evenius – Holstenius disputation where the theseis are mostly drawn from Sophistici elenchi (see Appendix, under 1620).64 Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the discussion of moral philosophy and Christian morality, especially in disputations by Ausius (presented at the faculty of philosophy) or Sonntag (presented at the faculty of theology). Another overlap of subjects occurs in the case of Gezelius’ disputations on pneumatology. The discipline of pneumatology combines metaphysics with theological topics, which provided Gezelius with an institutionally suitable framework for the discussion of both subjects: namely, in that period, metaphysics was not accepted at the University of Tartu (which officially adhered to ramist principles), and as a professor of Greek, Gezelius was not supposed to dispute in theology. Thus he closely followed Alsted, who was a recommended author, but omitted unsuitable notions such as ‘theology’ and ‘metaphysics’.65 We also encounter classifications such as theologico-philosophica (Evenius – Dach, Appendix, 1625). Theology is by far the most popular subject, on more than 100 disputation occasions, and even if we disregard the series prints, it prevails with more than 40 different topics. As in the case of philosophy, it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between disciplines (it can be done formally by considering the faculty where the disputations were presented). Many Greek disputations were presided over by professors of Greek (and Hebrew) and discuss linguistic questions concerning exegesis. For example a so-called philological disputation, Διατριβὴ Φιλολογικὴ discusses a notion from the Old Testament (see the Appendix, 1688, Paulinus – Aenelius), and philological disputations by Balthasar Scheidt discuss the translation and exegesis of the New Testament. Scheidt’s first series is dedicated to St. Paul’s letter to the Philippeans (Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν ἑπτάς, ‘Seven philological questions’). His 2nd series is dedicated to the Gospel of St. Luke (Τῶν διατριβῶν φιλολογικῶν εἰκάς, ‘Twenty philological disputations’). Some of Christoph Sonntag’s disputations touch on linguistic questions as well, for example the disputation discussing the original language of the Gospel of St. Matthew (τίνι ἂν γλώττῃ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Εὐαγγελίου γεγραμμένον, ‘In which language has the archetype of the Gospel of St. Matthew been written?’ See Appendix, 1696, Sonntag – Meelführer). The importance of Greek studies for theology also appears in the 64  For example in the case of the disputation by Ericus Holstenius and Johannes Sundius, discussing moral philosophy in general (Appendix, 1652). 65  See also the discussion above.

754

Päll

case of professors of Greek who aspired towards a career in theology, for example Johannes Steuber in Giessen and Johannes Gezelius in Tartu. Theological topics can vary a great deal, depending on the stage of studies. Only some Biblical loci are disputed in the case of gymnasium and two extand synodal disputes, but some treatises extend to greater lengths. One of the most recurrent topics by many professors is the discussion of the articles of Lutheran faith, as in a series presided over by Professor Johannes Gezelius in Tartu (Appendix, under 1649) and the disputation Ἀποσπασμάτιον ἄρθρων τῶν Σχμαλκαλδικῶν (‘The treatise [actually a translation] of Smalcaldian loci’, see Appendix, 1694, Sonntag – Zimmermann). Several theological disputations were clearly polemical, either against the Greek Orthodox Church (or other ‘heretics’) or philosophy. This includes the above-mentioned disputations concerning Smalcaldian loci, but interconfessional polemics is the basis for several other disputations, such as: Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκπορεύσεως (‘On the emanation of the Holy Spirit’, see Appendix, 1694, Faust – Specht), Τὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἐνωτικὰ τὰ περὶ κάνωνος (‘On the union of the Orthodox church in the question of the Canon’, see Appendix, 1696, Sonntag – Rinder), Συμφιλολογία περὶ τῶν τασκοδρουγιτῶν (‘The philological discussion of the peg-snouts’ [against the Montanists], see Appendix, 1715, Sonntag – Scheumäder). Actually, the other disputations presided over by Christoph Sonntag were also polemical and discussed questions of importance for theology. He even took upon himself a battle against Cartesian philosophy in his disputation Ὁ Καρτήσιος ἀντίγραφος, τουτέστι, τὰ τοῦ Καρτησίου λήμματα πέντε ἀθεόλογα καὶ ἀφιλόσοφα’ (‘A reply to Cartesius: this is, five atheological and aphilosophical theses by Cartesius’), although it was a lost cause and probably even hindered the advancement of Greek studies (see Appendix, 1712, Sonntag – Sonntag). His disputation concerning metaphysics (possibly attacking it as well) has not yet been found (see Appendix, 1695). Sonntag’s disputations confirm the new important function of university dissertations that we have seen in the case of Stentzel’s medical treatises: along with presenting one’s elementary knowledge in the form of a public dispute, Greek disputations (like Latin and vernacular ones) were more and more concerned with defending and attacking contemporary polemical issues in their field. 4

Conclusion

The practice of Greek disputations (with about 147 occasions in the analysed period) emerges in 1604 and disappears in 1725 in the context of Latin disputation, which actually always remained present in this practice as presenting

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

755

models, accompanying the Greek text as translation or in paratexts. In the 2nd and 3rd decades of the 17th century, Philipp Glaum’s method of learning Greek rapidly was promoted in Germany, resulting in Greek disputations in Halle, Giessen, Magdeburg and Frankfurt. Through Gabriel Holstenius, the method was brought to Sweden, at first to the Gymnasium of Västerås, then to the universities of Tartu, Uppsala and Turku. Greek disputation was practiced at different levels of study: in gymnasia (where very short selections of theses were often accompanied by Latin translations) and private collegia of the universities, where this practice was closely connected to oration exercises. But occasionally, dissertations were brought out before the public in order to be presented as specimina of the advancement of the student’s studies in the framework of public exercises, or even as pro gradu or pro loco or synodal disputations. Greek public disputation exercises were mostly connected to a small number of professors (8) who sometimes even produced disputation series. However, the initiative of students was not unimportant: more disputations emerged when and where there were active students, and the end of disputing in Greek can be explained by a lack of interest on the part of students. At the end of the 17th century, the form and function of Greek disputations began developing in a direction more closely resembling modern university disputations and scientific treatises. Oral disputations were initially created for the ritual of public exercises, accompanied by disputation prints which proved their achievements afterwards. Around the turn of the 17th–18th century, disputations became more polemical and were intended for the eyes of other scholars or persons representing “heretic” schools of religion. The last known Greek disputation failed to be presented orally and was reworked into a medical handbook, accompanied by Latin translation and indices. Although the tradition faded in the 18th century, a brief revival can be seen in the framework of classical studies at the beginning of the 19th century in Uppsala. Bibliography

Old Prints ( for Greek Disputations, see the Catalogue in the Appendix)

Benz Johann, Thesavrvs pvre loqvendi et scribendi graecolatinvs novvs (Strasbourg, Zetzner: 1594). Ernst Barthold, Langbegehrte Proben und Specimina (Frankfurt am Main, Unckel: 1629). Euenius Sigismund, Methodi linguarum artiumque compendiosioris scholasticae demonstrata veritas (Halle, Gormann: 1621).

756

Päll

Fant Ericus Michael, Historiola litteraturae Graecae in Svecia (Uppsala, Edman: 1775–1786). Gezelius Johannes, Index librorum et tractatuum etc etc. cura et sumptibus J. G. d. ep. Ab. Variis locis et temporibus, maximam partem recentioribus annis, in usum ecclesiae et scholarum in magno ducatu Finlandiae editorum (Turku, Winter: 1683, 2. ed. 1688). Glaum Philipp (Pr.) – Pincier Conrad (Resp.), Disputationum exercitia (Giessen, Chemlinus: 1612). Holstenius Gabriel, Clärliche Angeig [recte Anzeig] oder Bedeuttung / Was und wieviel ein Jedweder in divina methodo Glaumiana, […] mediocriter zuerlernen (Frankfort on the Main, Unckel: 1628). Rink Eucharius Gottlieb, Rector Vniversitatis Altorphinae Fvnvs perlvctvosvm Domini Christophori Sontagii indicit (Altdorf, Kohlesius: 1717).

Editions

Päll J. – Friedenthal M. (eds.), “Johannes Gezeliuse esimene pneumatoloogiline disputatsioon [‘Johannes Gezelius’ First disputation on Pneumatology’]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust, Acta et Commentationes Archivi Nationalis Estoniae 1 (32) (Tallinn: 2017) 208−235.

Discussion

Dickson D.R., Tessera of Antilia (Leiden: 1998). Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 27–48. Friedenthal M. – Päll J., “Pneumatoloogiast üldiselt ja Gezeliuse kreekakeelsetest pneumatoloogilistest disputatsioonidest spetsiifiliselt [‘On Pneumatology in General and on Gezelius’ Greek Pneumatological Disputations in Particular’]”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust, Acta et Commentationes Archivi Nationalis Estoniae 1 (32) (Tallinn: 2017) 182−207. Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R., “Einleitung”, in iidem (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 7–25. Helander H., Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620–1720 (Uppsala: 2004). Jöcher Christian Gottlieb – Adelung Johann Christoph, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexikon. Bd. 2 (Leipzig, Gleditsch: 1787). Kolk K., “Dissemination and Survival of a Book Printed in 17th-Century Tartu: The Case of Johannes Gezelius’ Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (1649)” in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 144–157.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

757

Korhonen T., “The Dissertations in Greek supervised by Henrik Ausius in Uppsala in the Middle of the Seventeenth Century” in Päll J. – Volt I. – Steinrück M. (eds.), Classical Tradition from the 16th Century to Nietzsche, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 3 (Tartu: 2010) 89–113. Korhonen T., “Classical Authors and Pneumatological Questions. Greek Dissertations supervised by Johannes Gezelius the Elder at the University of Tartu”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 158–184. Lowry M.J.C., “The “New” Academy of Aldus Manutius: a Renaissance Dream”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58 (1976) 378–420. Minaoglu Ch., “Anastasius Michael Macedo and his Speech on Hellenism” in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 115−129. Muncktell J.F., Westerås Stifts Herdaminne (Uppsala: 1844). Päll J., “Hyperborean Flowers: Humanist Greek around the Baltic Sea” in Constantinidou N. – Lamers H. (eds.), Receptions of Hellenism in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: 2020) 387−417. Päll J., “Humanist Greek in Early Modern Estonia and Livonia” in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture, Acta Societatis Morgensternianae 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 57–112. Päll J., “Panegyrics for Gustavus II Adolphus at Academia Gustaviana and Academia Gustavo-Carolina”, in Nilsson A.M.H. – Damtoft P.A. – Svensson J. (eds.), Humanitas. Festskrift till Arne Jönsson (Göteborg – Stockholm: 2017) 488−510. Pagliaroli S., “L’Accademia Aldina”, Incontri triestini di filologia classica 9 (2009–2010) 175–183. Saladin J.-C., La bataille du Grec à la Renaissance (Paris: 2013). Schlegelmilch U., “Andreas Hiltebrands Protokoll eines Disputationskollegiums zur Psychologie und Pathologie (Leiden 1604)”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 49–88. Schüling H., Verzeichnis des von 1605–1624 in Giessen erschienenen Schrifttums (Giessen: 1985). Troje H.E., Graeca leguntur: die Aneignung des byzantinischen Rechts und die Entstehung eines humanistischen Corpus Juris civilis in der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jahrhunderts (Köln: 1971).

758

Päll

Appendix – Greek Disputations from German and Swedish Universities and Gymnasia: Short Title Catalogue

This catalogue includes known disputations in Humanist Greek from German-speaking and Swedish regions (including Finland and Estonia from the period of Great Sweden), which have been created in the framework of Early Modern disputing practice. From 19th century three Greek disputations from Sweden have been added, together with two other disputations which belong to the type of so-called translation disputations and are mainly in Latin, including only some parts in Greek. Due to the availability of digitalisations, full-scale titles and information on extant copies in electronic library catalogues, only short titles are given below. The disputations are presented in chronological order (by year), with the name of the praeses (when known and/or if one existed) in the first position, followed by the name(s) of the respondens (respondentes). In case of multiple entries under one year, extant and full-scale university disputations are presented first (entries beginning with the abbreviation DISP), followed by gymnasial disputations (entries beginning with GY DISP). Entries within these subsections are arranged in alphabetical order, first by the name of the praeses and then by respondens, except in cases of numbered disputation series, which are given in the order of their original numbering.66 Reprints are presented as separate entries (beginning with REPR). Certain mistakes in dates, etc. occurring in previous and present-day bibliographies and catalogues have been corrected. In these cases, there is an entry under the incorrect year beginning with NOT, referring to the correct year. Each entry begins with indications of the disputation type according to the institutions (university, gymnasial, synodal), document type (whether it is a manuscript) and availability (if perished or of uncertain existence) of the disputation. Prints and manuscripts that might possibly be perished are marked with an asterisk* and references to testimonies of their existence are presented in square brackets in the end of the entry. Disputations that are only partially in Greek (e.g. including one thesis or corollaria, which were disputed in Greek) are included in the catalogue, but marked by the abbreviation PART; disputations of which only title pages exist are marked by the abbreviation TIT (both at the beginning of the entry). In the case of bilingual disputations, the notation ‘in Greek and Latin’ has been added to the end of the corresponding entry. The catalogue also includes information on disputations that existed according to the testimonies of their authors or contemporaries, but which have not been recorded as existing later. In these cases, the whole entry is indented in the layout, presented within square brackets, and begins with a question mark [?]. At the end of each entry, the VD or LIBRIS-ID numbers (if available at the moment of the last revision of this catalogue) are given for German and Swedish prints. 66  The numbering usually corresponds to the order of indicated times of disputing occasions.

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

759

In the case of Estonia and Finland, references to the bibliographies by Jaanson and Vallinkoski are given, as well as to the bibliography by Schüling in case of Giessen. In the case of manuscripts, each entry also includes references to the library where the extant copy is held. In short titles, the orthography of Latin has been normalised according to modern norms, as well as the usage of Greek, as far as concerns the positions and the choice of the diacritic signs and the usage of majuscles and minuscles; however, even the obvious mistakes have been retained, but marked by [sic]. Personal names of the praesides and respondentes are presented in modern orthography, according to the normalised electronic catalogue or national bibliography entries, if available. If these are not available or known, latinised name versions are used (different name variants have been preserved only in cases where identification of a person or persons is difficult). The names of printing towns follow the modern political map, i.e. Turku, not Åbo in Finland, Tartu, not Dorpat in Estonia, Gdansk, not Danzig in Poland etc.). The dates in Swedish prints are given according to the Julian Calendar (valid in Sweden till 1700), for the calculations of Greek month names I have followed Johannes Gezelius’ Greek translation of Comenius’ Ianua (Gezelius 1648: 200–201). I thank all libraries and librarians for having created the dissertation collections, catalogued (which in the case of Greek can be a tricky task) and digitalized dissertation prints, and all persons who have helped me to acquire the copies, especially Maria Lushchick from Tartu University Library, Katre Kaju from Estonian National Archives in Tartu, Pia Letalick from Västerås Public Library, Peter Sjökvist and Anna Fredriksson from Uppsala University Library, as well as other librarians in Augsburg, Basel, Berlin, Dresden, Erfurt, Giessen, Göttingen, Greifswald, Helsinki, Jena, Lund, Mainz, Mannheim, München, Regensburg, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Warsaw and Wolfenbüttel. I also thank the EOD program, as well as the Estonian Research Council and the Swedish Research Council, whose grants have financed the copies, and the HAB Wolfenbüttel for giving me a research grant which made it possible to advance research on German disputations. Lastly, my thanks go to Johanna Akujärvi for the information and photos of Swedish synodal disputations and Uppsala disputations from the 19th century.

1

Abbreviations and Signs

DISP university disputation DISS university dissertation GY DISP gymnasial disputation MS manuscript NN unknown NOT probably erroneous information P praeses PART partially in Greek

R respondens REPR reprint SY DISP synodal disputation TIT title page only * lost or not confirmed by autopsy ? referred to as (possibly) existing, but uncertain

760 2

Päll

References

Fant Ericus Michael, Collectanea Graeca. Vol. 1, Uppsala UL, MS U 176. Gezelius Johannes, J.A. Comenii Ianua linguarum reserata aurea in Graecum idioma […] translata (Tartu: 1648). Gezelius Johannes, Index librorum et tractatuum etc etc. (cura et sumptibus J. G. d. ep. Ab.) Variis locis et temporibus […] in usum ecclesiae et scholarum in magno ducatu Finlandiae editorum (Turku: Winter 1683, 2. ed. Turku 1688). Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium (Gothenburg: 2018). Jaanson E-L., Druckerei der Universität Dorpat 1632–1720. Geschichte und Bibliographie der Druckschriften (Tartu: 2000). Korhonen T., Ateena Auran Rannoilla. Humanistikreikkaa kuninkaalllisesta Tutun Akatemiasta (Helsinki: 2004). Korhonen T., “Classical Authors and Pneumatological Questions. Greek Dissertations supervised by Johannes Gezelius the Elder at the University of Tartu”, Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture. Acta Societatis Morgensterniane 6–7 (Tartu: 2018) 158–184. LIBRIS – The Union Catalogue for Swedish Research Libraries (www.libris.kb.se) Lidén Johan Henrik, Catalogus disputationum, in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae habitarum. Sectio IV. continens disputationes gymnasticas (Uppsala, Edman: 1779). Marklin G., Ad catalogum disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae Lidenianum supplementa (Uppsala: 1820). Päll J., “Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities and Academic Gymnasia”, in Friedenthal M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Early Modern Disputations and Dissertations in an Interdisciplinary and European Context, Intersections: interdisciplinary studies in early modern culture (Leiden: 2020) [forthcoming]. Rink Eucharius Gottlieb, Rector Vniversitatis Altorphinae Fvnvs perlvctvosvm Domini Christophori Sontagii indicit (Altdorf, Jobst Wilhelm Kohles: 1717). Scheller Karl, Carmina Hellenica Teutonum impressa necnon manuscripta. Collecta a Carolo F. A. Scheller medico Brunswicensi vol. III., MS in HAB, Cod. Guelf. 872 Novi. Schüling H., Verzeichnis des von 1605–1624 in Giessen erschienenen Schrifttums (Giessen: 1985). Vallinkoski J., Die Dissertationen der alten Universität Turku (Academia Aboënsis) 1642– 1828 (Helsinki: 1962–1966). VD17 – Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (http://www.vd17.de). VD18 – Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts (http://www.vd18.de).

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

3

761

Catalogue

1604

DISP Johann Siglicius [R]. Περὶ κρίσεων. Basel: Johannes Schröter. [VD17 7:696689D, in Greek and Latin]

1615

DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Johann Ellinger [R]. Ἀπορήματα ἠθηκά [sic]. Giessen: Nicolaus Hampelius. [VD17 23:259594H. Cf. Schüling, p. 281 Ἀπογράμματα [sic] ἠθικά. Giessae 1615, in Greek and Latin, towards the end Latin only] DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Peter Schönberg [R]. Gratiae christianae. Giessen: Nicolaus Hampelius. [VD17 547:689918B, in Greek, with Latin quaestiones and corollaria] *DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Henricus Valentinus Achenbach (Florstadt) [R]. Diatribe philosophica graece scripta. Giessen. [Schüling, p. 281]

1616

*DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Johannes Keller Saraepontanus. Disputatio metaphysica graeca de Dei, angelorum et hominum in operationubus suis libertate. Giessen. [Schüling, p. 281, marked as Verlust]

1617

DISP Georg Smidios, Ubios [R]. Διάλεξις ἑλληνική, περὶ τῶν χωρίων στρατιωτικῶν. Frankfurt: Karl Unckel. [VD17 1:006728V] *DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Theodor Heilman Camensis Marca – Westphalus [R]. Πεντάδιον quaestionum. Philosoph. Giessen = Pentas quaestionum philosoph. Graece. Giessen 4to. [Πενταδιον: Scheller, Carmina, vol. III, pp. 205–206; Pentas: Schüling, p. 283]

1618

*DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Johannes Leuchter Marpurgensis [R]. Disputatio theolo­ gica Graeca de spiritu. Giessen 1618. [Schüling, p. 286] *DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Valentin Steuber [R]. Disputatio Graeca de amicitia. Giessen 1618. [Schüling, p. 283]

762

Päll

1619

DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Helwig Dieterich [R]. Disputatio theologica Graeca, de loco ac statu animarum beatarum in Veteri Testamento. Giessen: Lucius. [VD17 36:723436D, in Greek, with mostly Latin corollaria] DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Ulrich Schmidt [R]. Δέκας positionum Graecarum theologicarum de deitate Filii Dei. Giessen: Lucius. [Not in VD, in Greek, with mostly Latin corollaria] DISP Johannes Steuber [P], Georg Beltzer [R]. Μελετήματα φιλοσοφικά. Giessen: Chemlinus. 25. Juni 1619. [Not in VD, in Greek, with Latin quaestiones and corollaria] DISP PART Johannes Steuber [P], Helwig Dieterich [R]. Disputatio physica de formarum pluralitate […] una cum quaestione theologica Graeca. Giessen: Lucius. [VD17 36:723435W, in Latin, with one thesis in Greek]

1620

DISP Sigismund Evenius [P], Gabriel Holstenius [R]. Περὶ τῶν σοφιστικῶν ἐλέγχων διάλεξις. Halle: Peter Schmidt [Faber, Τέκτων]. [Uppsala UL, not in LIBRIS; Latin translation in Västerås by Andreas Dalekarlus, see FANT I, 54]

1624

GY DISP PART Valentin Steuber [P], Johannes Flaschius [R]. Theologica disputatio […] cum annexis corollariis Latinis et Graecis. Soest: Martin Hesse. [VD17 32:627721R, in Latin, with three quaestiones for disputing in Greek]

1625

GY DISP Sigismund Evenius [P], Simon Dach [R]. Ἡ διάλεξις ἐξωτερικὴ θεολογικο– φιλοσοφική, περὶ τῆς τῶν ψευδομαθηματικῶν ἀστρολογίας κριτικῆς. Magdeburg: Andreas Betzel. [VD17 1:634830L]

1627

GY DISP Gabriel Holstenius [P], Matthias Erici Arosiander [R]. Ἥ περὶ τῆς ἀνδρίας [sic] διάλεξις κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη. Västerås: Olofsson Helsing. [LIBRIS – ID:11462584. Cf Marklin, p. 82: IN GYMNASIO AROSIENSI. In Quarto 1625, 3:b Περι της Ανδρειας. Er. Holstenius (Graece). Cfr. Des. Lid; Hörstedt 2018: 219, 474 gives 1643 as the year of publication, following the handwritten addition on the title page of its copy in Västeras vs printed text on the title page. See Päll, Disputations in support of 1627]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

1641

763

DISP Balthasar Scheidt [P], Christian Rosteuscher [R]. Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ πρώτη περί τινων ἀμφισβητημάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ μεταφράσει καὶ ἑρμηνείᾳ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου Λουκᾶ ὑποκειμένων. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in Evangelistam Lucam prima. [In continuous pagination with two following disputations, all presented in the catalogues of the National Library of Poland as one entry: Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ πρώτη–τρίτη. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in evangelistam Lucam. Königsberg: Lorenz Segebade. Except the title page and dedication, including the same text as in Scheidt e.a. 1669, Τῶν διατριβῶν [...] εἰκάς, 1–2 (A1rv).] DISP Balthasar Scheidt [P], Andreas Broeselius [R]. Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ δευτέρα περί τινων ἀμφισβητημάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ μεταφράσει καὶ ἑρμηνείᾳ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου Λουκᾶ ὑποκειμένων. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in Evangelistam Lucam secunda. [In continuous pagination with the preceding and the following disputation, pagination of the theses starts with B; all three presented in the catalogues of the National Library of Poland as one entry: Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ πρώτη-τρίτη. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in Evangelistam Lucam. Königsberg: Lorenz Segebade. Except the title page and dedication, including the same text as in Scheidt e.a. 1669, Τῶν διατριβῶν [...] εἰκάς, 3–5 (A2r–A3r).] DISP Balthasar Scheidt [P], Johannes Wegner [R]. Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ τρίτη περί τινων ἀμφισβητημάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ μεταφράσει καὶ ἑρμηνείᾳ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου Λουκᾶ ὑποκειμένων. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in Evangelistam Lucam tertia. [In continuous pagination with two preceding disputations, pagination of the theses starts with C; all three presented in the catalogues of the National Library of Poland as one entry: Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβὴ πρώτη–τρίτη. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in evangelistam Lucam. Königsberg: Lorenz Segebade. Except the title page and dedication, including the same text as in Scheidt e.a. 1669, Τῶν διατριβῶν [...] εἰκάς, 5–7 (A3r–[A4r].) [?*] DISP Balthasar Scheidt [P], Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβή. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in Evangelistam Lucam, No. 4–11. Königsberg: Lorenz Segebade 1641. [Cf. preceding entries and the list of respondentes in Scheidt e.a. 1669, Τῶν διατριβῶν [...] εἰκάς (1669), p.2rv: […] Undecim disputationes Graecae […] respondentibus |||):(2v […] 4. Johannes Christiano Isingio, Steirensi Austrio; 5. Laurentio Broderi, Holsato; 6. Wolfgango Rosteuschero, Hilperthusa – Franco; 7. Benedicto Copperio, Angerburgensi, Pruteno; 8. Stephano Gorlovio, Neuhoffia – Pruteno; 9. Johanne Christophoro Segero, Erffordensi Thuringio; 10. Wilhelmo Martinio, Memelensi Pruteno; 11. Johanne Hallervordio, Rostochio – Mecklenburgensi]

764

Päll

1641–1643

[? DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], AA [R]. Disputationes Graecae. See Gezelius, Index, A1r: Anno 1641, 1642, 1643, Variae Disput. Pleraeque Graecae, Dorpati ventilatae, in 4to. Probably mistaken reference, see Päll, Disputations.]

1644

DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Harckman [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις πρώτη περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος γενικῶς καὶ εἰδικῶς περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἀκτίστου. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 421, 1st of the series, in continuous pagination until No. 5. Probably referred to in Gezelius, INDEX, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to. Re-edited with a commentary as: “Johannes Gezeliuse esimene pneumatoloogiline disputatsioon. Editeerinud ja tõlkinud Janika Päll, kommenteerinud Janika Päll ja Meelis Friedenthal”, in Kaju K. (ed.), Kroonikast epitaafini. Eesti- ja Liivimaa varauusaegsest haridus- ja kultuurielust. Acta et Commentationes Archivi Nationalis Estoniae 1(32) (2017), pp. 208−237] DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Henricus Hiertzelius [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις δευτέρα περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Κτίστου γενικῶς. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 422, 2nd of the series, in continuous pagination from Nos. 1 to 5. Probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to] DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Laurentius Mellerus [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις τρίτη περὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, τῶν τε καλῶν καὶ τῶν κακῶν. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 423, 3rd of the series, in continuous pagination from Nos. 1 to 5. Probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to]

1646

DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Holstenius [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις τετάρτη περὶ τῆς ψυχογονίας. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 492, 4th of the series, in continuous pagination from Nos. 1 to 5. Probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to] DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Christian Jhering [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις πέμπτη περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῆς ψυχῆς λογικῆς. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 493, 5th of the series, in continuous pagination from No. 1. Probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

765

1647

DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Munthelius [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις ἕκτη περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς λογικῆς, ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος κεχωρισμένης, γενικῶς. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 535, 6th of the series, probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to] *DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], NN. [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις ἑβδόμη. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. *DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], NN. [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις ὀγδόη. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [the hypothesis of the existence of these two disputations is based on the numbering of Nos. 6 and 9 of the series] DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Elias Enochi [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις ἐννάτη περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς παμμάκαρος [sic] ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ζώσης. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 534, 9th of the series, probably referred to in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1644, 1645 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολογικὸς) πρῶτος 4to] [?DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], NN. [R]. Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις δεκάτη. Reference based on Gezelius, Enochi, Τῆς πνευματικῆς συζήτησις ἐννάτη, A 2r: θεσ. α.: Καὶ οὕτως ἦν ἡ ψυχολογία γενικὴ ἐν τῇ γενετῇ ἀθανασίᾳ καὶ ἰδίαις δυνάμεσιν, ἥντινα κατεσκόπησαν πρότεραι αἱ συζητήσεις. Ἕπονται οὖν ἡ εἰδική, μεταχειρίζουσα περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκ μέρους μὲν εὐδαίμονος, περὶ ἧς ἐν τῇ παρούσῃ, ἐκ μέρους δὲ παντλήμονος, περὶ ἧς ἐν ἐσχάτῃ συζητήσει. The hypothesis is by Korhonen, “Classical Authors”, pp. 170–172]

1648

DISP Henrik Ausius [P], Petrus Rezander [R]. Περὶ τῆς τῶν νέων παιδείας κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη, βιβλ. θ. κεφ. ά. Πολ. Διάλεξις. Uppsala: Eskil Mattson. [LIBRIS-ID:14289067; LIBRIS-ID:20185969] [NOT DISP Johannes Gezelius [P]. The reference in Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος, Dorpati is probably to the series from 1649. The reference might indicate the time of creating these disputations, of which only title pages are extant and indicated under 1649]

1649

TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Nicolaus Berg [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις πρώτη, περὶ τῆς Ἁγίας Γραφῆς, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Γαμηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [17.1.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 618, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος]

766

Päll

TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Arnold Mahlsted [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις δευτέρα, περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Γαμηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [20.1.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 635, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Jonas Fisinus [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις τρίτη, περὶ τῆς Ἁγίας Τρίαδος, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Γαμηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [24.1.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 622, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Georg Gezelius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις τετάρτη, περὶ τῆς Κτίσεως, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Γαμηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [27.1.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 624, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Munthelius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις πέμπ­ τη, περὶ τῆς Προνοίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἔνῃ καὶ νέᾳ μηνὸς Γαμηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [31.1.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 636, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Christian Jhering [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἕκτη, περὶ τῶν Ἀγγέλων, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τρίτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [3.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 629, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Laurentius Stalenus [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἑβδόμη, περὶ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῆς ψυχῆς, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [7.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 639, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Zacharias Koch [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ὀγδόη, περὶ τῆς Ψυχογονίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ δικάτῃ [!] μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [10.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 631, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Johannes Kreiling (Creilingius) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἐννάτη, περὶ τοῦ Αὐτεξουσίου, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ ἐπὶ δεκάδι μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [14.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 632, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Gudmundus Lidenius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις δεκάτη, περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἐπὶ δεκάδι μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [17.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 633, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

767

TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Andreas Hellenius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἑνδεκάτη, περὶ τῆς Ἐκλογῆς, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ὀγδόῃ φθίνοντος μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [21.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 626, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Sveno Andreae [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις δυωδεκάτη, περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ πέμπτῃ φθίνον­ τος μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει α, χ, μ θ. [24.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 640, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Olai (Ericus Golsteen). Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις τρεισκαιδεκάτη, περὶ τοῦ καθήκοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ πρώτῃ φθίνοντος μηνὸς Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει α, χ, μ θ. [28.2.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 625, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Nicolaus Balck [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη, περὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ εὐαγγελίου, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τρίτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [3.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 617, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Laurentius Wallerius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις πεντεκαιδεκάτη, περὶ τῆς πίστεως, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [7.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 644, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Johannes Andreae [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἑξκαιδεκάτη, περὶ τῆς μετανοίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ δεκάτῃ μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [10.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 630, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Johannes Falck [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἑπτακαιδεκάτη, περὶ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [14.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 621, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Petrus Virgander [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ὀκτωκαιδεκάτη, περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [17.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 643, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος]

768

Päll

TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Sueno Tokelius (Sueno Bernhardi) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις ἐννεακαιδεκάτη, περὶ τῆς ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ διακονίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ πρώτῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [21.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 642, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Olaus Sundelius (Elsundus) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστή, περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων γενικῶς, καὶ εἰδικῶς περὶ τοῦ Ἁγ. Βαπτίσματος, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [24.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 641, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Petrus Byringius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη-πρώτη, περὶ τῆς Ἁγ. συνάξεως, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [28.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 620, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius, Petrus Horn [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη-δευτέρα, περὶ τῆς δικαιώσεως, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἔνῃ καὶ νέᾳ μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [31.3.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 628, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Thomas Bergius [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη-τρίτη, περὶ τῶν θλίψεων καὶ προσευχῶν¸ ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [4.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 619, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Bernhard Lohman [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη–τετάρτη, περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν πολιτικῶν, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [7.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 634, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Simon Hodenius (Simon Theodori) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη–πέμπτη, περὶ τῆς συζυγίας, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ πρώτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [11.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 627, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Daniel Oeslovius (Daniel Magni) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη–ἕκτη, περὶ τοῦ θανάτου· τῆς ταφῆς· τοῦ τόπου καθαρσίου· καὶ τῆς δουλείας τῶν Ἁγίων, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ τετάρτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [14.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 637, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

769

TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Ernst Gerlachius (Luschius) [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη–ἑβδόμη, περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ Αἰῶνος· τῆς τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως· καὶ Κρίσεως Ἐσχάτης, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ ὀγδόῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [18.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 623, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος] TIT Johannes Gezelius [P], Johannes Schäper. [R]. Τῶν τόπων θεολογικῶν συζήτησις εἰκοστη–ὀγδόη, περὶ τοῦ Ἅδου · καὶ τῆς Ζωῆς Αἰωνίου, ἥτις […] ἐν Δορπάτῳ […] ἐκδικηθήσεται […] τῇ πρώτῃ ἐπὶ εἰκάδι μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ, χ, μ θ. [21.4.1649]. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 638, cf. Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1648 Σύλλογος συζητικὸς (θεολ.) δεύτερος]

1650

DISP Henrik Ausius [P], Johannes Enagrius [R]. Περὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας πολιτικῆς, κατὰ τὸν Ἀρίστοτ. βίβλ. α. Ἠθικ. Νικ. Διάλεξις. Uppsala: Eskil Mattson. [Uppsala UL, not in LIBRIS] DISP Henrik Ausius [P], Sveno Stehen [R]. Περὶ τῆς ἀνδρείας Διάσκεψις. Uppsala: Eskil Mattson. [LIBRIS – ID:20185433] GY DISP Johannes Gezelius [P], Ericus Emporagrius Min. [R]. Συζήτησις θεολογική, περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀδιαφθόρου. Uppsala: Eskil Mattson. [not in LIBRIS; Lidén 1779 IV, p. 27, Gezelius, Index, A1r: 1650 Disput. Graeca, De primo homine. Holmiae ad Mandatum Reginae Christinae. 4to.]

1652

DISP Ericus Holstenius [P], Johannes Sundius [R]. Συζήτησις δημοτελής, περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἠθικῆς γενικῶς. Tartu: Johannes Vogel. [Jaanson 753]

1658

DISP Henrik Ausius [P], Petrus Aurivillius [R]. Διάλεξις ἠθική, περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς γενικῶς. Uppsala: Johannes Pauli. [LIBRIS – ID:14856919] DISP Henrik Ausius [P], Petrus Stalenus [R]. Τὴν φιλοσοφίαν πρακτικὴν καὶ πορίσματα θεωρητικά. Uppsala: Johannes Pauli. [LIBRIS – ID:20184972, 1648 in LIBRIS]

1659

MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Johannes Laurentii Hasselbeckius [R]. Ζητήματα ὁμιλητικά […] τῇ δεκάτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Ποσειδεῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτεος ᾳ χʹ νʹ ϑʹ [10.12.1659]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–18]

770

Päll

1660

MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Laurentius Ingvaldi Elingius [R]. Ζητήματα φιλικά […] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ τοῦ Μουνιχιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτεος ᾳ χ ξʹ [30.3.1660]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–17]

1661

MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Petrus Andreae Breuichius [R]. Ζητήματα περὶ τῆς τῶν παίδων ἀγωγῆς […] τῇ ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Θαργηλιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳʹ χʹ ξʹ αʹ [6.4.1661]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–22] MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Samuel Gustavi Himmelsbergius [R]. Ζητήματα γενικὰ περὶ ἀρετῆς τῆς ἠθικῆς […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ποσειδεῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτεος ᾳ χʹξʹ αʹ. [17.12.1661] Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–20]

1662

MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Laurentius Laurentii Arosiensis [R]. Ζητήματα ἠθικὰ περὶ τῆς σωφροσύνης […] τῇ δευτέρᾳ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳʹ χʹ ξʹ βʹ [22.11.1662]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–1]

1663

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Ericus Laurentii Hedemoraeus [R]. Ζητήσεις φυσικαὶ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου […] τῇ πρώτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς τοῦ Θαργηλιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ γʹ [11.4.1663]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–8] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Johannes Hellenius [R]. Ζητήματα φιλοσοφικά, ὅσον δήπου ἡ φιλοσοφία ἀφίσταται τῆς θεολογίας, καὶ ὅσον τῇ αὐτῇ συμφωνεῖ […] τῇ τρίτῃ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ γʹ [23.11.1663]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–9] MS GY DISP Petrus Winther [P], Ericus Matthiae Haragrius [R]. Ζητήματα ἠθικὰ περὶ τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος καὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς Μουνυχιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ γʹ [7.3.1663]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–23]

1664

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Petrus Olai Ambigenius [R]. Ζητήματα περὶ τῆς φιλοσοφίας γενικῶς […] τῇ δευτέρᾳ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Μουνιχιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ δʹ [22.3.1664]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–10]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

771

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Andreas Olai Hesselius [R]. Ζητήματα φιλοσοφικά […] τῇ δεκάτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς τοῦ Ποσειδεῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ δʹ [10.12.1664]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–13]

1665

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Ericus Laurentii Hedemoraeus [R]. Ζητήματα ἁγιογραφικά […] τῇ τετάρτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς τοῦ Μουνιχιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ εʹ [4.3.1665]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–7] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Andreas Olai Hesselius [R]. Ζητήματα ἁγιογραφικά […] τῇ δευτέρᾳ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ εʹ [22.11.1665]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–2]

1666

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Petrus Olai Ambigenius [R]. Ζητήματα ἁγιογραφικά. [...] τῇ δεκάτῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς τοῦ Μουνυχιῶνος τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ ϛʹ [10.3.1666]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–3]

1667

DISP Johann Rudolf Wettstein [P], Johann Rudolf Ryhiner [R]. Specimen hoc philolo­ gicvm, professione Graeca p.t. vacante. Basel. Johann Jacob Decker. [not in VD17, Basel UL, https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-66346] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Johannes Sollenius [R]. Ζητήματα περὶ τῆς αὐθεντίας καὶ τῶν μεταφράσεων τῆς γραφῆς […] τῇ ἕκτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς τοῦ Μουνιχιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ ξ ζʹ [16.3.1667]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–12]

1668

DISP Balthasar Scheid [P], Melchior Wenger, Johannes Laritius, Jeremias Neuthard, Johannes Valentinus Scheid, Albertus Adamus König, Johannes Ludovicus Engelhard, Philippus Renardus Vitriarius [RR]. Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν ἑπτάς, ἐν αἷς θετικῶς διατρίβεται περί τινων, περιεχουσῶν ἐξήγησιν καὶ σχόλια εἰς τὴν πρὸς Φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολήν. Septenarius disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in epistolam D. Pauli ad Philippenses. Strassburg: Johannes Schütz. [VD17 1:052273] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Johannes Barchius [R]. Ἀφορισμοὶ θεολογικοὶ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων γραφαῖς ἀποδειχθέντες. Τόπος Α. Περὶ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἑνός, καὶ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι τρισσοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων

772

Päll

αὐτοῦ […] τῇ τετάρτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ποσειδεῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ χ ξ ηʹ [14.12.1668]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–16; 1st of a series, added year 1663 on the manuscript mistaken, vs ᾳ.ξ.χ.ηʹ of the original hand] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Johannes Hedemoraeus [R]. Ἀφορισμοὶ θεολογικοὶ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων γραφαῖς ἀποδειχθέντες. Τόπος Β. Περὶ τῆς κτίσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ προνοίας […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἱσταμένου μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ χ ξ ηʹ [7.11.1668]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–15, 2nd of a series] SY DISP Andreas Thermaenius [P], Johannes Skulthetus [R]. Ἐν Ὀνόματι Παναγίας Τριάδος Θέματα Σύμμικτα [...] τῇ πέμπτῃ ἀρχομένου μηνὸς Ἑκατομβαιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳʹ.χʹ. ξʹ. ή [5.6.1668]. Västerås: Boëtius Hagenius. [Greek-Latin, Stockholm SNL. Cf. Marklin, p. 83: Arosiae. In Quarto. 36:b. Εν Ονοματι Παναγιας Τριαδος Θεματα Συμμικτα. A. Thermaenius. Resp. J. Skulth. (Graece) 1. M.]



s.a. s.l. (1659–1670, possibly 1668)

MS GY DISP [Andreas Andreae [Littorinus?]] [?]. Διάλεξις περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀρετῶν ἠθικῶν καὶ θεολογικῶν καὶ διαφορᾶς συμφονίας [sic]. [Västerås Gymnasium] [Greek Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–5, see Päll, Disputations, disputation unsigned, but in the same handwriting, as the following disputation (Δεύτερος διαλογισμός), signed by Andreas Andreae] MS GY DISP Isaacus Eliae [R]. Διάλεξις περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀρετῶν ἠθικῶν καὶ θεολογικῶν καὶ διαφορᾶς καὶ συμφωνίας. [Västerås Gymnasium] [Greek, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–11, the same text as preceding, see Päll, Disputations] MS GY DISP Andreas Andreae [Littorinus?] [?]. Δεύτερος διαλογισμὸς περὶ τῆς φιλίας ἐκ τοῦ Ἰσοκράτους λόγου πρὸς τὸν Δημόνικον κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη θετικῶς καὶ ζηθητικῶς [sic]. [Västerås Gymnasium] [Greek, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–6, the same text as following, see Päll, Disputations] MS GY DISP Johannes Olai Schedviensis [?]. Δεύτερος διαλογισμὸς περὶ τῆς φιλίας ἐκ τοῦ Ἰσοκράτους λόγου πρὸς τὸν Δημόνικον κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη θετικῶς καὶ ζηθητικῶς [sic]. [Västerås Gymnasium] [Greek, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–19, the same text as preceding, see Päll, Disputations]

1669

DISP Balthasar Scheidt [P], Theobaldus Müller, Augustus Schraderus, Benedictus Hermann, Caspar Landmann, Theodoricus Heim, Joh Zacchaeus Schellius, Johannes Rodach, Christophorus Schraderus, Georg Ludovicus Rögner, Andreas Rübner, Johann Philippus Bartenstein, Johann Valentin Scheid, David Wegelinus,

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

773

Johann Henricus Christ, Andreas Kaufmann [RR]. Τῶν διατριβῶν φιλολογικῶν εἰκάς, ἐν αἷς διατρίβεται περί τινων ἀμφισβητημάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ μεταφράσει καὶ ἑρμηνείᾳ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου εὐαγελιστοῦ [sic!] Λουκᾶ ὑποκειμένων […] νῦν πάλιν τυπογραφεισῶν. Vicenarius disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in aliquot Capp. D. Lucae Evangelii. Strasbourg: Andreas Dolhoff, Johannes Schütz. [VD17 12:176937E, reprint of disputations from 1641: Balthasar Scheidt [P], Christian Rosteuscher [R], Balthasar Scheidt [P], Andreas Broeselius [R] and Balthasar Scheidt [P], Johannes Wegner [R] and of others, see Scheidt [P], Τῶν συζητήσεων φιλολογικῶν διατριβή. Disputationum Graecarum philologicarum in evangelistam Lucam, No. 4–11] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Jacobus Boetius [R]. Ἀφορισμοἱ θεολογικοὶ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων γραφαῖς ἀποδειχθέντες. Τόπος Γ. Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κτίσεως πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνα […] τῇ ἑβδόμῃ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτει ᾳ χ ξ ϑʹ [27.2.1669]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–4, 3rd of a series] MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Daniel Georgii [R]. Ἀφορισμοὶ θεολογικοὶ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων γραφαῖς ἀποδειχθέντες. Τόπος Δ. περὶ τῆς τῷ πρώτῳ ἀνθρώπῳ παραβάσει τῆς ἐνοικούσης ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου. […] τῇ τετάρτῃ φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος, τῷ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔθει [sic] ᾳ χ ξ ϑ [24.11.1669]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–21, 4th of a series]

1670

MS GY DISP Johannes Sundius [P], Olaus Munthelius [R]. Ἀφορισμοὶ θεολογικοὶ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων γραφαῖς ἀποδειχθέντες. ΤΟΠΟΣ Ε. περὶ τῆς πραχθείσης ἁμαρτίας. […] τῇ ἐννάτῃ μεσοῦντος μηνὸς τοῦ Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος, τοῦ τῆς Χριστογονίας ἔτους ᾳ χ οʹ [19.2.1670]. Västerås Gymnasium. [Greek-Latin, Uppsala UL, in Fant, Collectanea vol. 1, 9–14, 5th of a series]

1671

GY (SY) DISP Andreas Thermaenius [P], Johannes Hedemoraeus [R]. Ζητήματα σύμμικτα, ἅτινα ἐκδικηθήσονται [...] τῇ φθίνοντος μηνὸς Σκιῤῥοφοριῶνος τῷ τῆς Ξριστογονίας ἔτει ά. χ. ό. ά [?. 5. 1671]. Västerås Gymnasium. [one page with 8 theseis in Greek, Stockholm NL Verser fol, 1671, 22, not in LIBRIS].

1678

[NOT Paulinus, Ainelius; NOT Paulinus, Justander, see 1688]

1688

DISP Simon Paulinus [P], Georg Ainelius [R]. Διατριβὴ ἡ φιλολογική, περὶ τῆς ἐτυμότητος, ὀρθοεπείας καὶ ἐμφάσεως τοῦ [‫ ]שילה‬Γενέσ. ΔΔΔΔΠΙΙΙΙ.ι. Turku: Johann Larsson Wall. [Vallinkoski, 2751 var. B, https://kansalliskirjasto.finna.fi/Record/fennica.1023215]

774

Päll

[? DISS Simon Paulinus [P], Johannes Erici Justander [R]. Λογοποιία τὴν τῶν λαχῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀκαστασίαν συλλήβδην ὑπογραφοῦσα. Turku.] [In Vallinkoski, No. 2748 and Marklin, Ad Catalogum disputationum Aboënsium Lidenianum Supplementa, p. 62. 10:d under 1678 (not compatible with immatriculation and inauguration times of the praeses and respondens, see Korhonen, Ateena, pp. 382–383; Cf. FANT XI, p. 87)]

1694

DISP Johannes Faust [P], Johann Specht [R]. Συζήτησις ἣν περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκπορεύσεως. Strasbourg: Johann Friedrich Spoor. [VD17 12:163873D includes a preface and printed marginal notes (captions) in Latin] DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Georg Caspar Zimmermann [R]. Ἀποσπασμάτιον ἄρθρων τῶν Σχμαλκαλδικῶν. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [Translation of the Schmalkaldic articles. Two typographically different variants: VD17 75:704176M, StB Nürnberg: Diss. Altd. 2336 and VD17 14:622806Z, SLUB Dresden: Coll.diss.B.20, misc.37]

1695

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Johann Alexander Döderlein [R]. Θηριομαχίαν Παύλου τοῦ Ἀποστόλου τὴν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ α. πρὸς Κορινθ. ιε. στιχ. λβ. Altdorf: Heinrich Meyer. [VD17 1:055923E] *DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Georg Caspar Klauer [R]. Εἰσαγωγὴ πρὸς τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ, τὰ ἔγγραφα καὶ θεῖα. [Rink, p. ϯϯϯϯ 2 rv]

1696

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Rudolph Martin Meelführer [R]. Τὸ ζήτημα, τίνι ἂν γλώττῃ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου γεγραμμένον. Altdorf: Heinrich Meyer. [VD17 1:055525Y, under 1699, as in Rink, ϯϯϯϯ 2 v. The year, ᾳ. χ. ϛϛʹ on the title page seems to be mistaken instead of ᾳ χ. ϥ ϛʹ, and not for ᾳ χ. ϥ ϑʹ. 1696 corresponds to Meerlführer’s studies in Altdorf, as he was already immatriculated at Giessen in 1697, http://d-nb.info/gnd/100307191. Cf. also Hoefer J.Chr.F., Nouvelle biographie générale, vol. 34 (Paris: 1861) p. 708, which refers to his 4 disputations and graduation in 1696 and 1697. There are two variants of this print, with and without gratulations by Praeses Johann Mauricius Hoffmann [Archiater, P. P.], Joh. Christoph. Sturmius [Math. et Phys. P. P.], Convictores Wagenseiliani, Georgius Caspar Klauer [Vicarius Eismanbergensis], Johannes Michael Sonntagius [Philosophiae et Philologiae sacrae studiosus]

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

775

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Andreas Rinder [R.]. Τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἐνωτικὰ τὰ περὶ κανόνος καὶ τὰ περὶ ἁμαρτιάς τῆς ἀρχεγόνου. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [Date 1696 in VD17 75:707432K (cf. final 6 on the title page (ᾳ. χ. ϛϛʹ) perhaps instead of ᾳ χ. ϥ ϛ), but 1699 in Rink, p. ϯϯϯϯ 2 v]

1697

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Andreas Rinder [R]. Θέσεις ἐγκύκλιοι περὶ τῶν ὀφιτῶν. Altdorf: Heinrich Meyer. [VD17 75:707575P]

1699

[NOT Sonntag, Meelführer, see 1696]

1701

DISP Adam Brendel [P], Johann Georg Drechsel [R]. Διάλεξιν ἰητρικὴν περὶ τῶν φαρμάκων ἐν τοῖσιν ἱεροῖσιν ἐγκοιμήσει παρὰ θεῶν ᾐτημένων. Wittenberg: Christian Finckelius. [VD18 10395431] DISP Adam Brendel [P], Johann Christoph Huth [R]. Ἐν διαλέξει ἰητρικῇ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐγκοίμησιν. Wittenberg: Christian Finckelius. [VD18 10395423]

1702

DISP Adam Brendel [P], Johann Christoph Huth [R]. Ἐν διαλέξει μαθηματικῇ ἐκ τοῦ Εὐκλείδου καὶ Ἀρχιμήδεος τὰ περὶ τὴν μείωσιν. Wittenberg: [Widow of] Christian Kreusig. [VD18 11654554 dates as 1707, pace Greek date α’ ψ’ β’ (1702) on the title page, mistake results probably from misunderstanding of the date below the dedication: MDCCII. IX. Kal. Iun. i.e. 24 June 1702, not 1 June 1707 (=MDCCIIIX)]

1706

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Gottfried Engelhart Geiger [R]. Σχεδίασμα γενεθλιακὸν περὶ τῶν ἀφθαρτοδοκήτων. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [not in VD18]

1707

*MS DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Hieronymus Giesmann [R]. Συζήτησις περὶ τῶν εὐχητῶν [sic]. [Rink, ϯϯϯϯ 2 rv] [NOT Brendel, Huth, see under 1702]

776

Päll

1709

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Alexandros Helladios [R]. Ἠθικὴν πανάρετον τῶν ἀκριβῶς περιπατούντων Χριστιανῶν. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [not in VD18] DISP Christoph Sonntag [P]. Georg Stephan Stieber [R]. Χριστὸς ὁ τέκτων, ἐκ τοῦ Μάρκου κεφαλ. ἕκτ. ϛ.γ. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [VD18 10461736]

1712

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Heinrich Sonntag [R]. Ὁ Καρτήσιος ἀντίγραφος, τουτέστι, τὰ τοῦ Καρτησίου λήμματα πέντε ἀθεόλογα καἰ ἀφιλόσοφα. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [not in VD18]

1713

*MS DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Heinrich Sonntag [R]. Μιγάδες φιλοσοφικο–θεολογική. [Rink, ϯϯϯϯ 2 rv]

1715

DISP Christoph Sonntag [P], Ambrosius Scheumäder [R]. Συμφιλολογία περὶ τῶν τασκοδρουγιτῶν. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [not in VD18]

1716

DISP Christop Sonntag [P], Ambrosius Scheumäder [R]. Ἐγκυκλιοπαιδείαν τὴν θεολογικήν. Altdorf: Jobst Wilhelm Kohles. [not in VD18]

1718

DISP Johann Hager [P], Johann Christoph Völkel [R]. Διάλεξιν περὶ τῆς Ἐφεσίας Ἀρτέμιδος πρὸς ἐξήγησιν τοῦ κεφαλαίου ιθ. πράξ. τῶν Ἀποστόλων. Wittenberg: Christian Finckel. [not in VD18]

1724

DISP Christian Gottfried Stentzel [P], Johann Georg Herrenbauer [R]. Διάλεξιν φυσιολογικὴν περὶ τῆς εὐφυίας καὶ τῆς ἀφυίας ποικίλων τούτων αἰτιῶν καὶ τοῦ ταύτας διευθύνειν τρόπου. Wittenberg: Christian Gerdes (Widow). [VD18 11616067]

1725

DISS Christian Gottfried Stentzel [A]. Διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου ἐνεργεστάτου τῆς ὑγιείας καὶ τῶν νόσων βοηθήματος, καὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς τούτου χρήσεως βλαβερᾶς τε καταχρήσεως. De

Greek Disputations in German and Swedish Universities

777

somno praestantissimo sanitatis et morborum praesidio veroque hvivs vsv et fero abvsv diatriba. Frankfurt et Leipzig: Georg Markus Knoch. [VD18 11381914, see DISP REPR in 1745]

1745

DISS REPR Christian Gottfried Stentzel [A]. Διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου ἐνεργεστάτου τῆς ὑγιείας καὶ τῶν νόσων βοηθήματος. De somno praestantissimo sanitatis et morborum avxi­ lio meditatio. Altera editio. Gdansk: Georg Markus Knoch. [VD18 11890444, cf. 1725] [? MS DISP Christian Gottfried Stentzel [P]. Περὶ τῆς μιᾶς κἀληθινῆς κράσεως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ πρὶν ἁμαρτάνειν. Cf. Christian Stentzel, Διατριβὴ περὶ τοῦ ὕπνου, Danzig 1745, p.)(6v, note e): iam in promptu celaboratam [sic] habeo dissertationem Graecam περὶ τῆς μιᾶς κἀληθινῆς κράσεως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ πρὶν ἁμαρτάνειν]

1815

DISP Andreas Södermark [P], Peter Erik Stagnell [R]. Τί ἐστὶ τὸ ἱστορικὸν τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ; ζήτησιν φιλόλογον καὶ φιλοσοφικήν. Uppsala. [LIBRIS-ID:r4s6btwppgm73bpc] DISP Andreas Södermark [P], Olof Rudolph Bellander [R]. Τί ἐστὶ τὸ ἱστορικὸν τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ; ζήτησιν φιλόλογον καὶ φιλοσοφικήν. Uppsala. [LIBRIS-ID:9nbqvcjc7s6zrnw6]

1816

PART Carolus G. Brunius [P], Petrus Jönsson [R]. Tyrtaei Πολεμιστήρια. Carmine elegiaco reddita et ejus vitae graece confecta. Die aprilis MDCCCXVI. Lund: Litteris Berlingianis. [Includes the life of Tyrtaeus in Greek on pp. 4–5, and Latin verse translations of some Tyrtaeus’ poems with Greek originals on pp. 6–17. LIBRIS–ID:3141139]

1828

DISP Joseph Otto Höjer [P], Ericus Engelbertus Östling [R]. Περὶ τῶν Ἐλευσινιῶν διήγησις. Pro exercitio. Uppsala. [Lund University Library, not in LIBRIS].

1835

DISS Etienne Gros [A]. Περὶ τῆς φυσιολογικῆς φιλοσοφίας παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι πρὸ τῆς Ἰωνικῆς αἱρέσεως διατριβή. Paris: Firmin Didot jun. [Doctoral dissertation at the university of Paris-Sorbonne, followed by Latin argumentum and corollaria]

778

Päll

1866

PART Eduardus Augustus Bång [R]. Orationes Plataeensium et Thebanorum, quae apud Thucydidem leguntur. Latine redditae et adnotationibus instructae. Pro gradu philosophico. Uppsala. Typis Regiae academiae. [Introduction in Greek (pp.1–6), notes and text (translation of Thyc. Lib.II.53–67) in Latin. LIBRIS – ID:3128286]* * Johanna Akujärvi has found several (synodal) disputations from the 2nd half of the 19th century, which present different translations of ancient and modern (poetic) texts into Greek. Because of their different nature, these disputations are not included here. For such disputations, see Akujärvi (in this volume), 802–813.

Chapter 29

Translation in University Dissertations: A Study of Swedish (and Finnish) Dissertations of the 19th Century and Earlier Johanna Akujärvi Summary This is a study of translation in dissertations of the former Realm of Sweden: Uppsala, Tartu/Tallinn/Pärnu, Turku/Helsinki, and Lund. Beginning with a quantitative analysis of the large quantity of Swedish translations of ancient Greek and Latin literature that were printed in 19th century dissertations and defended at the faculties of philosophy, the study next explores translation in dissertations prior to the late 18th century. Because of the smaller total number of translations before the 19th century, the study is extended to include the so called Oriental languages, Hebrew in particular, among source languages and Latin as target language. The main interest is in describing the dissertation translations as texts, but as a conclusion the relation between the dissertation translations, disputations and other uses of these disputations is queried and a tentative sketch of the practice through the centuries is presented.

1

Introduction1

This study intends to describe translation in dissertations from the universities of the former Realm of Sweden: Uppsala (in modern Sweden; 1477–), Tartu/ Tallinn/Pärnu (in modern Estonia; 1632–1665 and 1690–1710), Turku/Helsinki (in modern Finland; 1640–; moved to Helsinki in 1828), and Lund (in modern Sweden; 1666–). Students of university history and of philology in Sweden and Finland have noted the large quantity of translations in dissertations from the 1  Research for this article started with funding from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation for the project Translated into Swedish. Ancient literature and its Swedish translators (16th to 21st centuries), and has been continued within the framework of two projects funded by the Swedish Research Council, Classics Refashioned. Swedish Translations of Ancient Literature (grant 2016-01884) and Helleno-Nordica. The Humanist Greek Heritage of the Swedish Empire (grant 2016-01881).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_030

780

Akujärvi

19th century,2 but as far as is known, the phenomenon has not been studied previously, except by the present author.3 First, the phenomenon of 19th century dissertation translations of ancient literature into Swedish is examined. This part is limited to Greek and Latin source texts with Swedish as the target language in dissertations that are primarily translations and were defended at the faculties of philosophy, thus excluding all those dissertations with translations defended at other faculties (mostly that of theology), as well as all translations from other source languages than Greek and Latin, as well as translations from Greek into Latin, from Latin into Greek, from Swedish into Latin, from Latin into English, and from Greek into Finnish. The study is quantitative and the focus is not on the individual agents or publications, but on the general development of the phenomenon: chronological distribution, choice of source texts, translator, and, as transition to the following section, the rise and fall of the phenomenon.4 Next, the occurrence of translation in dissertations prior to the late 18th century is studied, but restricted to dissertations in which translation is a major part, that is, either a translation printed parallel to an edited text with or without commentary, a suggestion of a new translation of Bible passages, or a discussion of an existing translation. Before the very late 18th century, translation into Swedish does not appear to have occurred in university dissertations, but dissertations from all the universities of the Realm of Sweden do nevertheless point to an intermittent interest in translation, both in the sense of the act of turning a text from one language into another (the source languages vary, but the latter is generally Latin), and in the sense of the product of the act of translating (the product for the most part being the Swedish Bible translation).5 In this part, the focus is on Uppsala University, but material from the three 2  Heikel I.A., Filologins studium vid Åbo universitet, Åbo universitets lärdomshistoria. 5. Filologin (Helsinki: 1894) 290–293; Aalto P., Classical Studies in Finland 1828–1918 (Helsinki: 1980) 30, 78; Lindberg B., Humanism och vetenskap. Den klassiska filologien i Sverige från 1800-talets början till andra världskriget (Stockholm: 1987) 117–118; Klinge M. et al., Helsingfors universitet 1640–1990 vol. 2 (Helsinki: 1989) 397–398. 3  Akujärvi J., “Suethice. Dissertationer, disputationer och dissertationsöversättningar under 1800–talet”, Aigis 14, 1 (2014) and Akujärvi J., “Suethice. On 19th Century Swedish University Translations of Ancient Literature”, in Jönsson A. – Vogt-Spira G. (eds.), The classical tradition in the Baltic region. Perceptions and Adaptations of Greece and Rome (Zurich – New York: 2017) 253–274. 4  Dissertations mentioned in this article are listed in Appendix 2, and referred to by the names of praeses and respondent. 5  Cf. the definition in Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ‘translation’ II.2.a: ‘The action or process of turning from one language into another; also, the product of this; a version in a different language’.

Translation in University Dissertations

781

other universities of the Realm of Sweden is also included. Throughout the whole study, the main interest is in describing the dissertation translations as texts, but as a conclusion the relation between the dissertation translations, disputations and other uses of the texts is queried and a tentative sketch of the practice through the centuries is presented, without pretensions of exhausting the question. The general framework for the study is the educational system at university level in the Realm of Sweden, and, after 1809, Sweden and Finland, the discipline of classical philology, the instruction of Greek and Latin at the universities, and the development of the Swedish and Finnish university systems and their effect on classical philology.6 Following the Russian conquest of Finland in 1809 the social conditions cease to be the same for the universities in Sweden and Finland. The institutional developments are not quite parallel in the two countries after that date, but classical philology does develop along similar lines in the two countries. This can be attributed to a common influence – German philology.7 2

Suethice

Depending on the unit counted, there are either 264 or 841 dissertation translations. The slim single dissertations – many are less than twenty pages – were often part of a dissertation series, with continuous pagination from one part to the other. These dissertation series were sometimes given a new, common title page after completion. Counting the dissertation series, there are 264 dissertation translations; 167 (63%) translate Greek and 97 (37%) Latin texts. Counting the single dissertations, there are 841 dissertation translations, which is also the number of disputations that potentially issued from them; 647 (77%) translate Greek and 194 (23%) Latin texts. This is a study of the 841 single dissertations.8 6  The following university histories have been used: Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, 3 vols. (Uppsala: 1877–1931); Lindroth S., Uppsala universitet 1477–1977 (Uppsala: 1976); Frängsmyr C., Uppsala universitet 1852–1916, 2 vols. (Uppsala: 2010); Klinge et al., Helsingfors; Weibull M. – Tegnér E., Lunds universitets historia 1668–1868, 2 vols. (Lund: 1868); Tegnér E., Lunds universitet 1872–1897 (Lund: 1897); Bergman J., Universitetet i Dorpat under svenska tiden. Gustav II Adolfs sista kulturskapelse (Uppsala: 1932); Piirimäe H. (ed.), Tartu ülikooli ajalugu. I. 1632–1798 (Tallinn: 1982). 7   The following works on classical philology in Sweden and Finland have been used: Heikel, Filologins; Aalto, Classical; Palm J., “Griechisch” and Lundström S., “Latin”, both in Carlsson L. (ed.), Faculty of art at Uppsala University (Uppsala: 1976) 35–45 and 47–62; Lindberg, Humanism. 8  For the complete corpus of this section, see Akujärvi, “Suethice. Dissertationer”.

782

Akujärvi

Table 29.1 Chronological distribution 1790–1899 per decade

90–99 00–09 10–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 80–89 90–99 Total GR 2 LA – GR&LA 2

13  3 16

134 10 144

177 15 192

177 67 244

117  40 157

14 45 59

 9 13 22

3 1 4

– – –

1 – 1

647 194 841

‘GR’-row: number of translations of Greek source texts; ‘LA’-row: number of Latin source texts; ‘GR&LA’-row: number of translations of both Greek and Latin source texts for each decade.

The predominance of translations of Greek literature is noteworthy and probably due partly to the influence of the new humanist obsession with archaic and classical Greek culture, language and literature, and partly to the status of the two languages in schools and universities. Latin being an obligatory language at university (until 1852) and it having been studied for years in school with the aim of it being mastered orally and in writing, it was a more impressive test of one’s learning to produce and defend a translation from Greek than to produce one from Latin into Swedish. The translations are distributed unevenly over the century. Table 29.1 above shows that the production was high between the 1810s and 1840s, with a marked peak in the 1830s with 244 translations. There was a rapid rise in production in the first decade of the 19th century, and an almost equally rapid decline in the 1850s. The production peaked in the 1830s (see below), but, institutionally, the early 1850s is a break point. The new Swedish university statutes that were passed in 1852 and put into effect over the following two years affected dissertations in general and dissertation translations in particular. Significant changes affected the rules of authoring and defending dissertations. After 1852, the dissertation was to be written and defended by the student without the aid of the praeses. Dissertations pro exercitio were abolished, and students made public defences only for the master’s degree and doctorate. Swedish and other modern languages, particularly German, were increasingly used as Latin ceased to be the compulsory language.9 Scholarly prowess was established as the only standard by which applicants for academic posts were to be judged. The effects on the dissertation translations were fourfold: (1) their numbers decreased significantly, (2) the dissertations became slightly thicker, (3) the dissertations 9  In exceptional cases Swedish was allowed before 1852, too, see Lindberg B., De lärdes modersmål. Latin, humanism och vetenskap i 1700-talets Sverige, Gothenburg studies in the history of science and ideas (Gothenburg: 1984) 39–40.

Translation in University Dissertations

783

became single pieces rather than parts of a series, and (4) the prefaces and comments could be written in Swedish. In Finland the university statutes were changed along similar lines in 1852, but the reform does not affect the corpus of this study, since the last dissertation translation from the Imperial Alexander University of Finland appeared in 1849 (Gyldén – Söderholm).10 As the university was moved from Turku to Helsinki in 1828, there was a reform making disputations pro exercitio at the faculty of philosophy for the master’s degree, and those pro gradu for the doctor’s degree. In Sweden, the highest degree awarded at a faculty of philosophy remained the master’s degree until 1872. Of the 841 dissertation translations 771 (92%) were published before 1852. Nearly 60% of the dissertation translations published in Sweden and all but one of the Finnish are pro exercitio (Ingelius 1846), so a steep decline in the dissertation translations is to be expected after 1852. Despite the decline in absolute numbers, the quantity remained high compared to other dissertations in the ancient languages until 1875, after which point only one last dissertation translation appeared in 1894 (Janzon). Greek dominates every decade until the 1852 reform. Poetry is translated much more than prose. Of the 841 dissertation translations, 618 (73%) translate poetic texts, 223 (27%) translate prose. Of the 618 translations of poetry, 518 (84%) translate Greek and 100 (16%) Latin poetry. Of the 223 translations of prose, 129 (58%) translate Greek and 94 (42%) Latin prose. Translations of Greek poetry thus dominate. In translations from Latin, poetry and prose are almost equal in number. Table 29.2 below presents a nearly complete list of source texts/authors.11 In the top ten texts from Greek are the Homeric epics, the three tragedians, Demosthenes, Pindar, Plato, Thucydides, Anacreontea and Anthologia Graeca. No text comes close to the Homeric epics in frequency, with the whole of the Odyssey translated in one series and half of the Iliad in another. But most dissertations translate only single poems, selections of poems or excerpts of longer texts, whether prose or poetry. The five most translated Latin authors, all translated more than ten times each are: Cicero, Tacitus, Ovid, Horace, Livy. Thus, a few rather predictable texts from the most predictable periods predominate. Excepting Aristotle’s Categories, Diophantus’ Arithmetica, and Pomponius Mela’s Geography, source texts appear to have been chosen on aesthetic, stylistic, and rhetorical grounds, or because of their importance for literary studies (ps.-Longinus’ On the Sublime). 10  The few 19th century dissertation translations that are singled out in the following are listed in Appendix 1 and referred to by praeses and respondent, or by author and year, when that is the information on the title page. 11  Dissertations to which it has been impossible to assign a single name or title are excluded.

784

Akujärvi

Table 29.2 Dissertation translations per source text

Greek 100 +: the Homeric epics (164) 50–30: Anacreontea (46), Demosthenes (46), Euripides (37), Aeschylus (36), Sophocles (36) 29–10: Plato (29), Pindar (27), Anthologia Graeca (25), Thucydides (22), Hesiod (21), Aristotle (17), Theocritus (16), Sappho (13), Bion of Smyrna (12), the Homeric hymns (11), Aristophanes (10) 4: Callimachus, Clemens of Rome, Hermesianax of Colophon, Herodotus, Johannes Chrysostomus, Xenophon 2: Cratinus, ps.-Longinus, Lucian, ps.-Lycophron, Moschus, Musaeus, Theophrastus 1: Apollonius of Rhodes, Cleanthes, Crates of Thebes, Diophantus, Lysias, Mimnermus, Naumachius, Panyassis, Proclus, Quintus Smyrnaeus, Solon, Tyrtaeus Latin 10+: Cicero (42), Tacitus (32), Ovid (21), Horace (16), Livy (16) 7: Ausonius, Catullus, Plautus, Propertius, Tibullus 4: Juvenal 3: Claudian, Appendix Vergiliana 2: Lactance, Martial, Pliny the Younger, Sulpicia, Terence 1: Annaeus Florus, Calpurnius Siculus, Persius, Pomponius Mela, Statius, Valerius Flaccus

Apart from the most-translated texts, the selection of source texts is quite diverse, as it includes both a large number of texts outside the most central canon and a few texts that do not fall within the limits of the primary aesthetic interests. The general aspiration appears to have been to translate the most canonical authors and works, unless there was already an acclaimed translation of that work (as was the case with the works of Vergil). At the same time, a comparison with indices of lectures shows that the translators appear to have preferred those canonical authors that featured less prominently in the lectures. Table 29.3 shows that Uppsala University dominates, whereas Lund and Turku/Helsinki produced almost the same number of dissertation translations each. The practice started in Uppsala, most dissertation translations were produced there, and by 1813, when the first one appeared in Lund, 84 had been defended in Uppsala. Whereas translations of Greek dominate in both Uppsala and Turku/Helsinki, with practically the same percentage, more Latin than Greek was translated in Lund.

Translation in University Dissertations

785

Table 29.3 Dissertation translations from each university

Uppsala: 503 (first 1797, last 1894; 84 by 1813; 107 by 1816) Greek: 440 (88%); Latin 63 (12%) Lund: 170 (first 1813, last 1871; 4 by 1816) Greek: 59 (35%); Latin: 111(65%) Turku: 121 (first 1816, last 1827) Greek: 107 (88%); Latin: 14 (12%) Helsinki: 47 (first 1830, last 1849) Greek: 41 (87%); Latin: 6 (13%)

Who were the translators? The answer to this question is not attempted in biographical terms but in terms of their position at the university and of their function at the public defence. The reform that was passed in 1852 and came into effect after the graduation ceremonies in Lund (1853) and in Uppsala (1854) – after 1852 a few dissertations were thus made according to the old rules of examination, but 1852 is used as a shorthand reference – constitutes a breakpoint regarding the question of authorship. After 1852 the student is the author; before that he may be the author, but often he was not. In this study the respondent is assumed to be the author of a pre-1852 dissertation only when he is identified as interpres, auctor or the like on the title page; in all other instances the praeses is assumed to be the author. However, authorship is fluid with regard to dissertations. The praeses was always responsible for the content and suitability of the dissertation. Even when a respondent is given as the author, he may have had considerable help from the praeses in choosing a subject, finding literature, organising the material, and proofreading.12 It may thus be assumed that those respondents who worked more independently were called auctores or interpretes. Three categories of translators can be identified in this corpus: student, magister trying to establish an academic career, and professor. In the category of student-translator, 149 translators produced 155 translations, as most defended only one translation, but a few wrote dissertation translations both pro exercitio and pro gradu. 102 are pre-1852, 53 are post-1852 dissertations. Unlike the two other categories of translators, student-translators show a slight preference for Latin source texts: 84 against 71 Greek. As to praeses, most student-translators turned to professors of Latin (eloquentiae et 12  Cf. Klinge et al., Helsingfors vol. I 405 and Henrik Reuterdahl’s description of how Esaias Tegnér helped him with his pro gradu dissertation (Tegnér – Reuterdahl), in Ärkebiskop Henrik Reuterdahls memoarer (Lund: 1920) 57–58.

786

Akujärvi

poëseos romanae) or Greek, which is to be expected in the case of a public defence of a translation of an ancient text. Some sort of cooperation between student and praeses is more likely in these cases, than with professors of other subjects (Oriental languages, philosophy, history, astronomy or physics). In the category magister-translator trying to establish an academic career, 31 translators – all magistri who did not advance to professor or who stopped translating once they had become professor – produced 110 dissertation translations, generally in series of up to 24 parts. All but one dissertation (Alexanderson 1868) in this group are pre-1852. The title pages’ information regarding the rank and position of both praeses and respondent shows that some of the translators in this category had not yet advanced beyond the master’s degree, while others had become docens or adjunctus (ordinarius or extra ordinarius). It also appears that some were at the point of entering a career outside academia. To the extent that their careers can be followed, it appears that three advanced to professors (of Greek, Latin, and philosophy) but that most left the academy for positions in school, church or (state) bureaucracy. Only a few continued publishing translations. The professor-translators are the fewest in number, but responsible for most translations: fifteen professors translated 576 (73%) of the 787 pre-1852 dissertation translations.13 All translations in this group are naturally pre-1852. Nearly all dissertations form part of a series. So, while the number of dissertations in this group is 576, it contains only 92 titles – 54 series and 38 single dissertations. Many praesides appear to have been content to translate a text, divide it and its notes, if there were any, into parts, and distribute it among students who paid the praeses for his trouble. Particularly in the serial translations, the students’ share of the work is likely to have been limited to defraying the printing costs of their part of the series and adding dedication(s) to family, benefactors, and friends. In addition, the professors presided at 79 public defences of dissertations authored by respondents. Table 29.4 below presents the data on the translating professors (mostly professors of Greek or Latin), sorted according to the number of dissertation translations, beginning with the most prolific one. This table shows clearly that the bulk of dissertation translations is tied to just a few people. The four most prolific translators of this group (Tranér, Sjöström, Palmblad, Knös) translated no less than 469 (81%) of the dissertations belonging to this group, or 60% of all translations before 1852 and 56% of all dissertation translations. In Finland this high concentration to a few individuals is even more clear: Sjöström and 13  Strictly chronologically, these are 771, without the 16 defended after 1852 during the period of transition.

787

Translation in University Dissertations

Linsén are responsible for 97% of all dissertation translations produced in Turku/Helsinki; only four were made without their involvement.14 Moreover, a comparison of Table 29.4 with Table 29.1 shows that the time of activity of the most prolific translators coincides with the peak in the production of dissertation translations. Given the dominance of a few individuals, this conjunction is not surprising, but it does suggest that while the institutional circumstances have to be right for translation to be accepted in the academy, the fact that the number of translations was so high is best accounted for by personal choice. Table 29.4 The translating professors

Trans. Praes. Lang. Univ. Period Johan Tranér (1815–1835) 220 Axel Gabriel Sjöström 145 (1833–1846) Vilhelm Fredrik Palmblad 55 (1835–1852) Gustaf Knös (1810–1814) 49 Johan Gustaf Ek (1842–1862) 24 Joseph Otto Höijer (1815–1833) 23 Johan Gabriel Linsén 18 (1828–1848) Carl August Hagberg (1849–1858) 14 Ebbe Samuel Bring (1828–1855) 11 Olof Kolmodin (1805–1838) 10 Christopher Dahl (1790–1809) 2 Esaias Tegnér (1812–1824) 2 Eric Götlin (1806–1813) 1 Nils Abraham Gyldén 1 (1847–1866) Carl Edvard Zedritz (1852–1859) 1

Share

4

GR GR

U TH

1807–33 1816–46

92% 91%

19

GR

U

1836–51

60%

1 2 15 1

GR LA GR LA

U L U TH

1809–13 1833–53 1810–31 1817–8; 26–42

21% 47% 54% 35%

1

GR LA LA GR GR LA GR

UL L U U L U H

1831–42 1829–39 1809–15; 30–6 1797 1817–23 1811 1836–49

59% 10% 29%  5% 36% 12%  6%

5

LA

U

1851–4

32%

17 8 3 3

Number of dissertation translations; Praeses of dissertations translated by students; Source language; University (H=Helsinki; L=Lund; T=Turku; U=Uppsala); Period of activity as a translator; Share of translations among dissertations

14   Grönblad – Renvall; Gyldén – Sandbäck; Gyldén – Söderholm; Ingelius 1846.

788

Akujärvi

Both institutional and personal factors thus contributed to the decrease of dissertation translations. Institutional factors were the 1852 changes in the university statutes. Students were now to write their own dissertation; the dissertation became more important than the public defence; dissertations pro exercitio were abolished; scholarly skill was to be the only grounds for promotion to academic positions. Following another reform in 1879, regarding among other things specialist examination of the scholarly output of applicants for academic positions, the institutional conditions for a modern Swedish university that promoted scientific and scholarly skills, professionalisation and specialisation rather than wide and general learning were established. These changes had an immediate effect on the production of dissertation translations. With the growth of a modern philological scholarship, the scholarly value of a translation was questioned. The incentive to produce translations for the public defence disappeared as the skills these demonstrated were less valued than dissertations presenting new research. However, the decline begins in the 1840s with the passing of the most prolific translators. Personal preference is thus important for both the decline and for dissertation translations being produced in such a large quantity (and for the predominance of Homer and of Latin in Lund). This is even more evident in Finland than in Sweden. The rise of the dissertation translation practice is not as easily ascribed to a few causes. Towards the end of the 18th century, an interest in the ancient world and its literature in its own right – rather than study of the Greek language as an ancillary of theology and an instrumental use of Greek and Latin literature – was growing in Swedish universities, Uppsala in particular, under the influence of the German new humanism. Dissertation translations are a clear, but not the first nor the only, manifestation of a shift in focus, from Greek for theological needs and mastery of Latin for practical purposes, towards (pre) classical ancient, particularly Greek, literature and culture. Few dissertation translations discuss the decision to translate a text, but by their focus on aesthetics, by their concern for literary and poetic qualities of the source texts, by the translators’ interest in Swedish poetics and metrics in particular, and by their apparent striving to create something for the Swedish reader to enjoy, they indirectly suggest that translation is all but the natural outcome of the encounter between a growing interest in ancient literature and early 19th century university education in Sweden and Finland, where language skills, aesthetics, and rhetoric were still at the core of the faculty of philosophy.15 Its aim was to give general rather than special competence for teachers, the clergy, and members of the bureaucracy. The mobility of professors between disciplines is an indication of this generalism, and its decrease in 15  Cf. Lindberg, Humanism.

Translation in University Dissertations

789

the early 19th century is an early sign of increased specialisation. Translations were a good vehicle for showing the students’ accomplishments in the fields that education was supposed to prepare them for. 3

Latine

In the late 18th century interest in issues of translation was high. Outside academia the best way to translate poetry was much debated in Sweden.16 This debate is reflected in dissertations too. Christopher Dahl, the earliest of the above discussed translator-professors, was engaged in translation in several ways. Outside academia he participated in the translation prize competitions of the Swedish Academy with some success.17 In academia, he presided over strongly hermeneutic Swedish New Testament paraphrases (explicating the full sense of every word – the Swedish version is three times as long as the Greek), and translations of ancient texts into Latin (Tyrtaeus) – at about the same as time Simonides was edited and translated into Latin in Turku –, and Swedish (Pindar and Tyrtaeus). The Pindar-translations are the first two dissertation translations into Swedish, defended in June 1797. Both publications translate one Olympic ode each; both present two prose versions in parallel, one Latin and one Swedish. The Latin ones are close, heavily influenced by earlier translations, particularly that of Christian Gottlob Heyne, as is explained in the first note of both dissertations, in which a few words are said about the translation. As neither respondent is labelled author on the title page, it is likely that Dahl’s input was large, but in both dissertations the Swedish translations are nevertheless called juvenile attempts. Both Swedish versions are, like the New Testament paraphrases, explicative, adding what they consider necessary in order to understand Pindar’s succinct text. Compare, for instance, Pindar’s Greek with the Latin and Swedish versions of Dahl – Örnberg: Ἔστιν ἀνθρώποις ἀνέμων ὅτε πλείστα | χρῆσις· ἔστιν δ᾽ οὐρανίων ὑδάτων, | ὀμβρίων παίδων νεφέλας. (Pindar, Olympian odes 11.1–3) Est hominibus ventorum nunc plurimus usus, nunc item caelestium aquarum, pluviarum, filiarum nubis. 16  On this, see Akujärvi J., “Hvad är bästa sättet at öfversätta et Skaldestycke? Om svensk översättning av antik poesi c. 1750–1850”, in Kleberg L. (ed.), Världslitteraturen och dess svenska röster. Bidrag till svensk översättningshistoria (forthcoming). 17  Liedgren B., “Christopher Dahl”, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon 9 (1931) 551; Annerstedt, Upsala vol. 3.1 651–652.

790

Akujärvi

Hvar hamnar Seglaren, utan vind? Hvad, utan regn ifrån himmelen, utan bistånd af molnets söner, skördar en Åkerman? Where would the sailor land without wind? What would the farmer reap without rain from the sky, without the help of the children of the cloud?18 In the Swedish version the text is amplified with what is explained in notes to the Latin version. The note to ‘hominibus’ explains that sailors and farmers are to be understood for ‘hominibus’, so that is entered into the text; and the statements are turned into (rhetorical) questions, since that makes it more powerful in Swedish, the translator states in another note. The six parts of Dahl’s Tyrtaeus series with Latin prose translation appeared at irregular intervals; the dissertation with the Swedish translation of Tyrtaeus is one of the last defended under his presidency. ‘Suethice tradidit’ on the title page suggests that the respondent, Georg Ingelgren, was the translator of this dissertation pro exercitio. The source text is rendered nearly word for word; its structure is followed line by line, as far as possible. And it is not a prose translation, but a poetic one which reproduces the metric pattern of the source text. This mode of close translation reproducing the ancient metres – rather than choosing either modern rhymed metres or prose translation – was at that time in the process of being established in Sweden.19 In the short introduction the author shows his awareness of the German translators and theoreticians that are usually cited by this ‘school’ of translators, as well as the few Swedish precedents that had appeared, including the first parts of Tranér’s long series translating the Iliad. Excepting the Swedish translations, Dahl appears to have been rather typical of those who included translations in dissertations before the 19th century, as the following, admittedly inexhaustive, exploration of uses and occurrences of translation in dissertations until the late 18th century will show. The investigation is focussed on Uppsala University – but includes material from the other universities of the Realm of Sweden – and the men who at one time were professors of Greek, Oriental languages (mainly Hebrew), poetry and/or eloquence, and professor skytteanus.20 Before 1800, Latin translation appears 18  My translation of the Swedish translation in Dahl – Örnberg, fols. A2r–v. 19  See Akujärvi J., “An Epic Battle. Aesthetic and Poetical Struggles over the Swedish Iliads”, in Goldwyn A. (ed.), The Trojan Wars and the Making of the Modern World, Studia Graeca Upsaliensia (Uppsala: 2015). 20  Searches in: Lidén C., Catalogus disputationum, in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae, 5 vols. (Uppsala, Edman: 1778–1780); Marklin G., Catalogus disputationum in academiis Scandinaviae et Finlandiae Lidenianus continuatus, 3 vols. (Uppsala: 1820);

Translation in University Dissertations

791

in dissertations when it is a translation of Greek in text editions (a related and much rarer case is Greek translation of Latin in text editions), of Hebrew or other Oriental languages (mostly in text editions); when it comes to the Bible, existing translations are studied and new translations – both in Swedish and in Latin – are suggested. Latin translation of (old) Swedish documents occurs in a few rare cases, but these are left out of the study.21 The Bible, its text and interpretation, is naturally frequent in the dissertations of professors of Greek and Oriental languages. Towards the end of the 18th century, the Swedish Bible translation became the object of dissertations. For instance, in addition to a continual flow of dissertations on single passages of the New Testament, Johan Floderus, Dahl’s predecessor as professor of Greek, published two series in more than 20 parts each on New Testament interpretation. In Exercitationes philologicae the existing Swedish Bible translation comes up in the course of analysis, but Versio Svecana is explicitly a study of it. In order to avert suspicion of entering the realms of theology, the author stresses in a preface to the first part that he has chosen New Testament texts and the Swedish Bible translation only because they are of greater personal interest and gain than profana philologia. Acknowledging the pioneering feat of the first translators and the lasting value of the existing translation, the author states that nevertheless there are still things that need polishing, mainly due to the development of interpretative aids that the first translators did not have at their disposal. In this dissertation series the Greek text is quoted, its interpretation is discussed at length and a close translation is offered. The state of the Swedish Bible was topical from the middle of the 18th century. In Turku, under the presidency of Isaac Ross, professor of Oriental languages, dissertations dealing with the Bible translation had already started being defended in the 1760s, when serious discussions of revising the existing Swedish Bible began. Two officially sanctioned revisions of Gustav Vasa’s Bible (1540–1541) had been made, one appeared in 1618 the other in 1703. These revisions concerned layout, division of the text, notes, summaries, orthography, conjugation and other matters that in essence are superficial and do not affect the wording.22 After long debate a Bible Commission was formed in 1773 and Vallinkoski J., Turun akatemian väitöskirjat (Academia Aboënsis). 1642–1828, 2 vols. (Helsinki: 1962–1969); Jaanson E.-L., Tartu ülikooli trükikoda 1632–1710: ajalugu ja trükiste bibliograafia (Tartu: 2000). 21   Bång – Serlachius; Benzelius – Hufwedsson Dal. In economics, both Swedish and Latin dissertations occur, e.g. Celsius – Hellant. 22  On the Swedish Bible translation, see Olsson B., “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete. En översikt främst med tanke på Nya testamentet”, in 1963 års bibelkommitté (ed.), Nyöversättning av Nya testamentet. Behov och principer, SOU 1968: 65 (Stockholm: 1968).

792

Akujärvi

charged with replacing the old translation with a new one.23 Floderus, Dahl, and professors of Oriental languages Carl Aurivillius (in Uppsala 1772–1786), Laurentius Lefrén (in Turku 1772–1784, then professor of theology until his death 1803), and Johan Adam Tingstadius (in Uppsala 1789–1803, then bishop of Strängnäs) were among the first members of the commission. The trial translation that appeared in instalments before the end of the 18th century was the first in a long series,24 until, finally, a new, sanctioned translation appeared in 1917. At least one critic of the first trial translation appeared in dissertation form. Under the presidency of Matthias Norberg, professor of Greek and Oriental languages in Lund (1780–1826, from 1812 Oriental languages only), Animadversiones in the new translation was defended in 1784. Herein the author and respondent discusses a few passages (both Old and New Testament), where he finds that the translators have misinterpreted the text. In addition to their translation work in the Bible Commission, both Aurivillius (source language Arabic),25 Lefrén, and Tingstadius included translation in dissertations defended under their presidency, one of which is the first (to the best of my knowledge) dissertation presenting a continuous translation into Swedish, viz. not of select passages and interrupted by commentary. This translation of the prophet Habakkuk was published in 1791 and, according to the preface, presents a revision of an earlier translation of Habakkuk by the praeses,26 but in reality the versions present very minor differences, apart from the division of the text. The text of this translation is included without change in a later edition of Tingstadius’ Old Testament translations.27 Bible translations were subject to public defences under the presidency of others also, e.g. Jacob Duvaerus in Uppsala, Gabriel Tidgren, Johannes Poppius and Johannes Henricus Fattenborg in Turku, and Nils Hesslén in Lund. A generation or three earlier, texts were often edited and translated by professors at Swedish universities, and published – not only in dissertations – in both Sweden and the Continent. At Uppsala University rabbinic texts were edited, translated into Latin, sometimes also commented, and defended 23  On the Bible Commission, see Olsson, “Svenskt” and Larsson T. (ed., intro., com.), Den gustavianska bibelkommissionen. Första protokollsboken, Meddelanden från kyrkohistoriska arkivet i Lund 9 (Lund: 2009). 24  Prof-öfwersättning af then heliga skrift […] af then till swenska bibeltolkningens öfwerseende i nåder förordnade särskilde commission (Stockholm, Pfeiffer: 1774[–1793]). 25  Translations of Arabic source texts were defended in Lund and Turku too. 26  In Israëls förlossning utur Egypten. Strödde sånger af hebraiska skalder. Öfversättning ifrån grundspråket (Uppsala, Edman: 1790). 27  In Samling af de skalde-stycken, hvilka i Gamla Testamentets historiska böcker finnas strödda, tillika med propheten Habacucs uppenbarelse. Prof-Öfversättning (Uppsala, Edman: 1795).

Translation in University Dissertations

793

between the 1690s and the 1730s under the presidency of a series of professors of Oriental languages: Gustaf Peringer (Lillieblad) (1681–1695), Johannes Palmroot (1696–1703), Daniel Lundius (1703–1712), Olof Celsius Sr (1715–1727), and Andreas Boberg (1728–1756). Similarly, at the universities in Pärnu and Lund editions with Latin translation of rabbinic texts were defended under the presidency of Haquin Stridzberg (professor of Oriental languages and Greek in 1684–1712), Nils Stridsberg (adjunct at the faculty of philosophy in Lund), and Carl Schultén (professor in Pärnu 1705–1710; professor of Oriental languages and Greek in Lund 1716–1728). As students in Uppsala, Haquin Stridzberg had defended a dissertation under the presidency of Peringer (Lillieblad), and Schultén one with text and translation under Palmroot. Around the same time, Latin translations of Greek source texts also occur in dissertations from Turku, Uppsala, and Lund. These always include an edition of the Greek source text, sometimes also a commentary. This practice appears to have been limited to a few professors. In Turku, Petrus Laurbecchius, professor poëseos, presided over a series of dissertations on Aristotle’s Poetics, some of which have been lost; the first part (1673) included text, Latin translation, and commentary of the first chapter of the source text. In Uppsala, Georg Wallin Jr, then university librarian, presided over a three-part dissertation series which presented an editio princeps of a homily in John the Evangelist by Andrew of Crete from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library; in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, this homily is still cited as unedited.28 Laurentius Norrmannus, when professor of Greek (1685–1693), presided over several dissertations in which he edited and translated Greek texts: a declamation and rhetorical treatises of Aelius Aristides in three dissertations (1687 and 1688), rhetorical treatises by Alexander, Phoebammon and Minucianus in one dissertation (1690), and orations and letters by Thomas Magister in two dissertations (1691–1692, 1693–1694). Moreover, under Norrmannus’ presidency Erik Benzelius Jr, who had defended an edition with a translation of a rabbinic text under Peringer (Lillieblad) in 1692, also defended a dissertation with his own edition and a translation of a homily of John Chrysostom (1702; continued in Benzelius – Rhyzelius).29 In Lund, Benzelius’ son defended an edition with a translation of twenty letters of Libanius under Johan Engeström (1735). Under the presidency of Andreas Norcopensis (Nordenhielm), professor eloquentiae, and that of Julius Micrander, professor of Greek, Jesper Swedberg defended two text editions with translation and commentary. The first edits 28  P atrologiae cursus completus […] Series Graeca prior […] Patrologiae Graecae tomus XCVII, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: 1865) 801–804. 29  Collected into one edition: Supplementa homiliarum Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani (Uppsala, Werner: 1708).

794

Akujärvi

the Disticha Catonis with Joseph Scaliger’s Greek translation and a commentary. Later, when bishop of Skara, Swedberg published an extended version, augmented with a German translation by Martin Opitz as well as a Swedish one – probably by himself, though he does not state so explicitly.30 The other is another collection of moral dicta, the so-called Similitudes of Demophilus and his pythagorean sayings. To the Greek texts he added Lucas Holstenius’ Latin translation and scholia, and his own commentary. Jesper Swedberg’s son, Emanuel Swedberg (Swedenborg), defended under the presidency of Fabian Törner, at that time professor of theoretical philosophy, later of eloquence, an edition of yet more select moral sentences, Publilius Syrus and Seneca, again with Joseph Scaliger’s Greek translation and Erasmus’ notes, to which he added his own commentary. In all three dissertations, text and translation are juxtaposed, but the translations are not theirs. 4

Disputation and Other Uses

The types of texts edited/translated differ, as shown in the above patchy review. They are united by the academic context of their creation and the primary purpose of being the foundation for a disputation, but the (secondary) aims and purposes of the dissertations differ, as the following tries to demonstrate. From the 1670s onwards there is not one decade without dissertations with translation forming an integral part, but the production is uneven, and trends and patterns are discernible in the chronological distribution of source languages and types of source texts. Indeed, three waves can be identified: the first lasting from the 1670s to the 1740s, the second from the 1750s to the late 18th century, and the third being the 19th century dissertation translations.31 The edition-translations in dissertations that appeared in the first wave are more voluminous than the ones that appeared in the second half of the 18th century and later. The aim seems to have been to make texts available to students and the learned community; both the praesides discussed here, and other professors of Uppsala University, produced a number of other text editions outside the dissertation format, too. Some of the earliest dissertations edit texts that were used for language instruction, even prescribed in the 1693 school ordinance for the study of both Latin and Greek (Norcopensis 30  D  ionysii Catonis disticha de moribus ad filium, cum lemmatibus Sturmii, et Graeca versione J. Scaligeri; commentariis illustrata, ac in academia Upsaliensi ann. MDCLXXXI. ad disputandum proposita: nunc denuo revisa, ac versione Svecana et Germanica aucta et in lucem edita (Uppsala: Werner, [1703]). 31  For an overview, see Appendix 3.

Translation in University Dissertations

795

(Nordenhielm) – Swedberg; Micrander – Swedberg; Törner – Swedberg).32 By adding a Greek translation to the Latin text and a Latin translation to the Greek one, the usefulness of the work is doubled. Given the scholarly commentaries of these dissertations, they are likely aimed at teachers and/or university students rather than schoolboys, but that matter is not addressed in the publication. Both text and translation are edited, and the commentary was the main item of these three dissertations, as suggested by the minutes of the Uppsala University Senate meeting of 22nd September 1681, at which Swedberg was given permission to comment the Disticha Catonis in the form of a disputation and to defend it publicly, provided that the dean approved of the theses.33 In this as in most of the dissertations studied, the theses are not preserved. The early Latin translations are mostly printed side by side with an edition of the source text, either Hebrew or Greek, as was often done in text editions across Europe. When both editing and translating were practiced in an educational environment, it became not only a service to the reader – making a text written in a difficult-to-understand language accessible – but also an exercise for the author. Of course, authorship in early modern dissertations is often difficult to determine,34 and space does not allow for an in-depth study of this question here. For practical purposes it has been assumed that the praeses is the author, barring any clear indications to the contrary, and that cooperation between praeses and respondent is likely in many or most cases. For instance, the many editions with translations of rabbinic texts – in that age of orthodoxy, rabbinic texts were studied as a means for deeper understanding of the text and Realien of the Old Testament35 – often form series. Solomon ibn Melekh’s commentary on Genesis was treated by Palmroot, Lundius, Celsius and Boberg, and under Lundius a series of students defended comments on Old Testament prophets by Abraham ibn Ezra. Each dissertation is a finished whole, and the fact that they treat texts that continue or are continued in other dissertations need not argue against the respondents’ authorship but for the praeses pushing certain texts into their hands.

32   Laurbecchius – Aschlinus edit, translate and comment Aristotle’s Poetics, a standard authority in university education. 33  Uppsala universitet. Akademiska konsistoriets protokoll, ed. H. Sallander, 22 vols. (Uppsala: 1968–1977) 22/9/1681. 34   On authorship, see Annerstedt, Upsala vol. 2.2, 121–131 and vol. 3.2, 169–176; Sellberg E., “Disputationsväsendet under stormaktstiden”, in Ambjörnsson R. (ed.), Idé och lärdom (Lund: 1972) 65–84; Vallinkoski J., “Piirteitä suomalaisen väitöskirjan historiasta. Väitöstilaisuuden alkajaisesitelmä 11. 12. 1948”, Bibliophilos 8, 1 (1949) 1–11; Klinge et al., Helsingfors vol. 1 382–397. 35  See Lindroth S., Svensk lärdomshistoria. Stormaktstiden (Stockholm: 1975) 220–230.

796

Akujärvi

But the translation of Jehuda Lebh (Loew) that Schultén initiated in Pärnu (1709) and continued and completed in Lund (1719–1728) is likely to have been his own. From Pärnu, three title pages with dedicatory and gratulatory paratexts are known. Only one, the last in the series, defended by Pastelberg, has an insert,36 but the acta of the faculty of philosophy show that all three defences did take place.37 Less extensive than the edition published in Stockholm in 1711 – after Schultén’s period in Pärnu and before the one in Lund – the Pärnu dissertation is identical to the Stockholm print in layout, font, page breaks and ornamental strip etc., as far as it goes.38 The text and translation of this edition appears to be identical with parts 1–6 of the Lund dissertation series. ‘Pars prima’ on the title page shows that it was designed to be the first part in a Rabbi Jehuda Lebh edition and translation. ‘Pars secunda’ is extant in a manuscript, preserved in the Royal Danish Library (signum NKS 258 kvart).39 The second part was printed as parts 7–15 of the Lund dissertation series; the Copenhagen manuscript was the master for the dissertations, as suggested by the names of all the respondents jotted down at appropriate (for the most part) chapter breaks. Time has not allowed for studying how well the at times untidy translation, with numerous deletions and changes in the manuscript, compares to the printed version. The whole series was reissued posthumously (1731), edited by Schultén’s son.40 Translation in Tartu/Pärnu appears to be limited to this one professor, who came from Uppsala and ended up in Lund. A minority of the dissertations have prefaces, and when they do, they speak of the text and translation of the dissertation as a means for exercise (Peringer – Skunk), but also as a service to the learned community – the choice to translate is motived by the fact that there is no known translation (Palmroot – Fahlenius) –, and when the translator is the praeses to students 36  Copies of this dissertation are preserved in at least the university libraries of Tartu and Uppsala; in the Tartu copy the insert ends on page 24 in the middle of a sentence, in the Uppsala copy on page 64, also in the middle of a sentence. 37  Acta facultatis philosophicae in Academia Dorpatensi ab ipso anno restaurationis […] 1690 […] postmodum Pernaviensi, ms in Tartu University Library, F. 7 no. 30, fols. 50r–51v. I thank Janika Päll for drawing my attention to Schultén’s work in Estonia, for checking the physical copy(/ies) in Tartu University Library, and for helping me with the minutes of the faculty of philosophy. 38  D CXIII legum Hebraeorum pars prima ductu rabbi Jehudae Lebh Schwertsensis; versione, notis, paraphrasi (Stockholm, Keyser: 1711). 39  The first page is designed as the title page of pars prima and identical except for pars secunda and for the listing of items that Schultén has added at the end of the text. I thank Jürgen Beyer for discovering this manuscript and sharing his finding with me. 40  D CXIII leges Hebraeorum ductu rabbi Jehudae Lebh Schvertsensis; versione, notis, paraphrasi, ed. C.J. Schultén (Lund, Decreaux: 1731).

Translation in University Dissertations

797

(Norrmannus). Most who edited and translated Greek texts in dissertation format confined themselves to one text. Norrmannus is an exception, with the series of editions of Aelius Aristides, rhetorical treatises, works by Thomas Magister, and homilies of John Chrysostom. Most were defended by more than one respondent, but only the dissertations on Thomas Magister are presented as series. In the case of Norrmannus’ Aristides series, the question of authorship is unusually easy to determine as the title pages state ‘praeside, editore, ac interprete Laurentio Norrmanno’. Before the first dissertation with editiontranslation (defended by Eek and Ström), Norrmannus published πρεσβευτικὸς πρὸς Ἀχιλλέα at his own expense outside academia.41 This was counted as the first part in the Aristides series, as shown by the first dissertation’s pagination which continues from page 66. For the complete series a collective title page was also issued.42 In the collections of some libraries the different parts have been bound together. In Lund University Library, for instance, all parts are collected into one copy (signum Klass. Grek. [Aristides, Ael. 1688]), but the single dissertations are also held in the library’s dissertation collections. When dissertations are bound into new tomes, some of their parts are easily lost, such as title pages, theses, and other paratexts. At the same time as they are given a new function outside their primary academic context, they become more difficult to study as dissertations. However, in the case of Norrmannus’ Aristides volume, something is also gained. In the preface addressed to the students of the university in the first part, Norrmannus explains that when he was transported from professor of logic and metaphysics to ‘the more pleasant province of Greek letters,’ he started to search for some suitable text to edit for use at the university. He was allowed to work with a manuscript in the possession of baron and councillor Clas Rålamb, his patron and benefactor, that contained texts by Aelius Aristides, one of which (the Presbeutikon) had not yet been edited, as far as he could tell. He decided to publish it at his own cost. He explains that, in order to make the text available for those who do not know Greek well, he supplied the text with a Latin translation adapted to the needs of the beginner; Aristides’ bold style, however, makes the translator’s work very hard, and close translation impossible.43 In the dedication to Rålamb, Norrmannus suggests that Aristides will be more welcome and familiar to 41  A  elii Aristidis rhetoris Adrianensis, nomine legatorum Graecorum ad Achillem oratio […] de codice manuscripto descripsit ac edidit, versione Latina, brevibusque notis illustravit (Uppsala, Keyser: 1687). 42  Norrmannus Laurentius, Orationem Aristidis utramque, de codice manuscripto; duosque Artium oratoriarum libros, De vetusta, eademque adhuc unica, editione Aldina; descripsit, edidit, versione Latina, notisque necessariis, illustravit (Uppsala, Keyser: 1688). 43  Norrmannus, Orationem s.p. (‘Ornatissimae Florentissimaeque Juventuti academicae’).

798

Akujärvi

many thanks to the translation, but adds that his new Latin clothes are more simple and uncouth than the original Greek garment.44 A praefatio interpretis precedes the edition-translation of the Ars rhetorica, considered spurious now. Here Norrmannus explains that, though he would have preferred to continue searching for some unedited text to publish, he finally decided upon a text that is important for students of rhetoric but rare and impossible to get hold of. The Greek text edits the Aldine edition of Aristides’ Ars rhetorica and the translation aims to get the meaning clearly through rather than to produce a polished text, he explains.45 In these liminary texts Norrmannus presents his project: to publish new manuscript discoveries, or at least rare texts, to make them accessible with translation and commentary, and to thereby further Greek studies. When the whole Aristides series was completed, not only a collective title page, but also a dedication to Queen Ulrika Eleonora (dated 24th August 1688), and a two-page correction addressed to lector candide were issued. In it Norrmannus recants his claim to be the first to edit the Presbeutikon, for, he explains, Elias Obrecht, professor skytteanus, brought Joachim Camerarius’ edition (Hagenau 1535) to his attention. He was astonished by the information, he says, and describes extensively how he came to believe that his edition was indeed an editio princeps since he had not found any mention of the other edition in any of the bibliographic tools available. It has been unfeasible to trace all mentions of the dissertations and respondents in the acta of the universities, but the minutes of the Uppsala University Senate, published until 1699, have records on some of the respondents in this study.46 The edition-translation dissertations are spoken of differently than other dissertations. ‘Disputera,’ the verb still used in Swedish for defending a (doctoral) thesis, is commonly used when the dean of the faculty of philosophy reports disputaturos and their subjects to the Senate. For edition-translations this is only used when the focus is on the respondents’ theses,47 otherwise verbs meaning ‘pay’ and ‘publish’ are used.48 The occurrences are few, and data 44  Norrmannus, Orationem s.p. (‘Illustrissime atque Excellentissime Domine Patrone Maxime’). 45  Norrmannus, Orationem s.p. (‘Praefatio interpretis’ preceding Artium oratoriarum I). 46  Uppsala universitet, Akademiska konsistoriets protokoll, ed. H. Sallander: Norberg – Swedberg 22/9/1681 (see above); Norrmannus – Eek – Ström 27/4/1687; Norrmannus – Christierninus 25/2/1691; Norrmannus – Elfwius – Georg Oxenwaldt (I have not found this name in any of the title pages nor in Lidén, Catalogus) 23/11/1692; Peringer – Skunk 13/4/1692. On the unreliability of the records, see Annerstedt, Upsala vol. 2.2, 126. 47  27/4/1687: ‘Petrus Ek Nericius will disputera theses mis[c]ellaneas sammaledes och Jonas Ström Angermannus’ (‘Petrus Ek Nericius wants to defend theses mis[c]ellaneas, as does Jonas Ström Angermannus’). 48  ‘Will påkosta att vita S. Naziansenis ederas’ (‘Wishes to pay for editing the vita of S. Naziansenis’, 25/2/1691); ‘begära få publicera något af vita Gregorii Nazianzeni ex

Translation in University Dissertations

799

contradicting this pattern is not unlikely to turn up if the search is widened to the unpublished records of the Senate and faculty of philosophy, but it seems that one did not ‘defend’ an edition-translation dissertation, but the theses attached to it – according to the constitutions, all arguments at the disputation were to be presented in syllogistic form.49 However, only a minority of the dissertations studied here preserve the theses, at least in the copies inspected for this study. The production of the second wave is less homogeneous. The dissertations are shorter, but they can form long series, such as the one beginning with Hylander – Bruhn in 1784. Hebrew is not the only Oriental source language as Arabic is translated in several dissertations. Whereas translation from Hebrew source texts was limited to rabbinic literature in the first wave, in the second it was limited to the Old Testament. Both Latin and Swedish are target languages, the latter initially only when the Swedish Bible translation was at issue. Uppsala University does not dominate as much as before. In the 1790s Greek texts other than New Testament and Christian writings began to be translated. Excepting the Arabic texts, the dissertations deal with texts that all educated people knew. The issue was not to make unknown or little known texts available for the first time, but to present new interpretations of them. As the sanctioned Swedish Bible translation was up for revision, the dissertations that examined existing or suggested new Bible translations were contributions to the ongoing debate on the interpretation of certain passages and preferable form of translation. Many of the praesides were, moreover, members of the Bible Commission. Pindar, Tyrtaeus, and Simonides, Greek poets that had circulated widely across Europe in editions and translations for centuries, were translated anew. The prefaces speak of the good quality of the texts, of the authors being read and appreciated through the ages, of the selection being appropriate as an academic ‘specimen’ (Lagus – Mollerus) or ‘exercise’ (Dahl – Frölich), but also of the translation offering a new and better rendering of the source text when compared to the existing ones (Malmström – Krogius). These are a first indication of what was to become the third and most powerful wave of dissertations with translation, which was even more powerful than shown above because of this study’s focus on only Greek and Latin as source languages and Swedish as target language. To offer a Swedish translation of an ancient text was another means of producing a new interpretation. In this case the Thoma Magistro’ (‘desire to publish a part of vita Gregorii Nazianzeni ex Thoma Magistro’, 23/11/1692); ‘will […] uthgifwa en tractat af Maimonide’ (‘wishes to edit a treatise by Maimonides’, 13/4/1692). 49  Constitutions as quoted in Annerstedt, Upsala vol. 2.2, 127, n. 1: ‘in omnibus autem disputationibus argumenta semper in forma syllogistica proponentur’.

800

Akujärvi

translations did not rival existing ones, since they treat previously untranslated texts, which is mostly the case with the 19th century dissertation translations. Here, too, the dissertations reflect trends outside academia, viz. the growing interest in Greek poetry in Swedish translations of ancient literature. These translations generally have extensive commentary, which was part of the new interpretation as much as the translation – and of what was examined; the theses, too, were essential in the disputation, but they are not preserved to the same extent as the other parts of the dissertation. In 19th century dissertation translations the scope of the commentary tends to decrease, as do the introductions. Though a dissertation translation had the potential to be an excellent means for philological teaching and examination,50 late dissertation translation series suggest a decline of the public defence. Parts of a dissertation series were generally defended in quick succession over the course of one year, possibly more. It was not uncommon that the praeses of a dissertation series presided both in the morning and afternoon. But some series from Lund, translations of Latin, raise the question of how the dissertations were defended and, indeed, whether they were defended at all. According to the title page information, one praeses would preside at the defence of up to five, seven or ten parts of dissertation translations on one and the same day. The disputations were for the master’s degree to boot. If these dissertations were subjected to a public defence, it is small wonder that one of the arguments for the 1852 reform of the university statutes was misuse of the the old system, in which the praesides could use dissertations as a cost-free medium to publish their work. Every third year, when the number of disputations peaked, with the graduation ceremony for the master’s degree approaching, the long dissertation series are likely to have been a much needed means of lightening the workload.51 Translations – long ones of source texts such as the Homeric epics (one series in 90 parts, another in 57 parts), the Anacreontea (37 parts), female Greek poets (37 parts), the tragedies of Aeschylus (25 parts), Sophocles (28 parts), and Euripides (33 parts) – could be divided into parts and distributed among students who would each pay the cost for printing his section of the translation and present it at the public defence. To sum up: From the 1670s, when the first dissertation with translation as a substantial component was defended, dissertations with translations appeared every decade until the last dissertation translation of the 1890s, after

50  Klinge et al., Helsingfors vol. 2 397–398. 51  Cf. Klinge M. – Sarjala J. (eds.), Henrici Gabrielis Porthan opera omnia edidit Porthan-seura vol. 11.1 (Turku: 2001) xxiii.

Translation in University Dissertations

801

which time translation only occasionally occurs in text edition dissertations. The form, function, aim, and purpose of offering translation in dissertations have all changed through the centuries, but, despite the great differences between the three waves of dissertations with translation identified in this study, they are united by the fact that, through their transmutations, they present that type of dissertation with translation that corresponds to the needs and demands of their times – and, thus, represent dissertation types that gave the respondent reasonable rewards in their future career. Selective Bibliography Aalto P., Classical Studies in Finland 1828–1918 (Helsinki: 1980). Akujärvi J., “Suethice. Dissertationer, disputationer och dissertationsöversättningar under 1800-talet”, Aigis 14, 1 (2014) (http://aigis.igl.ku.dk/aigis/2014,1/JA-Suethice. pdf; http://aigis.igl.ku.dk/aigis/2014,1/JA-Suethice-app.pdf). Akujärvi J., “Suethice. On 19th century Swedish university translations of ancient literature”, in Jönsson A. – Vogt-Spira G. (eds.), The Classical Tradition in the Baltic Region. Perceptions and Adaptations of Greece and Rome (Zurich – New York: 2017) 253–274. Akujärvi J., “An Epic Battle. Aesthetic and Poetical Struggles over the Swedish Iliads”, in Goldwyn A. (ed.), The Trojan Wars and the Making of the Modern World, Studia Graeca Upsaliensia (Uppsala: 2015) 161–183. Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, 3 vols. and 5 suppl. vols. (Uppsala: 1877–1931). Bergman J., Universitetet i Dorpat under svenska tiden. Gustav II Adolfs sista kulturskapelse (Uppsala: 1932). Carlsson L. (ed.), Faculty of Art at Uppsala University (Uppsala: 1976). Frängsmyr C., Uppsala universitet 1852–1916, 2 vols. (Uppsala: 2010). Heikel I.A., Filologins studium vid Åbo universitet, Åbo universitets lärdomshistoria. 5. Filologin (Helsinki: 1894). Jaanson E.-L., Tartu ülikooli trükikoda 1632–1710: ajalugu ja trükiste bibliograafia (Tartu: 2000). Klinge M. et al., Helsingfors universitet 1640–1990, trans. J.-I. Lindén, K. Smeds, N. Edgren, 3 vols. (Helsinki: 1988–1991). Lidén C., Catalogus disputationum, in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae, 5 vols. (Uppsala, Edman: 1778–1780). Lindberg B., De lärdes modersmål. Latin, humanism och vetenskap i 1700-talets Sverige, Gothenburg studies in the history of science and ideas (Gothenburg: 1984). Lindberg B., Humanism och vetenskap. Den klassiska filologien i Sverige från 1800-talets början till andra världskriget (Stockholm: 1987). Lindroth S., Uppsala universitet 1477–1977 (Uppsala: 1976).

802

Akujärvi

Marklin G., Catalogus disputationum in academiis Scandinaviae et Finlandiae Lidenianus continuatus, 3 vols. (Uppsala: 1820) Olsson B., “Svenskt bibelöversättningsarbete. En översikt främst med tanke på Nya testamentet”, in 1963 års bibelkommitté (ed.), Nyöversättning av Nya testamentet. Behov och principer, SOU 1968: 65 (Stockholm: 1968) 354–500 (= Appendix A). Piirimäe H. (ed.), Tartu ülikooli ajalugu. I. 1632–1798 (Tallinn: 1982). Tegnér E., Lunds universitet 1872–1897 (Lund: 1897). Uppsala universitet, Akademiska konsistoriets protokoll, ed. H. Sallander, 22 vols. (Uppsala: 1968–1977). Vallinkoski J., Turun akatemian väitöskirjat (Academia Aboënsis). 1642–1828, 2 vols. (Helsinki: 1962–1969). Weibull M. – Tegnér E., Lunds universitets historia 1668–1868, 2 vols. (Lund: 1868).



Appendix 1. List of Swedish Dissertation Translations Singled Out

NB! For the complete corpus of Swedish dissertation translations of ancient literature, see Akujärvi, “Suethice. Dissertationer”. Alexanderson A.M., Septem Aeschylea suethicis versibus expressa et commentario illustrata, Uppsala 1868. Dahl Chr., Pindari Olympiorum ode quinta, Uppsala 1797 (resp. G. Knös). Dahl Chr., Pindari Olympiorum ode undecima, Uppsala 1797 (resp. C.J. Örnberg). Dahl Chr., Tyrtaei quae supersunt Πολεμιστηρια, Svethice tradidit, Uppsala 1809 (resp. G. Ingelgren) Grönblad J.E.A., Sexti Aurelii Propertii elegiae octo, Svethice redditae, Helsinki 1847 (resp. C.A. Renvall). Gyldén N.A., Sophoclis Antigonae versus 1–99 Svethice reddidit, Helsinki 1836 (resp. Chr. Sandbäck). Gyldén N.A., Pindari Olympiorum ode prima in sermonem Suecanum conversa, Helsinki 1849 (resp. J.A. Söderholm). Ingelius A.G., Septem adversus Thebas, tragoedia Aeschyli, in Suecanum conversa et notis quibusdam philologicis illustrata, Helsinki 1846. Janzon E., De sublimitate libellus in patrium sermonem conversus adnotationibusque instructus 1, Uppsala 1894. Tegnér E., Monumenta Graecorum ex anthologia, Graece et Svethice, Lund 1817 (resp. H. Reuterdahl). Tranér, J., Prima [secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, sexta,septima, octava, nona, decima, undecima, duodecima] Iliadis Homericae rhapsodia Svethice reddita 1–90, Uppsala 1807–1822 (resp. C.E. Hallström and 89 others).

Translation in University Dissertations



803

Appendix 2. Bibliography of Dissertations Cited

The following lists all dissertations used in this study, excepting the Swedish dissertation translations (see Appendix 1). The dissertations are recorded alphabetically according to praeses; if the dissertation is a series, the number of known parts is recorded before the place of disputation (not publication), year and respondent. Afzelius, Adamus, Arvidsson Oratio morientis Jacobi ad filios, Gen. xlix: 1–27. Versione et notis explicata 3, Uppsala 1777 (resp. Chr. Dahl) (NB! parts 1–2 praeside Aurivillio). Aurivillius Carl Ex opere cosmographico Ibn Alvardi particula Latine versa et illustrata notis, Uppsala 1752 (resp. E. Axelsson). Oratio morientis Jacobi ad filios, Gen. xlix: 1–27. Versione et notis explicata 1–2, Uppsala 1775–1776 (resp. A. Afzelius Arvidsson). (NB! part 3 ipso praeside). Bång, Petrus S. Ansgarius vulgo Svecorum Danorumque apostolus. Seu vita S. Ansgarii olim a quodam pontificio Latine scripta, ac postea ab alio in Svecicum idioma translata: at hic rursus in Latinum conversa, abbreviata et sobria censura theologica passim castigata, lucique publice data, Åbo 1675 (resp. P.J. Serlachius) Benzelius, Erik, Jr Ioannis Chrysostomi homilia de poenitentia, et de Herode atque Ioanne Baptista; ex codice ms. suppleta, Latine versa, et notis illustrata, Uppsala 1705 (resp. A.O. Rhyzelius). Margaretae Nicolai filiae abbatissae Vadstenensis de S. Birgitta chronicon, ex codd. mss. erutum, versione et notis illustratum, Uppsala 1710 (resp. N. Hufwedsson Dal). Boberg, Andreas Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. VII et VIII quem ex Ebraeo in sermonem Latinum conversum, et not. brevissimis illustr., Uppsala 1733 (resp. E. Stenfelt) (NB! for earlier chapters, see Celsius 1715). Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. IX et X quem […], Uppsala 1734 (resp. Chr. Justus Jr). Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. XI. XII et XIII […], Uppsala 1736 (resp. A. Printz Jr). Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. XIV […], Uppsala 1737 (resp. P. Ekman). Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. XV et XVI […], Uppsala 1740 (resp. J. Sandin).

804

Akujärvi

Commentarius Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in genes. cap. XVII […], Uppsala 1742 (resp. C.H. Hæggquist). Celsius, Anders Novo in fluviis norlandiarum piscandi modo | Et nyt sät at fiska i the norländska elfwar, Uppsala 1738 (resp. A. Hellant). Celsius, Olaus, Sr Latinae παραφράσεως vaticiniorum Alexandrae Lycophronis 1, Uppsala 1706 (resp. Z.N. Plantin). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de miscellis tria capita, ex Hebraeo in Latinum sermonem conversa, Uppsala 1713 (resp. L. Hellman). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de miscellis cap. quartum et quintum, Uppsala 1714 (resp. M.O. Beronius). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de miscellis caput sextum […] una cum brevi expositione dicti deut. xxii. 9., Uppsala 1727 (resp. E.L. Halenius). Liber Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Meleck in geneseos capita iv. v. et vi. ex Hebraeo in Latinum translatus, et notis brevissimis illustratus, Uppsala 1715 (resp. J. Palmroot) (NB! cap. 1 Palmroot 1701; cap. 2 et 3 Lundius 1706; later chapters in Boberg). Dahl, Christopher Tyrtaei quae supersunt Graece et Latine 1–6, Uppsala 1790–1806 (resp. S. Frölich; N. Kullberg; L.U. Utterström; L.P. Afzelius; J.M. Strettenberg; O.Ph. Utterström). Pindari Olympiorum ode quinta, Uppsala 1797 (resp. G. Knös). Pindari Olympiorum ode undecima, Uppsala 1797 (resp. C.J. Örnberg). Prooemium Johannis Evangelistae Joh. I. 1–18. Svecana paraphrasi traditum, Uppsala 1809 (resp. P.G. Reuterström). Tyrtaei quae supersunt Πολεμιστηρια, Svethice tradidit, Uppsala 1809 (resp. G. Ingelgren) Praeconium Johannis Baptistae Luc. III. 1–18. Matth. III 1–12. Marc. I. 1–8. Svecana paraphrasi traditum 1–3, Uppsala 1809 (resp. J. Wallin; J. Dillner; J.J. Bolin). Duvaerus, Jacob Vaticinia Habacuci versione et notis illustrata, Uppsala 1780 (resp. Chr. Ekwall). Engeström, Johan Viginti Libanii rhetoris epistolas adhuc ineditas cum versione ac notis, Lund 1735 (resp. C.J. Benzelius). Fattenborg, Johannes Henricus Jesajae caput VII:mum Latine versum et animadversionibus explicatum, Turku 1796 (resp. F. Grönstrand). Floderus, Johan Exercitationes philologicae in Matthaei Evangelium, ejusque metaphrasin Svecanam 1–21, Uppsala 1763–1771 (resp. P. Tiliander; J.G. Flodin; O. Spak; C. Forslind; A. Helstenius; J. Lindlöf; C. Helin; J.C. Ekner; O. Westling; L.F. Humbla; J. Lundaeus;

Translation in University Dissertations

805

L. Strömwall; J.F. Bagge; P. Aliin; J. Aspelin; D. Godenius; D. Norén; J. Wetterling; N.E. Netzel; D. Luth; G.F. Stilman). Versio Svecana selectorum ex Paulinis epistolis locorum ad examen revocata 1–24, Uppsala 1771–1779 (resp. A. Borg; G.S. Flodin; O. Tunwall; J. Edberg; Th. Ljunggren; B. Jungblad; N. Jonsson; G. Brandt; F. Theel; J. Stenfelt; G. Sigelkow; E. Caeverberg; J. Cederquist; D.W. Böttiger; N. Segrell; J. Johansson; P. Harkman; E. Chr. Sparrman; J.E. Unge; P.M. Bång; Sv. Björling; O.P. Knös; C. Åström; J.J. Wasell). Prolegomena ad librum Στεφανιτης καὶ Ιχνηλατησ e cod. mscr. biblioth. acad. Upsal. edita et Latine versa, Uppsala 1780 (resp. P.F. Aurivillius). Gadolin, Gustavus Lamicum carmen Abu-Ismaelis Tograi, Latine explicatum 1, Turku 1790 (resp. D. Backman). Hesselgren, Brynolf Ode prima pythiorum Pindari, versione et notis illustrata, Uppsala 1796 (resp. J.P. Lindström). Hesslén, Nils Vaticinia Haggaei, versa et illustrata, Lund 1799 (resp. L.G. Tegner). Hylander, Andreas Specimen operis cosmographici Ibn El Vardi, ex lingva Arabica in Latinam conversum 1–39, Lund 1784–1812 (resp. C.A. Bruhn and 38 others). Lagus, Andreas Johannes Simonidis quae supersunt, Graece et Latine, cum animadersionibus 1, Turku 1796 (resp. A. Mollerus). Laurbecchius, Petrus Aristotelis poeticae caput primum, cum prolegomenis, versione nova, et commentario, Turku 1673 (resp. J.H. Aschlinus). Lefrén, Laurentius Observatiunculae philologico-criticae in genesin, ad emendationem hodiernae versionis Svecanae comparatae 1, Turku 1774 (resp. H. Montin). De officio translatoris sacrarum litterarum circa veritatem 1, Turku 1775 (resp. N. Höök). Diss. gradualis specimen paraphraseos primi capiti exodi, succinctis observationibus philologicis illustratum, exhibens, Turku 1775 (resp. G. Levin). Lundius, Daniel Commentarius R. Aben Esrae in prophetam Nahum, quem ex Hebraeo sermone in Latinum versum et annotationibus brevissimis illustratum, Uppsala 1705 (resp. G. Stenhagen). Angulus agri prout descriptus extat in R. M. Majmonidae tractatu de donis pauperum cap. II. et III. quae capita in Latinum sermonem translata et brevibus quibusdam notis aucta, Uppsala 1705 (resp. E. Hasselhun).

806

Akujärvi

Commentarius R. Salomonis B. Melech in geneseos caput secundum et tertium, quem ex Hebraeo in sermomenm Latinum conversum, et notis brevissimis illustratum, Uppsala 1706 (resp. J. Fahlander) (NB! cap. 1 Palmroot 1701; cap. 4 Celsius 1715). Commentarius R. Aben Esrae in prophetam Habacuc, quem ex Hebraeo in Latinum sermonem versum et brevibus notis illustratum, Uppsala 1706 (resp. G. Swan). Commentarius R. Aben Esrae in prophetam Zephaniam, quem […], Uppsala 1706 (resp. C. Hedman). Commentarius R. Aben Esrae in prophetam Haggaeum, quem […], Uppsala 1706 (resp. A.O. Chytraeus). Commentarius R. Aben Esrae in prophetam Malachiam, quem […], Uppsala 1707 (resp. A. Borgwall). Liber Miklal Jophi R.S.B.M. in tria Michae capita quem […], civitate Latina donatum et nonnullis observationibus auctum, Uppsala 1708 (resp. O. Norberg). Liber Miklal Jophi R.S.B.M. in prophetam Obadiam, quem […], Uppsala 1711 (resp. N. Brodberg). Praefatio R. Aben Esrae rhythmica in pentateuchum, quam toga Latina indutam et nonnullis annotationibus illustratam, Uppsala 1711 (resp. J. Galle). Malmström, Petrus Exercitationes in locum Corani Sur. 2: v. 253–256 1, Uppsala 1786 (resp. P. Wallenblad). Specimen poëseos Pindaricae in Latinum conversae 1, Turku 1789 (resp. G. Krogius). Specimen Alcorani Arabice et Latine 1–2, Turku 1793–1794 (resp. J.H. Fattenborg; J.H. Avellan). Micrander, Julius Demophili similitudines, seu vitae curatio ex Pythagoreis. Ejusque sententiae Pythagoricae. Cum versione et scholiis L. Holstenii. Quas observationibus moralibus illustravit, Uppsala 1682 (resp. J. Swedberg). Norberg, Matthias Animadversiones in novam S.S. versionem Svecanam, Lund 1784 (resp. Th. Fries). Particula operis cosmographici Ibn El Vardi, Arabice et Latine, Lund 1786 (resp. V. Faxe). Norcopensis (Nordenhielm), Andreas Disticha Catonis de moribus ad filium, cum lemmatibus Sturmii et Graeca versione Jos. Scaligeri, Uppsala 1681 (resp. J.Swedberg). Norrmannus, Laurentius Aelii Aristidis in ineptos et futiles sophistas, oratio. Quam cum thesibus quibusdam suis […] praeside, editore, ac interprete […] examini modeste subjicit, Uppsala 1687 (resp. J.O. Ström; P.J. Eek). Aelii Aristidis artium oratoriarum liber prior, de dictione civili […] praeside, editore, ac interprete, Uppsala 1688 (resp. J.C. Engeldalius; O. Smaraeus)

Translation in University Dissertations

807

Aelii Aristidis artium oratoriarum liber secundus, de dictione simplici […] praeside, editore, ac interprete, Uppsala 1688 (resp. A. Bolinus). Αλεξανδρου περὶ τῶν τῆς διανοίας σχημάτων· καὶ περὶ τῶν τῆς λέξεως σχημάτων. α. β. Φοιβαμμωνος σχόλια περὶ σχημάτων ῥητορικῶν. α. β. Μινουκιανου περὶ ἐπιχειρημάτων […] una cum quibusdam suis thesibus miscellaneis, Uppsala 1690 (resp. O. Therullius; J. Björck; L. Hasselius52). Hoc est Theoduli monachi, sive Thomae magistri, laudatio Gregorii Theologi 1–2, Uppsala 1691–1692 (resp. P. Christierninus; O.O. Moraeus; J. Elfwius; G. Oxenwaldt.53 Hoc est Thomae magistri orationes gratulatoriae, et epistolae, 1–2, Uppsala 1693–1694 (resp. A. Noreen; J. Gejer). Ioannis Chrysostomi homilia in Evang. Ioannis V:19, hactenus inedita; quam cum suppl. homil. in Divit. et Lazarum ex codd. ms. descripsit, Latine vertit, et notis illustravit, Uppsala 1702 (resp. E. Benzelius Jr – continued ipso praeside). Olsson, Jöns Dissertatio sistens historiam primi in Aegypto sultani Ahmed Ben Tulún. Arabice et Latine 1–2, Lund 1785 (resp. G.R. Ahlman; A. Setterlin). Palmroot, Johannes R. Isaci Abarbanelis commentarius in Jonae caput primum et secundum, quem ex Ebraeo in sermonem Latinum conversum, et notis quibusdam brevissmimis illustratum, Uppsala 1696 (resp. E. Fahlenius). R. Isaci Abarbanelis commentarius in Jonae caput tertium et quartum, quem ex Ebraeo in sermonem Latinum conversum, et notis quibusdam brevissmimis illustratum, Uppsala 1701 (resp. C. Schultén). Liber Miclal Jophi R. Salomonis B. Melech in geneseos caput primum, quem ex Hebraeo, in sermonem Latinum conversum et notis illustratum, Uppsala 1701 (resp. J. Schult) (NB! cap. 2 et 3 Lundius 1706; cap. 4 Celsius 1715). Peringer (Lillieblad), Gustaf Officium Messiae Judaici hoc est R. Mosis F. Majemonis tractatus de regibus caput XI quod ex duobus exemplaribus editis, et mss. codice regio recensitum, in Latinum versum, paucisque notulis auctum, Uppsala 1692 (resp. C. Skunk). Siclus Judaicus; id est, Rabbi Mosis Majemonidis tractatus de Siclis, eorumque apud Judaeos annua solutione, et ad varios usus dispensatione, capita duo; quae in idioma Latinum transtulit et notulis explicavit, Uppsala 1692 (resp. E. Benzelius Jr). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de primitiis caput primum, quod ex Hebraeo in sermonem Latinum conversum, cum ms. codice REGIO et impressis exemplaribus collatum, notisque illustratum, Uppsala 1694 (resp. E.E. Plantin). 52  L . Hasselius only in the copy in Lund University Library sign. Diss. Ups. 53  G  . Oxenwaldt is not on the title page, only in Uppsala universitet, Akademiska konsistoriets protokoll 23/11/1692.

808

Akujärvi

R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de primitiis caput secundum, Uppsala 1694 (resp. J. Köster). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de primitiis caput tertium, Uppsala 1694 (resp. A.A. Geringius). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de primitiis cap. quartum et quintum, Uppsala 1694 (resp. J.S. Wagenius). R. Mosis Maimonidae tractatus de primitiis cap. sextum et septimum, Uppsala 1695 (resp. J. Florander). Poppius, Johannes Carmen Mosis, deut. XXXII, versione et notis illustratum 1, Turku 1784 (resp. Z. Cygnaeus). Pousette, Carolus Odam secundam Pindari Olympiorum in Latinum conversam, Uppsala 1790 (resp. J. Öhrström). Ross, Isaac Exercitium academicum exhibens modestam emendationem quorundam locorum versionis sacri codicis Svecanae 1–2, Turku 1760 (resp. M.N. Rydholm). Diss. philologica, sistens observationes nonnullas in versionem Svecanam locorum quorundam scripturae sacrae veteris testamenti, Turku 1760 (resp. G. Helsingius). Diss. gradualis loca quaedam novi testamenti in versione Svecana emendationis indiga vel minus sistens, Turku 1763 (resp. D. Sevonius). Schultén, Carl Rabbi Jehuda Lebh, versione, notis, paraphrasi, emendatione textus, interstinctione, dictorumque S.S. in margine notatione illustratus, Pärnu 1709 (resp. C. Alstadius; H.G. Dörre; J.E. Pastelberg). Rabbi Jehuda Lehb, versione, notis, paraphrasi, emendatione textus, insterstinctione, dictorumque S.S. in margine notatione illustratus 1–15, Lund 1719–1728 (resp. O.P. Osander; N.P. Osander; J. Engeström; L.K. Halenius; M.O. Smaraeus; D. Evensson; S. Ring; S. Ring; L.K. Halenius; Z. Munck; A. Rogberg; E. Colliander; J. Stridzberg; C.J. Schultén; S. Schultén). Gemmae talmudico-soharicae adiectae calendario Judaico, Lund 1721 (resp. A. Hellman). [Hebrew text] philologicum, Lund 1722 (resp. J. Engeström). [Hebrew text] sive commentarius Don Jizchach Abarbenelis in cap. lii. v. 13. ad fin. et cap. liii. tot. Esaiae vatis Latina donatus versione, Lund 1723 (resp. N. Brunberg). Stridzberg, Haquin Rabbinorum Schelomonis Jarchi, Abrahami Aben Esrae, et Davidis Kimchi in Chaggai prophetae cap. 1. v. I. et II. commentarios, Latine redditos et notis illustratos, Lund 1705 (resp. J.M. Montin).

Translation in University Dissertations

809

Rabbinorum Schelomonis Jarchi, Abrahami Aben Esrae, et Davidis Kimchi in Jesaiae prophetae cap. II. v. 2. 3. 4. commentarii, Latina versione et notis illustrati, Lund 1709 (resp. J. Ödman). Stridsberg, Nils Rabbini Don Jischach Abarbenelis in Jesaiae prophetae cap. II. v. 2. 3. 4. commentarius, lat. vers. ac notis illustratus 1–3, Lund 1731–1736 (resp. O. Unnerus; M. Gislow; N. Vernel). Tidgren, Gabriel Liber ecclesiastae gemina versione et notis illustrata, Turku 1784 (resp. J. Lithell). Tingstadius, Johan Adam Hymnus Habacuci, versione ac notis philologicis et criticis illustratus, Uppsala 1791 (resp. G.L. Mörner). Törner, Fabian L. Annaei Senecae et Pub. Syri mimi forsan et aliorum selectae sententiae cum annotationibus Erasmi, et Graeca versione Jos. Scaligeri, Uppsala 1709 (resp. E. Swedberg (Swedenborg)). Wallin, Georg, Jr Vita et scriptis Andreae Cretensis, ut et ejus homilia in Johannem Evangelistam, nunc primum ex ms:to edita, cum versione et notis quibusdam philologicis 1–3, Uppsala 1730–1732 (resp. C. Eurenius; O. Boman; M.J. Ekström).



Appendix 3. Grouping of Source Texts

The following is a list of the dissertations with translations from Oriental and ancient languages, discussed in Section 3, with data on only praeses, place, year and respondent. The dissertations are grouped, first, chronologically. Next, within the chronological groups, according to source text. Then according to target language, but only within Group II, since in Group, I Latin is the target language, apart from just one exception. Within Group II target language is indicated when both Latin and Swedish translations of a particular type of source text occur (Old Testament translation and Greek not New Testament).



I. Until the 1740s I.1 Rabbinic Old Testament Commentary

Boberg, Andreas Uppsala 1733 (resp. E. Stenfelt) Uppsala 1734 (resp. Chr. Justus Jr) Uppsala 1736 (resp. A. Printz Jr)

810

Akujärvi

Uppsala 1737 (resp. P. Ekman) Uppsala 1740 (resp. J. Sandin) Uppsala 1742 (resp. C.H. Hæggquist) Celsius, Olof, Sr Uppsala 1715 (resp. J. Palmroot) Lundius, Daniel Uppsala 1705 (resp. G. Stenhagen) Uppsala 1706 (resp. J. Fahlander) Uppsala 1706 (resp. G. Swan) Uppsala 1706 (resp. C. Hedman) Uppsala 1706 (resp. A.O. Chytraeus) Uppsala 1707 (resp. A. Borgwall) Uppsala 1708 (resp. O. Norberg) Uppsala 1711 (resp. N. Brodberg) Uppsala 1711 (resp. J. Galle) Palmroot, Johannes Uppsala 1696 (resp. E. Fahlenius) Uppsala 1701 (resp. C. Schultén) Uppsala 1701 (resp. J. Schult) Schultén, Carl Lund 1723 (resp. N. Brunberg) Stridzberg, Haquin Lund 1705 (resp. J.M. Montin) Lund 1709 (resp. J. Ödman) Stridsberg, Nils Lund 1731–1736 (resp. O. Unnerus; M. Gislow; N. Vernel)



I.2 Other Rabbinic Literature

Celsius, Olof, Sr Uppsala 1713 (resp. L. Hellman) Uppsala 1714 (resp. M.O. Beronius) Uppsala 1727 (resp. E.L. Halenius) Lundius, Daniel Uppsala 1705 (resp. E. Hasselhun) Peringer (Lillieblad), Gustaf Uppsala 1692 (resp. C. Skunk) Uppsala 1692 (resp. E. Benzelius Jr) Uppsala 1694 (resp. E.E. Plantin) Uppsala 1694 (resp. J. Köster) Uppsala 1694 (resp. A.A. Geringius)

Translation in University Dissertations

811

Uppsala 1694 (resp. J.S. Wagenius) Uppsala 1695 (resp. J. Florander) Schultén, Carl Pärnu 1709 (resp. C. Alstadius; H.G. Dörre; J.E. Pastelberg) Lund 1719–1728 (resp. O.P. Osander; N.P. Osander; J. Engeström; L.K. Halenius; M.O. Smaraeus; D. Evensson; S. Ring; S. Ring; L.K. Halenius; Z. Munck; A. Rogberg; E. Colliander; J. Stridzberg; C.J. Schultén; S. Schultén) Lund 1721 (resp. A. Hellman) Lund 1722 (resp. J. Engeström)



I.3 Greek/Latin

Benzelius, Erik, Jr Uppsala 1705 (resp. A.O. Rhyzelius) Celsius, Olof, Sr Uppsala 1706 (resp. Z.N. Plantin) Engeström, Johan Lund 1735 (resp. C.J. Benzelius) Laurbecchius, Petrus Turku 1673 (resp. J.H. Aschlinus) Micrander, Julius Uppsala 1682 (resp. J. Swedberg) Norcopensis (Nordenhielm), Andreas Uppsala 1681 (resp. J. Swedberg) Norrmannus, Laurentius Uppsala 1687 (resp. J.O. Ström; P.J. Eek) Uppsala 1688 (resp. J.C. Engeldalius; O. Smaraeus) Uppsala 1688 (resp. A. Bolinus) Uppsala 1690 (resp. O. Therullius; J. Björck; L. Hasselius) Uppsala 1691–1692 (resp. P. Christierninus; O.O. Moraeus; J. Elfwius) Uppsala 1693–1694 (resp. A. Noreen; J. Gejer) Uppsala 1702 (resp. E. Benzelius Jr – continued to edit John Chrysostom as praeses) Törner, Fabian Uppsala 1709 (resp. E. Swedberg (Swedenborg)) – Greek translation. Wallin, Georg, Jr Uppsala 1730–1732 (resp. C. Eurenius; O. Boman; M.J. Ekström)



II. From 1750 II.1 Oriental Languages – Not Old Testament Translation

Aurivillius, Carl Uppsala 1752 (resp. E. Axelsson)

812 Gadolin, Gustavus Turku 1790 (resp. D. Backman) Hylander, Andreas Lund 1784–1812 (resp. C.A. Bruhn and many others) Malmström, Petrus Uppsala 1786 (resp. P. Wallenblad) Turku 1793–1794 (resp. J.H. Fattenborg; J.H. Avellan) Norberg, Matthias Lund 1786 (resp. V. Faxe) Olsson, Jöns Lund 1785 (resp. G.R. Ahlman; A. Setterlin)

II.2 Bible Translation – Old Testament (after 1760) Latin Afzelius, Adamus, Arvidsson Uppsala 1777 (resp. Chr. Dahl) Aurivillius, Carl Uppsala 1775–1776 (resp. A. Afzelius Arvidsson) Duvaerus, Jacob Uppsala 1780 (resp. Chr. Ekwall) Fattenborg, Johannes Henricus Turku 1796 (resp. F. Grönstrand) Hesslén, Nils Lund 1799 (resp. L.G. Tegner) Poppius, Johannes Turku 1784 (resp. Z. Cygnaeus) Ross, Isaac Turku 1760 (resp. M.N. Rydholm) – both OT and NT. Turku 1760 (resp. G. Helsingius) Tidgren, Gabriel Turku 1784 (resp. J. Lithell)

Swedish

Lefrén, Laurentius Turku 1774 (resp. H. Montin) Turku 1775 (resp. G. Levin) Norberg, Matthias Lund 1784 (resp. Th. Fries) – both OT and NT. Tingstadius, Johan Adam Uppsala 1791 (resp. G.L. Mörner)

Akujärvi

Translation in University Dissertations

813

II.3 Bible Translation – New Testament (after 1760) Swedish

Dahl, Christopher Uppsala 1809 (resp. P.G. Reuterström) Uppsala 1809 (resp. J. Wallin; J. Dillner; J.J. Bolin) Floderus, Johan Uppsala 1763–1771 (resp. P. Tiliander; J.G. Flodin; O. Spak; C. Forslind; A. Helstenius; J. Lindlöf; C. Helin; J.C. Ekner; O. Westling; L.F. Humbla; J. Lundaeus; L. Strömwall; J.F. Bagge; P. Aliin; J. Aspelin; D. Godenius; D. Norén; J. Wetterling; N.E. Netzel; D. Luth; G.F. Stilman) Uppsala 1771–1779 (resp. A. Borg; G.S. Flodin; O. Tunwall; J. Edberg; Th. Ljunggren; B. Jungblad; N. Jonsson; G. Brandt; F. Theel; J. Stenfelt; G. Sigelkow; E. Caeverberg; J. Cederquist; D.W. Böttiger; N. Segrell; J. Johansson; P. Harkman; E. Chr. Sparrman; J.E. Unge; P.M. Bång; Sv. Björling; O.P. Knös; C. Åström; J.J. Wasell) Norberg, Matthias Lund 1784 (resp. Th. Fries) – both OT and NT. Ross, Isaac Turku 1760 (resp. M.N. Rydholm) – both OT and NT. Turku 1763 (resp. D. Sevonius)

II.4 Greek – Not New Testament (after 1780) Latin

Dahl, Christopher Uppsala 1790–1806 (resp. S. Frölich; N. Kullberg; L.U. Utterström; L.P. Afzelius; J.M. Strettenberg; O.Ph. Utterström) Hesselgren, Brynolf Uppsala 1796 (resp. J.P. Lindström) Lagus, Andreas Johannes Turku 1796 (resp. A. Mollerus) Malmström, Petrus Turku 1789 (resp. G. Krogius) Pousette, Carolus Uppsala 1790 (resp. J. Öhrström)

Swedish

Dahl, Christopher Uppsala 1797 (resp. G. Knös) Uppsala 1797 (resp. C.J. Örnberg) Uppsala 1809 (resp. G. Ingelgren) Floderus, Johan Uppsala 1780 (resp. P.F. Aurivillius)

Chapter 30

Johann Brever and Herodotus’ Histories in the Disputations of the Riga Academic Gymnasium Kaarina Rein Summary The treatment of Herodotus’ Histories at the 17th century Riga Gymnasium was mainly connected with the activities of Johann Brever (1616–1700). The latter became a pupil at the Riga Academic Gymnasium under Hermann Samson’s (1579–1643) supervision and later occupied professorships of rhetoric (1643), ethics and physics (1645), as well as professorship of history (1650) at the same institution. There were four disputations on Herodotus’ theme presented at the Riga Academic Gymnasium under presidency of Brever from 1653 to 1654. The article discusses the question what is Brever’s aim while treating Herodotus’ Histories and therefore his disputations on Herodotus’ are treated on the background of his other works. The most important characters in Brever’s works on Herodotus are Zopyrus, Solon and Croesus, Artabanus and Xerxes, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis. Thus the disputations under question are mostly inspired by stories connected with Oriental history and rulers. The themes of arrogance and ambition, deception, fraud and treachery, and also self-deception are highlighted in Brever’s interpretation of Herodotus. Brever proceeds from the idea historia magistra vitae est, and the selected stories from Herodotus’ Histories seem to be suitable for his purpose and way to discuss moral questions from different aspects.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_031

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

1

815

Introduction1

In August of 1621, the Swedish Army launched an attack on Riga. On 16 September, the besieged city surrendered. This was the end of Polish Catholic rule, which was overtaken by Protestant Swedes.2 As one of the results, a classical grammar school was founded in 1631 at the Riga Cathedral School. An impulse for this event was the fact that King Gustavus II Adolphus founded gymnasiums in Tartu and Tallinn, and the Town Council of Riga decided to combine a gymnasium with the old cathedral school in order to replace a university for theologians, lawyers and philosophers.3 Thus this 17th century institution is sometimes referred to as the reformed Cathedral School, but often also as the Riga Academic Gymnasium,4 which is preferred in this article. The gymnasium was opened in Riga with four students and three professors. The professorship of theology was occupied by Hermann Samson (1579–1643), who was also the first inspector of the institution. The professorship of metaphysics and logic was taken by Johann Struborg and the professorship of ethics and physics by Dr. Johannes von Höveln. Dr. Lorenz Bodocki later joined these three men as professor of rhetoric. He remained in Riga for a short time but was replaced by Johann Brever in 1643, who had studied at the Riga Academic Gymnasium under Hermann Samson’s supervision. After Johann Struborg’s death in 1645, Johann Brever took over the professorship of metaphysics and logic as well. In 1640 the professorships of Law and of Greek language were founded at the Riga Academic Gymnasium. In 1650, the professorship of history was established there, which was occupied by Johann Brever. It seems probable that he maintained the professorship of rhetoric as well, at least in 1655 he applied this title to himself.5

1   The article has been written in the framework of the Swedish Research Council’s (Vetenskapsrådet) project No. 2016-01881 Helleno-Nordica, the Humanist Greek Heritage of the Swedish Empire. The author is grateful to the librarians at the Latvian Academic Library and the National Library of Latvia, and for the support of the Latvian State Scholarship in 2018. The author’s special gratitude belongs to Professor Janika Päll for introducing her to the theme of Herodotus’ Histories at the Riga Academic Gymnasium. 2  Heinins A., Rigas hronika / The Riga Chronicle 12.–21 (Riga: 2007) 66, 200. 3  Stradi󠅅ṇš J., Zinātnes un augstskolu sākotne Latvijā (Riga: 2012) 140. 4  Bērziņa G., “16th–17th-Century Greek Texts at the Academic Library of the University of Latvia”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture. Acta Societatis Morgensternianae VI–VII (Tartu: 2018) 40–41. 5  Schweder G., Die alte Domschule, das gegenwärtige Stadt-Gymnasium zu Riga (Riga: 1885) 20.

816

Rein

The first period of activity of the Riga Academic Gymnasium lasted from 1631 to 1657. During its first period of functioning, three professors of philosophy, two of theology, two of rhetoric, two of law, two of Greek language, one of history, and one of physics and ethics were active at the gymnasium. In 1657, the Riga Academic Gymnasium was closed due to war and plague, and reopened in 1678. Its second period of activity lasted from 1678 to 1710.6 2

Johann Brever

The treatment of Herodotus’ Histories at the 17th century Riga Gymnasium is connected mainly with the activities of Johann Brever. Thus it is necessary to give an overview of his life, as well as his works. Johann Brever was born on 11 March 1616 in Eisleben and died on 12 May 1700 in Riga. There is a remark on him that in his youth he had demonstrated so few abilities that his mother was looking for a service position for him, but as the boy later revealed more spirit, he was allowed to devote himself to studies.7 In 1634, he came to Riga at the age of 18, where he studied at the gymnasium and received private tuition from Hermann Samson, who had taken him into his house on the recommendation of the superintendent of Lübeck. There are two disputations presented by Johann Brever at Riga Gymnasium from the time of his studies, presided over by Hermann Samson. The first is Disputatio publica De libero arbitrio from 1635. The second, Disputatio prior De sacrosancta Domini caena from 1636, was directed against Calvinistic errors.8 Johann Brever headed to Marburg in 1639 on a scholarship from the Town Council of Riga and obtained his master’s degree in 1640 with a disputation on literary criticism, M. Varro rei litterariae Aesculapius. The following is an example from this work illustrating the principles and style of Johann Brever: Judex sine Justitia est fluvius sine aqua; Medicus sine peritia est panis sine farina; Theoreticus sine fructu est nubes sine imbribus; Practicus sine judicio est homo sine cerebro … Auditores, supplere animus est, videlicet; quod literae sine Criticis sint Civitas sine Consulibus et sine Medicis. 6  Bērziņa, “16th–17th-Century Greek Texts at the Academic Library of the University of Latvia” 41. 7  Recke J. Fr. von – Napiersky K.E., Allgemeines Schriftsteller- und Gelehrten-Lexikon der Provinzen Livland, Esthland und Kurland vol. 1, A–F (Mitau: 1831) 250. 8  Šiško S., Latvijas citvalodu seniespiedumu kopkatalogs 1588–1830. Sērija A. The Union Catalogue of Foreign Language Ancient Prints in Latvia 1588–1830. Series A (Riga: 2013) 55–56.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

817

A judge without justice is a river without water; a physician without experience is bread without flour; a theoretician without fruit is a cloud without rain; a practician without judgement is a man without a brain … Members of the audience, naturally I wish to add that literature without critics is a state without consuls and without physicians.9 After Johann Brever had returned to Riga, he soon obtained the professorship of rhetoric at Riga Gymnasium. This happened in 1643 and his inauguration speech was entitled Eloquentiae poeticae et rhetoricae aestimatoribus. In 1645, he obtained the professorship of metaphysics and logic, which he exchanged in 1650 for the professorship of history. Johann Brever held this post until 1655, i.e. for five years. This article will examine his activities during this period more closely. Johann Brever later made a career as a clergyman. In 1655, he became inspector of the Cathedral School and deacon at the Cathedral, and in 1657, he became pastor and assessor at the town consistory. Although the Riga Academic Gymnasium was closed in 1657 for 20 years, Johann Brever became professor of theology at the reopened Riga Gymnasium in 1677. In 1690, he achieved the highest position of his career and became superintendent of Riga and its surroundings. In 1693, he obtained his doctor’s degree from Uppsala University, which was afforded to him by King Charles XI of Sweden.10 3

Themes of Johann Brever’s Disputations and Orations

There were many disputations, orations and invitations to orations compiled by Brever in Riga. While he was still a student at Riga Gymnasium, biblical themes were represented in his disputations, as seen from the previous chapter. After becoming a professor at the same institution, Johann Brever’s disputations at Riga Gymnasium were philosophical until 1649, largely based on interpretation of Aristotle.11 From 1650 to 1655, when he occupied the post of professor of history, historical persons and their behaviour as reflected by historical records were represented in the disputations presented under his supervision as well as in his orations, which were compiled during this period. Thus there are disputations on King Nebuchadnezzar, based on the Book of

9  Brever Johann, M. Varro rei litterariae Aesculapius (Marburg, Nicolaus Hampelius: 1640) 4. 10  Stradi󠅅ṇš J., Zinātnes un augstskolu sākotne Latvijā 146. 11  Šiško S., Latvijas citvalodu seniespiedumu kopkatalogs 1588–1830. Sērija A 64–67.

818

Rein

Daniel in the Old Testament,12 and on Alexander the Great, based on the text of Curtius Rufus, where one can see duality in the author’s approach to the theme. While the first disputation is about Alexander’s piety,13 the second one is about his cruelty.14 In addition to disputations, Brever compiled a thick collection of orations in two parts, which was printed in Frankfurt in 1655,15 representing historical, mythological and moral themes. The first part of this collection is dedicated to the memory of Hermann Samson and includes a poem, which compares Hermann Samson to the biblical Samson.16 The persons represented in Johann Brever’s orations were e.g. Astyages, Zopyrus, Gaius Marcius Coriolanus, Gaius Mucius Scaevola and the Manlian family. There were orations about the state of Amazons (which gave the author a pretext to talk about Queen Christina of Sweden), the state of bees, human happiness, friendship, enemies, travelling, contemporary history and the role of poets. At the end of each part of the collection of orations, we can see an index where the most important ideas in the orations are summarised and presented in Petrus Ramus’ system of logic.17 The last dissertation by Johann Brever was published posthumously in 1705 in Rostock and it dealt with biblical themes.18 4

Herodotus’ Histories in Johann Brever’s Disputations

Herodotus’ Histories has been interpreted in different ways over the centuries. It has been a historical and ethnographical source, it has been studied 12  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Ludovici Eberhard (Resp.), Metamorphosis Nebucadnezaris, juxta regium diploma, Daniel. IV (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1653). 13  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Hartmann Johann (Resp.), Pietatem Alexandri Magni, Macedonum regis ex hist. [Q.] Curtii [Rufi], et supplement. [ J.] Freinshemanio, ad sententiarum collationem (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1655). 14   Brever Johann (Pr.) – Stegelinge Christoph (Resp.), Crudelitatem Alexandri Magni, Macedonum regis ex hist. [Q.] Curtii [Rufi], et supplement. [ J.] Freinshemanio, ad sententiarum collationem (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1655). 15  Brever Johann, Orationum, in Rigensi Athenaeo habitarum, pars prima et altera, cum memoria Samsoniana, et repraesentatione materiarum idonea curante M. Joh. Brevero. eloq. prof. orationum, in Rigensi Athenaeo habitarum, pars altera, cum memoria Cojeniana, et repraesentatione materiarum idonea curante M. Joh. Brevero. eloq. prof. (Frankfurt, Petrus Hauboldius: 1655). 16  Brever, Orationum, in Rigensi Athenaeo habitarum vol. 1, 79. 17  http://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/vd17/content/pageview/5962995 [accessed 10.05. 2019]. 18  Brever Johann (Pr.), Dissertatio theologica de testamentis divinis, ad illustrandum oraculum propheticum Jeremiae XXXI (Rostock, Schwiegerau: 1705).

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

819

for its style, and it has been a source of inspiration. Since interpretations of Herodotus from the Early Modern period are important in the present article, we can see from previous research that in 16th century France, Herodotus was considered to be both the “father of history” and the “father of lies”.19 In an example that is both geographically and temporally closer, examples from Histories were used in orations at the 17th century University of Tartu, e.g. the story about Babylonians having no physicians and the moralistic story about Croesus and Solon.20 Thus Herodotus’ Histories was a source of manifold ideas in the Early Modern period. In Johann Brever’s works written before 1649, which was the year he published an oration with the title Invectiva in Zopyrum, there was no mention or interpretation of Herodotus. Thus it appears to be a new theme in his work from when he became professor of history at Riga Academic Gymnasium. From the title pages of the disputations based on Herodotus’ Histories, we can see that there is a disputation about the story of Zopyrus in Herodotus’ Book III,21 on Solon’s visit to Croesus in Herodotus’ Book I22 from 1653, further on Artabanus’ advice to King Xerxes in Herodotus’ Book VII,23 and on Cambyses and false Smerdis in Herodotus’ Book III24 from the following year, 1654. Thus one can guess that these disputations were mostly inspired by stories connected with Oriental history and rulers rather than activities of Greeks in Histories. At first glance, one can see that there are certain common features in all four disputations based on Herodotus’ Histories presided over by Johann Brever. First we can see from the title pages that they are all based on Johann Brever’s lectures on history. The remark ‘pro disputationis exercitio’ (‘in order to practice disputing’) is on their title page, thus one can guess that their author is Johann Brever and not the students. All the disputations have three chapters, 19  E  arley B., “Herodotus in Renaissance France”, in Priestley J. – Zali V. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond (Leiden – Boston: 2016) 120–142. 20  Rein K., “Medizin und Theologie in Dorpat (Tartu) im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Assel H. – Steiger J.A. – Walter A.E. (eds.), Reformatio Baltica. Kulturwirkungen der Reformation in den Metropolen des Ostseeraums (Berlin – Boston: 2017) 699–709. 21  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Burghausen Johannes (Resp.), Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios, juxta Herod. l. III. f. Pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1653). 22  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Hoffmann Paul (Resp.), Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, ex. l. 1. Herod. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1653). 23  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Struborg Johann (Resp.), Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, juxta Herod: l. VII. pr. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1654). 24  Brever Johann (Pr.) – Dunte Georg (Resp.), Imperium Smerdis Magi, juxta Herodot. l. III. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1654).

820

Rein

which are divided into several questions and their answers. The shortest one is 24 pages long, and two of them are 40 pages in length. They are all in quarto format. There is neither occasional poetry nor theses for disputing added to them. We can see from the Greek words used in the Latin text that the author must have read the Greek text of Herodotus and not a Latin translation. The disputations begin with the phrase Cum Deo! and end with the expression Tantum est!. Although Early Modern disputations were not just texts,25 it is hardly possible to say something about the presentation of these works at the Riga Academic Gymnasium. Still we can ask what Johann Brever’s aim was in discussing Herodotus’ Histories in his lectures and in the disputations he presided over at Riga Academic Gymnasium. 5

Zopyrus

It seems that Babylon was an important symbol in Johann Brever’s works. King Nebuchadnezzar and the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament have already been mentioned, but other themes and motives connected to this city are found in his texts as well. For instance, in his collection of orations from 1655, there are speeches entitled Paradisus musarum babylonicus and Gymnasium Babylonicum cum Collatione Gymnasii Rigensis, where Brever highlights the fine arts once cultivated in Babylon. One of the most important personalities for Brever seems to be Zopyrus from Herodotus Book III. In 1649, an oration was published at Riga Gymnasium with the title Invectiva in Zopyrum, which criticised the activities of Zopyrus during the siege of Babylon. As a continuation to this oration, in 1653 a disputation entitled Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios was printed in Riga, discussing at length the behaviour of Zopyrus and the Babylonians in Herodotus’ Histories Book III. The disputation was presented by a noble Livonian named Johannes Burghausen and, as was the case for all of the disputations presided over by Johann Brever between 1650 and 1655, it was based on his lectures on history. Unfortunately, the first pages of the disputation after the title page are missing. The background for the story about Zopyrus at the end of Herodotus’ Book III, chapters 150–160, is the siege of Babylon by the Persian king Darius. According to Herodotus, the Babylonians revolted against the Persians and 25  Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deu­ tungsangebote”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 27–29.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

Figure 30.1

821

Brever – Burghausen, Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios, juxta Herod. l. III f., 1653; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 881 (17 cm)

822

Rein

prepared themselves against the siege. For instance, they strangled almost all the women in the town so that the women would not consume their bread. And when Darius could not conquer the town, the Babylonians mocked him and told him that he can take their city when mules bear offspring. Thus when the Persian nobleman Zopyrus saw that his mule gave birth to a mule, he was convinced that it was his task to help conquer Babylon. So in order to complete this task, he cut off his nose and ears, whipped himself and went to Babylon, telling the Babylonians that Darius had mishandled him and thus he would like to take revenge on the king. First he demonstrated himself to be a successful army commander and won several battles against the Persians, earning the complete trust of the Babylonians. But when he had become commander in chief of the Babylonian army, he opened the gates of Babylon to Darius, who was attacking the city, and thus Babylon was taken.26 Johann Brever’s approach in the disputation on Zopyrus and his activities is to criticise the omens presented there. Thus in the preserved part of chapter one, he first explains that the omen of the mule giving birth is absolute nonsense and does not mean anything. In addition, the author claims that mules quite often bear offspring in southern countries.27 In the following chapters of his disputation, the author analyses the behaviour of both Zopyrus and of the Babylonians. In the second chapter, he first describes the acts of Zopyrus in an emotional way and poses a question: Apparatus ejus est horrida corporis mutilatio. Utrum laudem mereatur mutilatio Zopyri? His means were an awful mutilation of his body. Does the self-mutilation of Zopyrus deserve any praise?28 The answer to this question as given in the disputation is negative, as Zopyrus’ self-mutilation is absolutely not justified in Brever’s opinion. In the same year (1653) as the disputation on Zopyrus, Johann Brever presented an oration about Gaius Mucius Scaevola, a noble Roman, who burnt his right hand. The oration was entitled Dextra in igne and there Brever demonstrated disgust towards Scaevola’s deed as well, which has generally been interpreted as an act of bravery. Thus one can see that Johann Brever highlighted ancient stories 26  Herodotus, Histories vol. 2, ed. and trans. A.D. Godley, 4 vols. (Cambridge – Massachusetts – London: 1982) 184–195. 27   Brever – Burghausen, Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios, fols. A4v–B4v. 28  Ibidem, fols. B3–B4.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

823

on self-mutilation, but in a negative sense. Even King Darius disapproved of Zopyrus’ self-mutilation, on the contrary, he even reproached him for his behaviour (Hdt. III, 155). The author proceeds with the statement that in addition, Zopyrus was a traitor, he should not be praised for his activity: Mendacium per se improbum et vituperatione dignum est (Arist. lib. IV Ethic. Cap. 7). Deceit is in itself dishonest and worthy of reproach.29 As can be seen from the quotation, there is a reference to chapter 7 of the 4th Book of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that is used to describe Zopyrus’ behaviour from the pagan point of view. Neither was it a Christian deed in the author’s opinion, it was rather a crime. There is also a quotation of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) from his work De iure belli ac pacis, Book III chapter 24, where the same motive has been used. There we are told that there is no excuse for Zopyrus’ fraud. Thus the author of the disputation comes to the conclusion that there is no justification for Zopyrus’ behaviour either from the pagan or the Christian point of view, and he acted only to satisfy his own ambition.30 The next question in the disputation is whether the Babylonians acted in the right way when they accepted Zopyrus into their city. They accepted into their city a traitor of his own country and nation, but once again, a quotation from Hugo Grotius is included, which tells that it is not against ius belli to accept those who have deserted the enemies and chosen one’s own side.31 The problem lies only in the fact that in Zopyrus’ case, the desertion was feigned and the Babylonians were not aware of that. Although one cannot reproach the Babylonians for admitting Zopyrus to their city, the author of the disputations still reproaches them for their treatment of the women in Babylon, since they killed most of them at the beginning of the siege.32 Brever’s sympathy towards women is also revealed in his oration on the Amazons, Amazonum politia, where he highlights many outstanding ladies from Semiramis to Queen Christina. Thus the story of Zopyrus in Herodotus’ Histories was a negative moral example for Johann Brever in every respect, in the ancient as well as in the 29  Ibidem. 30  Ibidem, fols. C–D4. 31  Ibidem, fols. D4–D4v. 32  Ibidem, fols. E3–E4.

824

Rein

Christian sense. On the last page, the author of the disputation formulates the conclusion: Viri urbes, non muri faciunt: imo in urbe potior habenda morum, quam murorum ratio. Men, not its walls, constitute a city; a moral defence is better than defence by walls.33 6

Solon

The next disputation on Herodotus’ theme under Johann Brever’s presidency was printed and presented in November of 1653. It was based on a famous theme in Herodotus’ Book I, chapters 28–33, the story of Solon and Croesus, or more exactly, Solon’s assessment of a happy man. The student who presented the work was Paul Hoffmann from Silesia. The author of the disputation first highlights Solon’s travels to foreign countries, which in his opinion is a source of learning.34 Johann Brever had himself travelled in Protestant Europe and visited several towns after obtaining his master’s degree in Marburg.35 He had previously compiled orations about travelling, and its advantages and disadvantages.36 In the case of Solon’s story, the author of the disputation tells about Solon’s visits to Croesus in Lydia and to Amasis in Egypt, and of the fact that Solon learns a lot about state affairs from the latter.37 The author of the disputation agrees with Solon to some extent in what the latter tells Croesus about happiness. He admits that Croesus was bold in regarding himself as being happy because of his wealth, characterising him with the phrases ‘vana thesaurorum ostentatio’ (‘a vain demonstration of treasures’) and ‘arrogans beatitudinis in Rege captatio’ (‘the king had an arrogant endeavour for happiness’).38 But Solon also says that one cannot regard himself to

33  Ibidem, fol. E4v. 34   Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, fols. A2v–A4. 35   Recke – Napiersky, Allgemeines Schriftsteller- und Gelehrten-Lexikon der Provinzen Livland, Esthland und Kurland vol. 1, A–F 250. 36  http://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/vd17/content/pageview/5962995 [accessed 10.05. 2019]. 37   Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, fol. A3v. 38  Ibidem, fol. A2.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

Figure 30.2

Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, ex. l. 1. Herod., 1653; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 915 (17 cm)

825

826

Rein

be happy before his life has come to its end.39 And here the author of the disputation asks whether it is really better for a human being to die rather than to live. Although he praises Solon’s wisdom, he also stresses that long life is a gift from God and supports the ideas of Aristotle in Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics about happiness.40 The author seems to seek a certain compromise between the opinions of Solon and Aristotle, and also the Christian point of view. As Herodotus narrated, Croesus came to his senses when he was to be burnt on the pyre (Hdt. I, 86),41 but the author of the disputation tells us that this story is not credible.42 However, the story about Solon and Croesus led him to discuss several ethical and philosophical questions, including the essence of happiness. The final question in the disputation on Solon is whether simulation is allowed in religious matters. The author’s answer is negative, quoting St. Augustine.43 Thus this final theme does not seem to be directly connected to the problems discussed in Herodotus’ account about Solon, but the last part of the disputation defends the Lutheran faith and highlights its advantages over Catholicism. 7

Artabanus

On 1 January 1654, the next disputation based on Herodotus’ Histories was presented at Riga Academic Gymnasium. The presenting student was Johann Struborg from Riga. This time the theme concerned the advice given to Xerxes, king of Persia, when he wished to march against Greece.44 It gave the author of the disputation a pretext for discussing the advice in general. In Herodotus’ Histories Book VII, chapter 9, the Persian military commander Mardonius advised Xerxes to launch a campaign against the Greeks, since he himself longed for glory in the war. However, in Herodotus’ Book VII chapter 10, Artabanus, an uncle of Xerxes, advised Xerxes not to launch a military expedition against the Greeks.45 A comparison of Mardonius and Artabanus follows in the disputation as a comment, which shows that not everyone is allowed to give advice to others. In the present case, Artabanus is older and much more 39  Herodotus, Histories vol. 1, 40–41. 40   Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, fol. B3. 41  Herodotus, Histories vol. 1, 110–111. 42   Brever – Hoffmann, Iudicium Solonis, de beato viro, fol. C2. 43  Ibidem, fols. C3v–D. 44   Brever – Struborg, Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco. 45  Herodotus, Histories vol. 3, 313–323.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

Figure 30.3

827

Brever – Struborg, Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, juxta Herod: l. VII. pr., 1654; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 947 (18 cm)

828

Rein

experienced and prudent than Mardonius, claims the author of the disputation. In addition, Artabanus spoke freely and exposed the dangers of the expedition, which could become fatal for the Persians.46 Further, we can read from Herodotus that although Xerxes even wishes to follow Artabanus’ advice and stay at home, a dream visits him several times in his sleep, telling him that he must march against the Greeks (Hdt. VII, 12–19).47 The author of the disputation tells the reader that ‘Consilium Artabani reprobatur diabolico somnio’ (‘The advice of Artabanus was turned down by a diabolic dream’).48 Once again, Johann Brever has the opportunity to demonstrate that decisions should not be made on the basis of dreams or omens. Although the dream of Xerxes really insisted that the king should launch a campaign against the Greeks, the disputation states that he should not have changed his former decision because of his dream.49 Although the author of the disputation called the dream diabolic, it was rather one of the dramatic expressions, which characterized Johann Brever’s style, than a belief in the satanic nature of Xerxes’ dream. The author of the disputation compares Xerxes with Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, and asks: ‘Quid enim ad Cyrum comparatus Xerxes?’ (What was Xerxes as compared to Cyrus?) He gives a reply as well: ‘Musca ad elephantum’ (‘A fly beside an elephant’).50 It seems that the author of the disputation did not appreciate Xerxes very much and thus explained why the king made the wrong decision: Cujus aures clausae sunt veritati, ut verum audire non possit, ejus salus desperanda est. Those whose ears are closed to the truth and who thus cannot hear the truth, their salvation is hopeless.51 There is an appendix at the end of the disputation that reveals a parallel with the Second Book of Samuel in the Old Testament (15–17), where King David receives advice from his friend Chusai.52

46   Brever – Struborg, Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, fols. A4v–B3. 47  Herodotus, Histories vol. 3, 324–333. 48   Brever – Struborg, Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, fol. C4. 49  Ibidem, fol. C3v. 50  Ibidem, fol. B2v. 51  Ibidem, fol. C4v. 52  Ibidem, fols. D3–D4v.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

8

829

Smerdis

The fourth disputation on a theme from Herodotus was held at the Riga Academic Gymnasium in April of 1654 by Georg von Dunte from Riga. This work was on Cambyses and his brother Smerdis, or more precisely, on the person who was pretending to be Smerdis (Hdt. III, 61–88).53 One inspiration for dealing with this story was a dream in Herodotus’ Book III, chapter 30, where Cambyses, king of Persia, saw his brother Smerdis ruling on his throne in his place, and as a result of this dream, he ordered his brother to be killed. But since the murder was not known to the public, a Magian, who was very similar to Cambyses’ brother Smerdis, seized power in Persia and ruled successfully for seven months. He was even a popular ruler, as he proclaimed a tax exemption for three years (Hdt. III, 67). The disputation begins with a discussion of the madness of King Cambyses and poses the question whether he was a tyrant. The author of the disputation analyses the madness of King Cambyses, which revealed itself in violence towards his own family and certain noble Persians. The crimes of Cambyses are compared with those of Constantine the Great. It is also stressed that although Cambyses seriously wounded himself before his death, the inner affliction of his heart was still greater.54 Several philosophical questions about the end of our life are discussed in the first chapter and the author of the disputation once again has the opportunity to stress that it is ridiculous to take dreams seriously.55 The next question in the disputation is whether it was permissible to take up arms against Cambyses, since he was a tyrant. The author answers the question in the negative. Ancient and contemporary examples of different rulers follow, and once again Hugo Grotius’ De iure belli ac pacis is quoted. Referring to characters from the Bible, David and his relations with King Saul are highlighted.56 Nevertheless, the author of the disputation has to admit that during the reign of Cambyses, the Kingdom of Persia almost fell. And he declares: Duae causae sunt, ob quas praecipue insurgitur in Tyrannos: Odium et contemptus. There are two main reasons for becoming a tyrant: anger and contempt.57 53  Herodotus, Histories vol. 2, 76–117. 54   Brever – Dunte, Imperium Smerdis Magi, fols. A3–A3v. 55  Ibidem, fols. A2–A4, D1–D2v. 56  Ibidem, fols. A4–B2. 57  Ibidem, fols. C1–C1v.

830

Figure 30.4

Rein

Brever – Dunte, Imperium Smerdis Magi, juxta Herodot. l. III., 1654; title page of the exemplar at the National Library of Latvia in Riga, library code NB R BS 892 (17 cm)

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

831

In the second chapter, the question arose whether false Smerdis was suitable to rule. The author of the disputation stressed that he seized the Persian throne by fraud.58 In addition, the tax exemption that he introduced was not useful for the empire because a ruler should look after public welfare.59 Thus Pseudo-Smerdis was not suitable to rule, as he was not of noble origin and his physical appearance was unsuitable as well: ‘Homo nequam erat, ex Medis, auribus virilibusque privatus.’ (He was nobody, from amongst the Medes, he had neither ears nor genitals.)60 Here the theme of the mutilated body becomes important again as it was in the disputation on Zopyrus. The final part of the third chapter concentrates on various empires and kingdoms, and on their rulers. In the opinion of the author, rulers should be special persons who are elected. Additionally, their behaviour should also be full of dignity. The author of the disputation refers to the disputation on King Nebuchadnezzar, held at the Academic Gymnasium of Riga, and on the theme of Alexander the Great as well.61 The final example is that of the Byzantine emperor Michael Palaiologos (1223–1282), who became emperor after a coup d’état, but as he was of royal blood, his rule can be accepted according to the author of the disputation.62 This final disputation based on Herodotus’ Histories probably summarises previous disputations on historical themes, which were presented at the Riga Academic Gymnasium, as there are several quotations from Johann Brever’s earlier disputations. There is no doubt that treating themes, persons and events from Herodotus’ Histories characterises the time of Johann Brever’s professorship of history at the Riga Academic Gymnasium. 9

Conclusion

There were four disputations dealing with Herodotus’ Histories, printed and presented at the Riga Academic Gymnasium between 1653 and 1654. These disputations were based on Professor Johann Brever’s lectures and ideas. The most important characters in these works were Zopyrus, Solon and Croesus, Artabanus and Xerxes, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis. Questions of power, wealth, fame and happiness, as well as the means for achieving them, are 58  Ibidem, fols. C2–C3. 59  Ibidem, fols. C3–C4v. 60  Ibidem, fol. E. 61  Ibidem, fols. E3–E4. 62  Ibidem, fol. E4v.

832

Rein

discussed and thus these characters seem to be symbolic for the author(s) of the disputations. The stories of arrogance and ambition, deception, fraud and treachery, and also self-deception are highlighted in Johann Brever’s interpretation of Herodotus. Duality of matters from different positions is often stressed. But since Brever was a professor of history, he tried to be realistic, and thus he denied the importance of omens, significant dreams and other stories, which were hard to believe. A parallel between the Oriental empires described by Herodotus and the Swedish Empire of the 17th century can probably be seen in these disputations. There are no themes of patriotism, which is usually attributed to the Greeks in Herodotus’ Histories, in the works of the Riga Academic Gymnasium. Although there is no doubt that Herodotus’ Histories inspired Johann Brever at the time when he was professor of history in the 1650s, his previous posts as professor of rhetoric and of metaphysics and logic influenced his approach to Herodotus’ work as well. Ethical themes are highlighted on the basis of Herodotus’ work and there is sometimes argumentation from the Christian point of view. The interpretation of the theme can also be characterised as being dramatic and emotional since it is suitable for a professor of rhetoric. Johann Brever proceeds from the idea historia magistra vitae est, and stories from Herodotus’ Histories seem to be suitable for his purpose and way of expression, i.e. to discuss moral questions from different aspects. Disputations presided over by Johann Brever at the Riga Academic Gymnasium are an interesting example of Herodotus’ reception on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. A more thorough approach to Johann Brever’s works in a wider context can be a further theme of research. Bibliography Bērziņa G., “16th–17th-Century Greek Texts at the Academic Library of the University of Latvia”, in Päll J. – Volt I. (eds.), Hellenostephanos. Humanist Greek in Early Modern Europe. Learned Communities between Antiquity and Contemporary Culture. Acta Societatis Morgensternianae VI–VII (Tartu: 2018). Brever Johann, M. Varro rei litterariae Aesculapius (Marburg, Nicolaus Hampelius: 1640). Brever Johann, Orationum, in Rigensi Athenaeo habitarum, pars prima et altera, cum memoria Samsoniana, et repraesentatione materiarum idonea curante M. Joh. Brevero. eloq. prof. orationum, in Rigensi Athenaeo habitarum, pars altera, cum memoria Cojeniana, et repraesentatione materiarum idonea curante M. Joh. Brevero.

Johann Brever and Herodotus ’ Histories

833

eloq. prof. (Frankfurt, Petrus Hauboldius: 1655). http://digitale.bibliothek.uni-halle .de/vd17/content/pageview/5962995 [accessed 23.10.2018]. Brever Johann (Pr.) – Burghausen Johannes (Resp.), Transfugium Zopyri ad Babylonios, juxta Herod. l. III. f. Pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1653). Brever Johann (Pr.) – Dunte Georg (Resp.), Imperium Smerdis Magi, juxta Herodot. l. III. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1654). Brever Johann (Pr.) – Hartmann Johann (Resp.), Pietatem Alexandri Magni, Macedonum regis ex hist. [Q.] Curtii [Rufi], et supplement. [ J.] Freinshemanio, ad sententiarum collationem (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1655). Brever Johann (Pr.) – Hoffmann Paul (Resp.), Iudicium Solonis, de Beato Viro, ex. l. 1. Herod. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1653). Brever Johann (Pr.) – Stegelinge Christoph (Resp.), Crudelitatem Alexandri Magni, Macedonum regis ex hist. [Q.] Curtii [Rufi], et supplement. [ J.] Freinshemanio, ad sententiarum collationem (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1655). Brever Johann (Pr.) – Struborg Johann (Resp.), Consilium Artabani, de bello Graeco, juxta Herod: l. VII. pr. pro disputationis exercitio (Riga, Gerhard Schröder: 1654). Earley B., “Herodotus in Renaissance France”, in Priestley J. – Zali V. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond (Leiden – Boston: 2016) 120–142. Füssel M., “Die Praxis der Disputation. Heuristische Zugänge und theoretische Deutungsangebote”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 27–48. Heinins A., Rigas hronika / The Riga Chronicle 12.–21 (Riga: 2007). Herodotus, Histories, ed. and trans. A.D. Godley, 4 vols. (Cambridge – Massachusetts – London: 1982). Recke J. Fr. von – Napiersky K.E., Allgemeines Schriftsteller- und Gelehrten-Lexikon der Provinzen Livland, Esthland und Kurland vol. 1, A–F (Mitau: 1831) 250–251. Rein K., “Medizin und Theologie in Dorpat (Tartu) im 17. Jahrhundert”, in Assel H. – Steiger J.A. – Walter A.E. (eds.), Reformatio Baltica. Kulturwirkungen der Reformation in den Metropolen des Ostseeraums (Berlin – Boston: 2017) 699–709. Schweder G., Die alte Domschule, das gegenwärtige Stadt-Gymnasium zu Riga (Riga: 1885). Stradi󠅅ṇš J., Zinātnes un augstskolu sākotne Latvijā (Riga: 2012). Šiško S., Latvijas citvalodu seniespiedumu kopkatalogs 1588–1830. Sērija A. The Union Catalogue of Foreign Language Ancient Prints in Latvia 1588–1830. Series A (Riga: 2013).

Chapter 31

‘Monstrum Rationis Status’: Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University 1743–1747 Andreas Hellerstedt Summary This article is a contextual study of three controversial political dissertations from Uppsala University from the years 1743–1747, and concomitant court records from 1747–1751. The praeses of the dissertations, who had to answer for them in the trial, was Johan Ihre (1707–1780), professor of rhetoric and politics. The three dissertations chosen for this analysis all deal with the subject of reason of state. They were perceived as including covert references to recent events in a period characterized by conflicts at the Riksdag and a disastrous war with Russia. While previous research has focused on the court case and its relation to the party politics of the day, I have chosen to focus on the dissertations. I argue that the controversy surrounding them derived not only from political conflicts, but also from the political ideas presented in the texts themselves. These can be characterized as both “Wolffian” and “absolutist”. This made them doubly problematic in an intellectual environment in which the philosophy of Christian Wolff still met with opposition, and a political climate in which any references to a possible return to the old (absolutist) form of government (as experienced prior to 1719) were expressly forbidden.

On May 7, 1747, a student named Theophilus Gran (1723–1797) from the village of Kalix, then a part of Västerbotten province (now Norrbotten) in the northernmost part of Sweden, was about to conclude his studies at the university of Uppsala by defending a dissertation at a public disputation. The chair (praeses) at the event was the professor Skytteanus of latin eloquence and politics, Johan Ihre (1707–1780), who at the time was also the dean of the philosophical faculty. As sometimes happened on such occasions, one of Gran’s friends, calling himself only ‘Petros’, wrote a humorous letter to wish him luck. This ‘Jocoseria’ was printed together with the dissertation. ‘Petros’ declares that it is ‘uncertain’ whether the subject of the dissertation is ‘more difficult than it is dangerous’, and that

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_032

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

835

Whether you are orthodox or heterodox in this delicate part of philosophy, will perhaps be made clear by what you have written. I recommend that you take care not to offend anyone: if you do not, your native country, your relatives and friends, even your parents, will have an occasion to reject you. But of course, this stays between us.1 Sadly, this joke turned out to be all too true. On December 7, professor Ihre and the student Gran were summoned for interrogation by the chancellery court to answer for the offensive subject matter published in the dissertation. It was also indicated that this was no isolated incident – three other dissertations were already suspected of containing heterodox theses, and more were added as the trial dragged on until 1751.2 The dissertation is described as containing ‘a mass of questions and assertions which are unnecessary and unedifying for the young people [at the university]’. Some indignation at the fact that the warning of ‘Petros’, which is quoted in extenso, was not heeded can be sensed between the lines.3 The express purpose of the interrogation was to make the two explain themselves ‘[…] so that thereupon those measures may be taken, which are deemed sufficient to defend and liberate the youth from the contamination of such destructive errors in the future’.4 What provoked such vehement reactions on the part of the authorities? Surprisingly, this question has never really been answered by historians. The limited previous research that exists has focused more on the trial than the dissertations, viewing it as a result of increasing tension between the political parties, the ‘hats’ and ‘caps’, in Sweden at the time.5 Ingmar Brohed is the 1  ‘Ardua an periculosa magis, sit materia de qua agere constituisti, incertum […]’; ‘Orthodoxus an heterodoxus sis, in Philosophiae delicatula quadam parte, scripta fortassis monstrabunt. Cave sis ne quempiam offendas: suadeo: Ipsa Te Patria, ipsi Te proximi atque amici, immo ipsi parentes, negandi ansam habebunt, ni caveas. Verum ista inter nos’. ‘Theophilo Domino GRAN, Disputaturo. Jocoseria’, in Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Gran Theophilus (Resp.), Specimen academicum de poenis innocentum [sic] (Uppsala, [printer unknown]: 1747). 2  ‘Kanslikollegiet till K. Maj:t om Ihres och Grans disputation: De poenis innocentum, Stockholm [7 December 1747]’, Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, Bihang III: Handlingar 1695–1749 (Uppsala: 1912) 373–375. 3  ‘[…] en hop aldeles onödige och för ungdomen oupbyggelige frågor och satser […]’, Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia, Bihang III, 373–374, quoted at 373. This view is repeated more or less verbatim in several documents in the court records. 4  ‘[…] på det sedan den författning må kunna göras, som tilräckelig pröfvas att ungdomen nu och i framtiden från slika förderfveliga willosatsers besmittande fria och förswara’, Annerstedt, Upsala universitets historia, Bihang III, 375. 5  The parties of the Swedish parliament (riksdag), which were formed around 1738; see for instance Karlsson I., Parti – partiväsen – partipolitiker 1731–1743: Kring uppkomsten av våra första politiska partier (Stockholm: 1981). The importance of the parties has been somewhat toned

836

Hellerstedt

only historian who has studied the texts in any depth. However, Brohed uses them as a small part of a much larger corpus of dissertations to study general and long-term developments in views on the relationship between church and state.6 Thus he does not concern himself with the details of the arguments of these particular dissertations or the unique context surrounding them. My aim is to explore the arguments contained in three of the dissertations on trial, which are united by a common theme and relate them to the political and intellectual context of the period. I believe that the arguments presented can only be understood as part of the political situation in which they were written and published. But I also believe that our understanding of the turbulent political situation in Sweden in the 1740s will benefit greatly from a study of the dissertations and the court records. The case is a very fortunate one for the study of dissertations. The court records provide information not normally available. They can tell us much about the authors of these works, and, more importantly, something of how they were read at the time. The three dissertations I have chosen are political in nature. They deal with issues of reason of state within a framework of a theory of natural law. Modern rational natural law and the idea of reason of state were not necessarily compatible, as they were drawn from two distinct traditions. However, the combination of theory and practice is characteristic of the chair of professor Skytteanus, founded in 1622. The chair was originally meant to cover politics and eloquence, but the subject of natural law had been added to the professor’s duties when the chair was held by the prominent German scholar Johannes Schefferus (1648–1679). More specifically, the relationship between theory and practice in politics was radically reinvented in the middle of the 18th century by the dominant philosopher of the day, Christian Wolff. If the period generally was dominated by rationalism, Wolff was extreme in that he sought to completely subsume practical politics under his all-encompassing theory of duty. In Wolffianism, the theories of natural law and of metaphysics were only different parts of a single continuum of knowledge – in marked contrast to both older, Aristotelian, and later, Kantian, systems, where theory and practice were separated.7 As we down in recent research, e.g., Bodensten E., Politikens drivfjäder: Frihetstidens partiberättelser och den moralpolitiska logiken (Lund: 2016). 6  Brohed I., Stat, religion, kyrka: Ett problemkomplex i svensk akademisk undervisning under 1700-talet (Stockholm: 1973). 7  Bissinger A., “Zur metaphysischen Begründung der Wolffschen Ethik”, in Christian Wolff 1679– 1754: Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung, Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 4 (Hamburg: 1986 [2d ed.]) 149; Schneiders W., “Die Philosophie des aufgeklärten Absolutismus: Zum Verhältnis von Philosophie und Politik, nicht nur im 18. Jahrhundert”,

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

837

will see, this had important consequences for the concept of reason of state. In my view, this was also a contributing factor in making the dissertations so controversial: this had to do both with the immediate political context, and the philosophical content of the texts themselves. Tore Frängsmyr has studied the breakthrough of Wolffian ideas at Uppsala university, which occurred in the 1730s. Christian Wolff himself was in fact offered, but declined, the position as professor Skytteanus just before Johan Ihre was appointed in 1738. This is only one of several obvious signs that Wolff had many admirers and followers in Sweden. However, there was also much opposition. This seems to have come mainly from theologians, but Frängsmyr’s study is indeed focused on theology and theoretical philosophy.8 The Swedish reception of Wolffian ideas within subjects such as politics and natural law has yet to be systematically studied. 1

True Reason of State

In the second of the three dissertations, De ratione status (1745), student Johan (Johansson) Montin (?–1756),9 set out to define the concept of reason of state, and to prove that it conforms to the dictates of the law of nature.10 The main aim of the dissertation is to establish what ‘true’ reason of state is, which is done in part through contrasting it with a ‘false’ reason of state, represented in Bödecker H.E. – Herrmann U. (eds.), Aufklärung als Politisierung – Politisierung der Aufklärung, Studien zum Achtzehnten Jahrhundert 8 (Hamburg: 1987) 40–41. 8  Frängsmyr T., Wolffianismens genombrott i Uppsala. Frihetstida universitetsfilosofi till 1700-talets mitt (Uppsala: 1972). 9  Montin seems to be rather typical of the type of students who published the dissertations studied here. He was the son of a pastor of the rural parishes Vintrosa and Tysslinge about 15 km from Örebro. The family apparently included clergy and lower civil servants. After his time at the university, Montin published a few political pamphlets and a couple of orations celebrating members of the royal house. 10  Ihre Johannes (Pr.) – Montin Johan (Johansson) (Resp.), Dissertatio politica, de ratione status, Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Lars Salvius: 1745). We can be sure that this particular dissertation was written by the student because Montin later included translated selections of it as a chapter in his book Borgelig Regering, Til Des Uprinnelse och Art (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1749). This work was in turn translated into German and published with the author’s name changed to ‘Johann Martin Johansson’ as Die bürgerliche Regierung nach ihrem Ursprunge und Wesen betrachtet […] (Stockholm, [no printer given]: 1750). The Swedish work was withdrawn by the censor in November 1749, as it was considered too favourable towards absolutism; see Burius A., Ömhet om friheten: Studier i frihetstidens censurpolitik, Institutionen för Idé- och lärdomshistoria, skrifter 5 (Uppsala: 1984) 91–92.

838

Hellerstedt

by Machiavelli (although the latter, as is well known, never used this term at all). The distinction was not new. In the late 16th century the Italian ex-Jesuit Giovanni Botero had popularized the term with his work Della Ragion di Stato (1589). Botero argued in opposition to Machiavelli, whom Botero nonetheless considered to be the founder of reason of state. Machiavelli was immoral, impious, and therefore also irrational, because that which contradicts divine and natural law cannot be advantageous, according to Botero. However, he does define reason of state as such in a Machiavellian way: as knowledge of the means by which power is won, maintained, and enlarged.11 Botero’s point is simply that immoral or impious actions will not bring the ruler success.12 As we shall see, true reason of state is defined rather differently by Montin. At this time, ‘true’ politics was a term applied particularly to the emerging conception of politics based on reason and natural law.13 The purpose – establishing a correct definition – is in itself part of the mathematical method favored by Montin: he directly states, when discussing the distinction between ‘true’ and ‘false’ reason of state, that it is the duty of the philosopher to combine ‘clear and distinct notions’ with commonly used terms, echoing the famous words of Descartes.14 In developing his position, Montin then draws 11  Botero Giovanni, Della Ragion di Stato Libri Dieci, con Tre Libri delle Cause della Grandezza, e Magnificenza delle Città (Venice, Gioliti: 1589) 1; ‘Ragione di Stato si è notitia de’ mezi, atti à fondare, conservare, et ampliare un Dominio […]’. Compare ‘vincere e mantenere lo stato’ and ‘mantenere il vivere libero’, Machiavelli N., Il Principe (Milan: 2009 [1979]) 179–180; idem, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Milan: 2010 [1984]) 462. Ihre – Montin, De ratione status, also briefly discusses the similar views of Ludovico Settala and Hermann Conring. 12  Not surprisingly this has led some to view Botero as a Machiavellian in disguise. ‘Sous le masque de l’antimachiavélisme, Botero reprend a son compte la radicale autonomie du politique et lui donne le nom de raison d’Etat’. Bonnet S., “Botero Machiavélien ou l’invention de la raison d’etat”, Les Études philosophiques 66 (2003:3) 319–322, quote at 321. The term reason of state was not coined by Botero; he states himself that he has, on his extensive travels, noted that this expression is on everyone’s lips. He regards Machiavelli and Tacitus as the originators of the concept. Bonnet, “Botero Machiavélien” 315–316; Botero, Della Ragion di Stato, dedicatory epistle. 13  Schneiders, “Die Philosophie des aufgeklärten Absolutismus” 34. 14  ‘[…] ut Philosophus, cujus officium esse novi, claram et distinctam cum iis conjungere notionem, quae vulgus confuse tantum percipit […]’, Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 7; ‘[…] jam videor pro regula generali posse statuere, illud omne esse verum quod valde clare et distincte percipio’. Descartes René, Meditationes de prima philosophia (Amsterdam, Johannes Blaeu: 1644) 15; Wolff developed this to mean that clear (‘klare’) ideas are such that they are ideas of things we can distinguish clearly (from other things); distinct (‘deut­ liche’) ideas are such that we understand the parts that the thing consists of and we therefore can give a sufficient explanation for them. Wolff Christian, Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt […] (Halle,

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

839

on the recent works of Israel Gottlieb Canz (Canzius) and Heinrich Köhler (Koelerus), both disciples of Wolff.15 Thus, Wolffian natural law is used as a framework within which a re-defined concept of reason of state is situated. Combined, the result is an effective analytical and rhetorical weapon. As is the case with many dissertations at this time, Montin adheres quite strictly to the mathematical method of his Wolffian models. The text is constructed as a chain of paragraphs which are all linked together by deductive reasoning. In the tradition of Swedish university dissertations this is something relatively new, especially in the field of politics. The author uses very few references, whereas dissertations on similar subjects before the breakthrough of Wolffianism were often riddled with quotations and references from both classical writers and modern authorities.16 This is an example of a sudden shift which took place at this time, away from what was basically still the late political humanism of the 17th century, towards the intellectualism of the Enlightenment. The dissertation begins with a statement of the basic principle of Wolffian natural law: man is duty-bound to seek to promote his own and his fellow men’s ‘perfection’ and consequently also to avoid imperfection. Building on Köhler’s Exercitationes, it is, furthermore, stated that we cannot be obliged to do something that is by nature beyond our power. Crucially, it is established in § 1 that it may happen that only (in a relative sense) greater and lesser instances of perfection are within reach of the capacities of man, and that in such cases, the greater should be preferred to the lesser.17 Renger: 1752) 110–112, 114–116 (§ 198–202, § 206–207). This is perhaps what Montin refers to when he states that the philosopher must combine a clear and distinct notion with that which the common people perceives only confusedly (i.e. they know that there is something called reason of state, but their idea is not distinct, because they do not understand the nature of the concept). 15  Canz Israel Gottlieb, Disciplinae morales omnes etiam eae quae forma artis nondum hucusque comparuerunt perpetuo nexu traditae (Leipzig, Friedrich Matthias Friese: 1739); Köhler Heinrich, Juris naturalis ejusque cumprimis cogentis methodo systematica propositi exercitationes VII (Frankfurt a.M., Franz Varrentrapp: 1738). Köhler and Canz are used in the other dissertations studied here as well. 16  Nordenhielm Andreas (Pr.) – Forelius Hemming (Resp.), Gubernacula imperii togati, Dissertation Uppsala 1681 (Stockholm, Nicolaus Wankijff: 1681) consciously imitates Lipsius in that it is composed entirely of quotations and connecting phrases; see Hellerstedt A., “Cracks in the mirror: Changing conceptions of political virtue in mirrors for princes in Scandinavia from the Middle Ages to c.1700”, in Hellerstedt A. (ed.), Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century (Amsterdam: 2018) 281–328. 17   Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 1–2. Köhler, Exercitationes 59: ‘Commissio vel intermissio actionis a viribus animae, corporis atque status externi dependet. Hinc obligatio moralis requirit actiones, quae sunt in hominis obligandi potestate positae (§ 307, 300).

840

Hellerstedt

This is where reason of state comes into play. The concept of reason of state is used to solve internal conflicts in the deductive system. When it seems as if two laws derived from the duties of natural law18 contradict one another, there is a so-called ‘collision’. A collision is nothing more than a contradiction, and since contradictions cannot co-exist, one must choose to fulfill one obligation but not the other; an exception is made. As the natural law is eternal and perfect, the problem of such a collision is fundamentally an illusory one. In theory at least, it is only because man’s intellect is limited that two laws may appear to conflict and there is ‘nothing more than an apparent contradiction of natural laws’.19 In practice, however, the collision is very important to Montin’s argument. An exception from a law should be seen as a means to another end. Such means may be bad although the end is good, and if the end is bad, the means to it will be considered to be so too.20 Reason of state is defined as a special case of such an exception: ‘An exception from a more general natural law which is made in case of a collision for the sake of the welfare of an endangered state is that which is called reason of state’.21 It is of course the person responsible for the care of the state who determines which law is to be obeyed and which one is not. The conception of reason of state as exception is fundamentally different from that of Botero and other older reason of state-writers, for whom reason of state was the means of preserving power in general. By Montin, the moral dilemma of reason of state is instead solved as Leibniz had solved the problem of evil in the best of possible worlds. Reason of state has become a political theodicy. Christian Wolff had indeed made at least a general outline of the idea of an exception as a solution to conflicts between the good (welfare) of the individual and the good of society in his German politics. However, it must be noted that Wolff clearly warns of abuse of such exceptions and stresses that Actiones proinde, quae naturaliter sunt extra nostram potestatem, in sphaera naturali obligationis moralis impatientes sunt’. See also Wolff Christian, Vernünfftige Gedancken von dem Gesellschafftlichen Leben der Menschen und insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen […] (Frankfurt – Leipzig, Renger: 1736), 3–8, § 3–12. 18  In the Wolffian view, duty is a fundamental concept. All law is ultimately derived from the fundamental duty of perfection mentioned above; Lutterbeck K.G., Staat und Gesellschaft bei Christian Thomasius und Christian Wolff: Eine historische Untersuchung in systematischer Absicht, Forschungen und Materialien zur deutschen Aufklärung 16 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: 2002) 184–185; Bissinger, “Zur metaphysischen Begründung”, 151–152. 19   Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 3, ‘[…] nulla legum naturalium nisi apparens repugnantia’. 20  Ibidem 3–4. 21  Ibidem 5, ‘Exceptio vero a Lege Naturali generaliori, in collisione facienda, propter salutem periclitantis Reipublicae, est id, quod Rationem Status dicimus’. The definition is similar (although worded quite differently) to Köhler, Exercitationes 238 (§ 1238–1242).

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

841

great care must be taken to avoid the exception itself violating the ultimate purpose of society (the welfare of its members).22 As already mentioned, however, the dissertation does not merely define what reason of state is. It also claims that this is true reason of state. This means that there is another form, a false form of reason of state. This distinction is also made by Köhler (to whom Montin refers), although Köhler’s argument is less complex. According to Köhler, true (vera) reason of state is a case of a true contradiction of laws, whereas the false (spuria) is based only on an apparent (i.e. false) contradiction.23 The distinction is important to Montin because he wants to defend reason of state. He is very critical of those who argue that reason of state as such is a ‘creator of tyrants, and an idol of princes’, in other words, that reason of state in itself is evil. They sully the name of something that is in fact very good. Reason of state in itself and ‘essentially’ is ‘always good’ and that which is called the ‘false’ or ‘bad’ reason of state, is not reason of state, but a ‘monstrum Rationis Status, that is no [reason of state] at all’. For the same reason he also criticizes those who suggest that the term ‘reason of state’ might be applied to both good and evil actions, that it is, as they say, ‘mixed’.24 It seems that the target of this criticism must be Lipsius, who developed a theory of degrees of ‘grave’, ‘medium’ and ‘light’ fraud. Lipsius describes the medium form as similar to ‘a poison we in a praiseworthy way mix with medicine’, but also how this poison is sucked out and absorbed by the common good.25 It might seem that this appeal to the common good brings Lipsius rather close to Montin. Lipsius’ discussion is, however, much less clear-cut than Montin’s, and it leaves the reader very much in doubt as to whether deceit is actually to be considered a crime or a sin, or not. The point of using degrees of deceit is in itself indicative of the difference. In Montin’s view there are no degrees: there is only truth and falsehood, and truth is ‘always good’. Montin’s view also differs from older, political humanist, conceptions of reason of state in that the latter were often conceived in terms of virtue (prudence). For Montin, reason of state is a matter of law, not of virtue. Where virtue ethics would consider the circumstances of each particular action and speak in general terms only of the actor’s character, this reductionist form of rational natural law considers only the general principle. In fact, just like in 22  Wolff, Vernünfftige Gedancken von dem Gesellschafftlichen Leben 8 (§ 12). 23  Köhler, Exercitationes 238 (§ 1239). 24   Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 6–7, 14; quotes at 6 and 7. 25  ‘Ut medicamentis venena laudabiliter miscemus […]’, Lipsius J., Politica: Six Books of Politics or Political Instruction, ed. and trans. J. Waszink (Assen: 2004) 522 (4:14).

842

Hellerstedt

Wolffian politics in general there is in a certain sense no room for ‘practice’ at all. There is only ‘theory’.26 All of politics can be reduced to general rules, and there is always a correct choice in every particular situation. In Montin’s view the ruler possesses all the rights of majesty, defined quite simply as the right to all means possible to the achievement of the purpose of society, i.e. the perfection of the subjects. ‘For ends and means are linked, and the one who holds the right to one of them, also holds the right to the other, for otherwise it would be a case of a duty to that which is impossible’.27 Of course, throughout the three dissertations, the perfection (or welfare) of the subjects is equated with the welfare of society as a whole, which in turn is equated with the good of the state. In fact, this is the true meaning of ‘salus Reipublicae suprema lex’, according to Montin. It is the duty of subjects and ruler alike to care for the welfare of the state. We must seek that which aids the perfection of society, and avoid everything that is detrimental to it: this is the very purpose of the social contract.28 The ruler is obliged to care for the rights of the individual members of society, but he must also care for the common good. Thus, a conflict may arise, and of course, the ratio29 of the state takes precedence to that of the individual subject. When a member of the state is injured, it is a lesser evil than if the whole state were jeopardized; the individual member is obliged (through entering the contract) to endure all manner of hardship for the sake of the welfare of the state. Thus, the law obliging us to the promotion of the welfare of the state takes precedence, and another law must yield: ‘Using this exception is then the means to the attainment of the end, which is the welfare of the state’.30 This means that the ruler may, ‘salva conscientia’, take the life of a subject who presents a threat to the state, like those who tear off a limb to save a body from disease.31 This is of course also a major difference to Machiavelli’s view. Where Machiavelli claimed that the prince must ‘know how to do evil if

26  Lutterbeck, Staat und Gesellschaft 181–182. 27   Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 4, 12, ‘Finis enim et media sunt connexa, et qui jus habet ad unum connexorum, jus etiam habet ad alterum, ad impossibilia enim alias daretur obligatio’. 28  Ibidem 9. This is very similar to Wolff, Vernünfftige Gedancken von dem Gesellschafftlichen Leben 7 (§ 11). 29  Ratio here perhaps meaning both ‘reason of state’ and the ‘sufficient reason of the state’ in the Wolffian sense. 30   Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 11, ‘Usus hujus exceptionis medium tunc est obtinendi finis, qui est salus Reipublicae’. 31  Ibidem, De ratione status 12–13.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

843

necessary’ and declared that ‘I love my native city more than my own soul’,32 Montin’s reason of state is entirely legitimate: placing the welfare of the state before that of a single subject is neither a sin nor a crime. In fact, it is a duty.33 2

The Innocent Victims of Reason of State

I have treated Montin’s dissertation at some length as it sets out most clearly the general problem of a tension between reason of state and the good of the individual. The fact that this particular issue was repeated three times was noted by the members of the chancellery court (kanslirätten) that charged professor Ihre with sedition in 1747.34 In particular, this is pointed out in the assessment written by the kansliråd and director of the royal archives, the learned veteran bureaucrat and member of the estate of the nobility in parliament Olof Estenberg (1680–1752).35 The dissertation De victima publica, defended by student Daniel Grevillius in April 1743, starts with asserting that as man is by nature able to bear every hardship that he perceives to be conducive to the perfection of his condition, and since nothing, besides God, can be more conducive to this than the state, it follows that ‘when the fatherland is at stake, every good man will be more than prepared to sacrifice not only his goods, but also the good that is most precious to him, life itself, for the sake of the fatherland, if it were required’.36 However, Grevillius argues not only that it is a virtuous act to do so, but that it is a duty 32  ‘sapere entrare nel male, necessitato’, Il Principe 179; Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori, 16 April 1527, Machiavelli and his Friends: Their Personal Correspondence, ed. and trans. J.B. Atkinson – D. Sices (DeKalb Ill.: 1996) 416. 33  For Wolff and his followers, there are no adiaphora (at least their moral philosophy does not concern itself with them); everything not forbidden is compulsory. This is formulated as the principle that for every right there is also a duty, the subject of Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Bergius Johan Gustaf (Resp.), Dissertatio philosophica de nexu juris et obligationis (Uppsala, no printer: 1745). Lutterbeck, Staat und Gesellschaft 185, 198. 34  For instance, this is pointed out by the prosecutor; Caspar Bödkers andra memorial I processen mot Johan Ihre 18 March 1748, Ihre 201, Uppsala University Library (UUB), fol. 22r. 35  More specifically Estenberg participated at the parliaments of 1723, 1726, and 1731–1751. He was a member of the Greater Secret Committee in 1742–1743; Hildebrand B., “Olof Estenberg”, https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=15524, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, retrieved 21 April 2019; Estenberg’s votum 19 June 1750, Handlingar i Ihreska målet 1751, Kanslirättens arkiv, vol. 11, Kanslirätter 1750–1751, Riksarkivet (RA), Stockholm, fol. 1r. 36  Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Grevillius Daniel (Resp.), Dissertatio politica, de victima publica […] (Uppsala, no printer: 1743) 3, ‘Hinc bonus quisque paratissimus fuerit, dum patriae caussae agitur, non tantum bona sua, sed carissima quaeque, immo ipsam, si quando deposcatur, vitam eidem offerre […]’.

844

Hellerstedt

and that the state has a right to expect it. It is not a question of the duty of a soldier in war, but that of a private citizen in a time of peace. Neither is Grevillius interested in traitors or criminals.37 When the fatherland sacrifices such traitors, it is undoubtedly blameless. The purpose is instead to investigate the question of sacrifice of those who are definitely innocent. The case to be studied is specified in some detail: ‘ought a citizen, otherwise innocent, whose extradition is demanded by the enemy, under threat of the destruction of the state, to turn himself over to them by his own free will, or, if he refuses, may he be forced, or not […]’.38 To reach an answer to the question, the dissertation quickly surveys the theory of the state of nature, the origins of society, the social contract, and the establishment of a legitimate government. In doing so, it is asserted that society was formed for reasons of mutual security and happiness or the common good. It is also stated that society and the state are the best remedies for the dissension that results from the widely diverging wills and passions of men. An undivided majesty is conferred on a moral person, who can in fact be one or several physical persons; the strength of states comes from the fact that the individuals work together to achieve the security of all, and so on.39 As the ruler has the right to the means of ensuring that the purpose of society is obtained, it follows, according to the dissertation, that he also has the ‘[…] power to dispose not only of the goods, but also of the lives of the citizens, as the necessity of the state requires’. This is a reflection of the principle of the nexus between right and duty – the right of the ruler to use all the means necessary for the perfection of society (as expounded by Montin above) is reflected by a corresponding duty of the subject to endure every consequence that these means may entail.40 The objection that man is not master of his own life, and therefore cannot give up the right to it, is considered briefly. However, the answer is simply that the best way to attain the end (the preservation of life) is to surrender the right over one’s life and enter civil society. There is of course not a case of an explicit contract for the purpose of murdering innocent 37  Ibidem 3. 38  Ibidem 3–4, ‘Utrum civis alioquin innocens, ab hostibus, sub minis excidii civitatis, expostulatus, in manus eorum sese ultro pro patriae salute tradere debeat, vel si recuset, cogi possit, nec ne […]’. 39  This is done following Pufendorf’s De officio hominis et civis; Ihre – Grevillius, De victima publica 4–6. 40  ‘[…] potestatem disponendi non modo circa bona, sed et vitam civium, prout requirit necessitas publica, competere’, Ihre – Grevillius, De victima publica 8; and further on the jura majestatis as the right to all means necessary, 10; and on the correspondence of rights of majesty and duties of subjects, 19.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

845

people, but, following Canz, it is stated that ‘when someone consents to the purpose of a particular society, he ought to also at the same time to consent to the means, without which this end cannot be achieved’.41 The Wolffian view of the social contract has some peculiar features which seem to be important here. Man is bound by the law of nature (reason) to enter into the social contract. As Klaus-Gert Lutterbeck has pointed out, this seems to contradict a normal idea of a contract, into which the parties would be expected to enter by their own free will.42 From this discussion of the general principles of the foundations of the state, the dissertation moves on to the particular question. Just like in Montin’s dissertation, the solution lies in the idea of the exception. When harder measures are required by necessity, and thousands of lives can be saved if one is sacrificed, this is done according to the general rule that ‘an exception ought to be made in the parts, where the perfection of the whole would otherwise be disregarded’.43 There are limits. It must be done with the common good in mind – a ruler who does not is a tyrant. And the means must be proportionate to the end.44 That this leads to the conclusion that the ruler may order a citizen to surrender himself to face certain death and force him to do so if he refuses, is hardly surprising at this point.45 Let us now return to the dissertation of Theophilus Gran, De poenis innocentum. The subject of his disputation was the punishment of innocents; quite similar to Grevillius’ dissertation De victima publica, in other words. The way he discusses the issue is slightly different, however. The dissertation starts with a discussion of the ruler’s right to punish criminals. The main purpose of punishments is said to be public peace or more generally, the utility of the state.46 In other words, the starting-point from which to examine whether it might be lawful to punish those who are innocent is the point of view that there is no direct connection between a crime as such and the punishment awarded, as punishments only serve the purposes of social utility, not an abstract sense of justice or retribution. It should be added that this starting point also depends 41  ‘[…] quis consentit in finem societatis cujusdam, simul etjam consentiat in media, sine quibus finis haberi nequit […]’, Ihre – Grevillius, De victima publica 8–10; quote 9. Canz, Disciplinae morales § 1037; The dissertation defended by Arvidus Afzelius De moralitate poenarum capitalium (Uppsala, no printer: 1741) is also referenced here. 42  Lutterbeck, Staat und Gesellschaft 183, 192–193. 43  ‘[…] exceptio in partibus, ubi alioquin perfectio totius negligeretur, facienda’ Ihre – Grevillius, De victima publica 10–11, quote at 10. 44   Ihre – Grevillius, De victima publica 10–11, 21. 45  Ibidem 11. This is followed by a lengthy historical example, which I, for the sake of brevity, must leave out of this analysis. 46   Ihre – Gran, De poenis innocentum 2.

846

Hellerstedt

on the unstated premise that subjects’ or citizens’ rights are never inviolable or inalienable. Over and over, it is stressed that if there is no utility to be gained for the state in punishing a malefactor, it should abstain from doing so – the ‘one and only’ reason for punishment is ‘the welfare of the state’ gained from the deterrent.47 The idea that punishments should be proportionate to the crime means the same thing, according to the dissertation: that they contain neither more nor less than what is sufficient to obtain the purpose, which is public felicity and security.48 This is hardly what would normally be meant by a punishment being ‘proportionate to the crime’, but the distinction is crucial, as we will see. However, the issue at hand in De poenis innocentum is whether innocent citizens may be punished. It is stated that both reason and equity convince us that the state should protect citizens as long as they do not harm it in any way.49 But just as divine judgment sometimes is directed against the innocent – for reasons that seem to surpass the capacity of human understanding – the necessity of the state sometimes requires an exception from the general rule under certain circumstances.50 If the ruler uses means proportionate to the purpose of his office (the felicity of society) no injury is inflicted on the citizen, who, as we have observed, has consented (tacitly or explicitly) to undergo any hardship for the sake of the good of all.51 The best illustration used in the dissertation of this principle is perhaps the example of the Roman practice of decimation. There is no doubt that this may lead to the actual culprit evading punishment while his completely innocent fellows die to deter others, the dissertation admits. However, this ‘injustice’ is ‘defended by its public utility’; if no one were punished this would lead to license, and if all were punished, the state would be robbed of its defenders.52 The discussion leads on to the question whether members of the family of a person guilty of crimen laesae majestatis may be punished, even though these family members have done nothing wrong themselves. These are cases where someone is ‘attacking the ruler himself or his representative, and tries 47  Ibidem 3–4, ‘unicam et solitariam’; ‘salutem reipublicae’; reiterated 11. It is mentioned that Grotius and others add other purposes behind punishments, such as the emendation of the criminal. This view is refuted, 4. 48  Ibidem 11. 49  Ibidem 7. 50  Ibidem 7–8. Exodus 12:12 is discussed, and the conclusion reached, that the slaughter of the firstborn was righteous, considering their original sin. In this sense God never punishes the innocent. Ibidem 8–10. 51  Ibidem 11–12, 19. 52  Ibidem 19, ‘tuetur sese haec injustitia publico commodo’.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

847

to remove him from the royal seat, or even tries to overturn the whole of society’. Thus, such a crime threatens the state with ruin and utter destruction. Therefore there is no doubt that this deserves the most severe punishment imaginable. This is why the Constitutio criminalis of Charles V (known as the Carolina, or in German Peinlich Halsgericht, 1532) states that not only the person guilty of crimen laesae majestatis should be punished, but also his relatives, by corporeal punishment and the confiscation of property, as a warning to others. The children of such enemies of the state should be disinherited.53 However, in arguing for this position, the dissertation goes one step further. I have more than once pointed out that here only the welfare of the state ought to be considered, not the civil laws, and if it [i.e. salus reipublicae] requires, that the children of enemies of the state be given over to be killed, they may complain about their unhappy lot, but not really about an injury.54 That there is no form of injustice, but a kind of bad luck in sacrificing lives for the common good is also illustrated in a short excursus on executioners. In ancient times, the dissertation tells us, kings or other leaders executed criminals themselves. However, this function was soon seen to be too cruel for a prince and father of citizens. One was chosen among those condemned to perform this duty, but even though he was freed from guilt in exchange for this life-long punishment, he was of course still considered a dishonest person, excluded from many guilds and professions. Thus, it is a fact that executioners are necessary for ‘cutting off harmful members of the body politic’ (‘ad secanda membra reipublicae noxia’), but because of their unpleasant way of life, they are considered ‘velut infaustae aves’.55 An execution is thus, just like war, a necessary evil. When a person dies as a consequence of the legitimate violence exercised by the state, the guilt does not lie with the ruler.56

53  Ibidem 13, ‘quis ipsum summum imperantem, vel eum, qui ratione muneris tenet sceptra loci atque rerum moderamen, adgredi, eumque de solo regio deturbare, vel etiam totam civitatem labefactare molitur’. 54  Ibidem 14–15, ‘Scilicet monuimus plus simplice vice, heic non legum civilium pandectas, sed unum reipublicae salutem esse consulendam, quae si requirat, ut perduellium liberi internecioni dentur, de infelici sua sorte habent hi, quod conquerantur, non vero de injuria’. 55  Ibidem 17–18, quote at 18. 56  Ibidem 19–20.

848 3

Hellerstedt

The Arguments of the Members of the Court

The court records contain several documents in which the members of the court express strong reactions towards the dissertations. As has already been hinted at, the dissertations published under Ihre contain many obvious references to contemporary events. This is especially apparent in those texts which discuss just war (a reference to the recently concluded war with Russia) and rebellion (a reference to the last great peasant uprising in Sweden, in 1743). The three dissertations I have chosen to discuss here do not refer to these events, however. One issue contained in them – that of whether it is legitimate to hand an innocent citizen over to the enemy – was indeed read as a reference to contemporary events. The chancellor and leading Swedish statesman of this period, Carl Gustaf Tessin, had himself voiced fears that the Russian government was secretly working to have him extradited. It is therefore highly probable that the court (over which Tessin himself presided) interpreted the issue as a reference to this rumor.57 However, the assessments of the members of the court and the prosecutor’s plea mainly attack these three dissertations on grounds of their philosophical arguments. In fact, what they are really trying to do is to prove that professor Ihre’s political ‘maxims’ are a false form of statecraft. They are trying to refute the dissertations. One might even say that the court acted as an external opponent, long after the disputations had been concluded.58 If a professor at the university could be shown to have taught false doctrines, upon which dangerous or tyrannical political practices could be founded, this would surely merit severe punishment. Therefore, the court records reveal more clearly where and how the dissertations present new and controversial, even radical ideas, illustrating the general point that such works can only be fully understood if interpreted in their contemporary context, as ‘moves in an argument’.59 I will limit myself to the most important documents: the plea of the prosecutor and the assessments (vota) by two individual members of the court.

57  Malmström C.G., Sveriges politiska historia: från konung Karl XII: s död till statshvälfningen 1772, vol. 3 (Stockholm: 1897 [2 ed.]) 347; Burius, Ömhet om friheten, 88. Burius notes, however, that De victima publica was published several years before these rumors started to circulate. 58  The arguments of the actual opponents are not mentioned in the court records, but the opponents at one dissertation (De tumultu Dalekarlorum) did testify. They did so only to provide evidence of Ihre’s consciousness of contemporary political events in 1743, events which, in the view of the court, should have made him more cautious. 59  Skinner Q., Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Cambridge: 1996) 8.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

849

In his plea, the first prosecutor, Caspar Bödker, tries first of all to establish that professor Ihre acted not only negligently or incautiously, but with malicious intent. He begins with arguing ad hominem, that Ihre is a learned and witty academic, but that such intellectual prowess is useless, even dangerous, without good intentions.60 This is not dissimilar to (e.g.) Lipsius’s assessment of Machiavelli as a sharp-witted but impious author: surely a commonplace image of a Machiavellian political thinker at the time.61 Bödker implies that Ihre has been in contact with ‘Petros’, and also stresses that it can be no coincidence that the same very particular issue has been dealt with three times within the space of a few years – implicitly accusing Ihre of using the three dissertations to convey partisan criticism of the current regime.62 When attacking the actual arguments in the dissertations, Bödker begins with the social contract (as do the dissertations). He gives a different view of the contract: the magistrate (öfwerheten) must honor its part of the contract, to protect the subjects. To demand that they be turned over to the enemy would not be right and it would be ‘unnatural’ he goes on.63 This undoubtedly means that it would be against reason and the law of nature (as understood by many authors, such as Grotius and Pufendorf). It would contradict the fundamental imperative of self-preservation. Bödker also more specifically claims that this would violate the ‘civic rights’ of the subject.64 Furthermore, Bödker argues that it would be unreasonable and tyrannical to demand of subjects that they love their country. Encouraging a love of country is entirely laudable, especially for a university professor. But to demand it (as a mandatory duty) is to go too far, and it will ‘put tyrannical power in the hands of the ruler’.65 Crucially, Bödker labels the attempt to equate that which one is allowed or encouraged to do with a duty, which the government can force you to fulfil, ‘an entirely false conclusion’.66 Bödker also realizes that the arguments in the dissertations do not come from Pufendorf or Grotius as Ihre claimed in his defense. Bödker clearly shows that this is not the case.67 He does not, however, anywhere mention Wolff or any of his disciples. 60  Caspar Bödkers andra memorial i processen mot Johan Ihre, Ihre 201, UUB, fol. 9v; fol. 25r. Bödker died halfway through the court case and was replaced in this role by Petter Prael. 61  Lipsius, Six Books of Politics 230–231. 62  Bödkers andra memorial, fol. 18r–18v, fol. 22r–23r. 63  Ibidem, fol. 12r–12v. 64  Ibidem, fol. 13r, ‘medborgerliga rättighet’. 65  Ibidem, fol. 13v, ‘lägger ett Tyranniskt wälde i Regentens hand’; he also argues that this will in practice rather undermine love of country and benefit the enemies of the state; ibidem, fol. 14r–15r. 66  Ibidem, fol. 19v, ‘en ganska falsk slutsats’. 67  Ibidem, fol. 18v–19r.

850

Hellerstedt

Bödker also attacks the argument from necessity. The main points are that necessity simply does not create a right if there was none in the first place, and that it is very difficult to determine if a casus necessitatis actually exists or not.68 Bödker refuses to admit that the Wolffian idea of the good of the whole outweighing the good of the part is legitimate. Killing innocent children can never be a ‘legitimate’ (‘lofligit’) means, ‘no matter how you color it’. No matter what emergency, the subjects’ right to life and property must not be compromised.69 Violating innocent children’s lives would be irrational (oförnuftigt), and, Bödker exclaims: ‘I would scarcely believe that even that great defender of reason of state, Machiavelli, ever dared to defend such a position anywhere [in his works]’.70 In a votum which repeats many of Bödker’s points, Eric von Stockenström adds that he has ‘examined’ the argument based on the casus necessitatis and that he has done so ‘according to a mathematical order’. Seemingly familiar with argumentation more geometrico, Stockenström either satirizes this method, or has really tried to recreate it paragraph by paragraph. He concludes that the mathematical demonstration of unquestionable truths that the dissertations purport to defend is based on a mere supposition (that of a casus necessitatis). As the deductive method makes it wholly dependent on the soundness of its foundations, the argument is undermined.71 The court was divided regarding the sentence, with some members arguing for a harsher punishment. Most vehement was Olof Estenberg, whose votum pushes for a denigrating demotion of Ihre to adjunct of philosophy, a position he proposes that the professor serve in until he has made appropriate amends and publicly refuted his previous errors.72 Estenberg’s votum also contains wider accusations and allusions than the other court documents. The accuracy of these accusations is difficult to assess, but they allege that Ihre was a more consciously political actor than he ever admitted. Estenberg claims that several of the dissertations contain direct or indirect references to the contemporary political situation. He characterizes the dissertations in general as ‘mere critiques and not worth more than libels’, and he reads them as a continuous criticism of the government, from the parliament of 1738 onwards. That the issues discussed are so often reminiscent of contemporary events is not a 68  Ibidem, fol. 15r–15v; fol. 20r–22r. 69  Ibidem, fol. 16v, ‘Man sätta therpå hwad färg man will’. 70  Ibidem, fol. 16r, ‘Jag tror näppeligen, at then stora förswararen af alt hwad ratio status heter, Machiavelli, någorstädes dristat sig at förswara en sådan sats’. 71  ‘examinerat’; ‘efter en mathematisk ordning’, Eric von Stockenström’s votum, UUB: shelf mark F358, fol. 13v. 72  Estenberg’s votum, fol. 6v.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

851

coincident; when the extradition of an innocent man is discussed in such a specific way, this must be with a particular person in mind (Estenberg does not explicitly name anyone).73 4

Excursus: the Question of Authorship

The court case illuminates the question of authorship of dissertations in an interesting way. In juridical terms, the praeses was considered responsible for the texts. In the early phase of the court case, Ihre tried to evade responsibility to a certain degree, but that had more to do with who was responsible for censoring the dissertations before they were published; Ihre tried to claim that this responsibility lay on the dean (decanus). This led nowhere, and it may well have been nothing more than a delaying tactic. In other words, all those involved seem to agree that the juridical responsibility for the contents of dissertations lay on the praeses. Interestingly, it is also clear that this does not mean that the praeses actually wrote them. It has already been mentioned how Montin later published one of the dissertations as part of a larger work, in Swedish, under his own name. The second prosecutor corroborates this when he describes how Montin has ‘publicly recanted’ his previous views in another dissertation.74 The dissertation De tumultu Dalekarlorum vulgo Naeftoget dicto (Uppsala, vidua Beati Höjeri: 1743) was also apparently written by the respondent, Mathias Diurdahl. This can be gathered from Diurdahl’s own statement, given at the trial. Ihre never tried to blame the respondents for the contents of the dissertations. However, as a part of his defense he wanted to show that work on writing the above-mentioned dissertation had begun long before the events which the prosecutor claimed it referred to took place. For this reason, the respondent was called on to testify. In doing so, Diurdahl states that the subject was proposed to him by professor Anders Celsius in 1739 and that he was helped with access to relevant historical documents ‘in order to lighten the burden of my work’, by the archbishop Johannes Steuchius (a relation and political ally of Ihre’s), and others. This is described in such a way that it is quite clear that Diurdahl was indeed the author.75 The same seems to be the 73  Ibidem, fol. 5v, ‘största delen deraf äro blotta critiquer och föga bättre än pasquiller’. 74  Petter Prael’s plea 20 December 1750, UUB: shelf mark F358, fol. 4v. The dissertation is Johan (Johansson) Montin (Pr.) – Andreas Gottmarck (Resp.), Quaestio politica: Quid respublica debeat privato? Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1750), which describes Montin as auctor on the title page. 75  ‘til midt arbetes lättande’, Mathias Diurdahl’s statement 1 February 1749, Handlingar i Ihreska målet 1751, RA, Kanslirättens arkiv, vol. 11 (Kanslirätter 1750–1751), fol. 1r. Diurdahl’s

852

Hellerstedt

case with Theophilus Gran, author of De poenis innocentum. He was also called as a witness, and in a letter to the rector76 of Uppsala University, the latter is explicitly ordered to obtain from Gran ‘his own draft’ of the dissertation.77 In a short autobiography, written several decades later, Ihre states that this was the norm: ‘These [dissertations] are for the most part written by the respondents themselves, in such a way that I only reviewed them, and to a greater or lesser extent put my hand to them’; when he did write dissertations he states that he did so under his own name.78 It seems then that the respondents were the authors (in our, modern, sense of the word). However, the praeses supervised the work, selecting the subject matter, and adding and correcting where necessary. In this case, it appears that the role of the praeses was very much like that of an editor of a magazine or newspaper. The fact that the three dissertations (with different respondents) share so many arguments on a rather high level of philosophical abstraction, indicates that the praeses may have also provided some of the answers to the delicate questions they dealt with; perhaps professor Ihre provided the students with the appropriate literature or references; perhaps he provided them with the basic arguments, leaving the students with the task of structuring the text and creating the chain of linked paragraphs of well-sounding Latin. 5

Concluding Remarks

That the ruler holds the rights to all means possible for the preservation of the state, and that thus, murdering innocent children to preserve the state is entirely legitimate if necessity requires it – this is of course not a form of Machiavellianism as far as the dissertations analyzed here are concerned. Establishing a ‘true’ reason of state is only one instance of the process of establishing the limits of legitimate politics at work in these texts. Another instance is when the dissertations De politica Machiavelli and De monarchomachis dissertation, which was of prime importance in the trial, has otherwise been left out of this analysis, as its subject matter is quite different from the dissertations discussed here. 76  As it happens, the rector magnificus at this particular time was none other than the famous Carl Linnaeus. 77  ‘infordra Granens egit concept til sielfwa disputationen’, Chancellery court to rector magnificus 20 December 1749, fol. 1r, Handlingar i Ihreska målet 1751, RA, Kanslirättens arkiv, vol. 11 (Kanslirätter 1750–1751). 78  ‘Thessa äro Til Största delen af respondenterne sjelfwe författade, så at jag them allenast öfwersedt, och wid them mer eller mindre lagt handen’; B3 Johan Ihre Självbiografi. Fullst. i avskrift av Chr. Henr. Braad, fol. 5v; B. Handlingar till professorn och kanslirådet Johan Ihres biografi, Ihre 201, UUB.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

853

define the golden mean between the extremes of Machiavellianism and Monarchomachism (the ideology of king-killing). The rhetorical figure comparing these to Scylla and Charybdis is used, as it is in Montin’s De ratione status.79 The same logic can be observed in relation to the figure of Machiavelli himself – that there was a clear difference between Machiavelli the man and the writer on the one hand, and ‘Machiavellianism’ on the other is something that these 18th dissertation writers were quite aware of.80 The irony is that Montin’s seemingly cautious attempt to delineate legitimate political philosophy in itself became a transgression. In the trial, Ihre was accused of being worse than Machiavelli himself. In my view, what made these texts provocative was both a radical new philosophical system applied ruthlessly to political practice, and the use of dissertations as political pamphlets. The political theory of Wolff was reductionist in the extreme. However, perhaps the full consequences of this only became clear when his zealous Swedish followers applied his theories to the conflict-ridden political realities of the so-called ‘Age of Liberty’. This is why the Wolffian dissertations on reason of state were among the dissertations attacked at the trial. It is also the reason why De politica Machiavelli – cautiously defending Machiavelli, and including a lengthy quote from book II of the Discorsi attacking Christianity81 – was not. It turned out that ‘true’ reason of state, which is ‘always good’ was far worse (in more ways than one) than both Machiavelli and Machiavellianism. The dissertations on reason of state which figured in the trial of 1747 include elements of what has been called ‘radical’ Wolffianism. It was characterized by uncompromising, strict consistency and ambitious attempts to follow the basic principles to their most far-reaching conclusions. As was often the case, however, social and political circumstances were the more important factors which made these texts radical.82 In this case, the circumstances were different from those in Germany: in the Swedish ‘Age of Liberty’, the regime saw itself as 79  Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Flodman Andreas Svensson (Resp.), Dissertatio academica, monarchomachos eorumque politicam sistens, cujus partem priorem […] submittit, Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1745) 7; Ihre – Montin, De ratione status 14. 80  Andreas Hellerstedt, “En lärare i laster eller en försvarare av folkets frihet? Machiavelli i svenskt 1700-tal”, in Stenqvist C. – Lindstedt Cronberg M. (eds.), Dygder och laster: Förmoderna perspektiv på tillvaron (Lund: 2010). 81  Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Wargentin Pehr Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertationem academicam de politica Machiavelli […] submittet (Uppsala, vidua Beati Höjeri: 1743) 20. 82  Mühlpfordt G., “Radikaler Wolffianismus: Zur Differenzierung und Wirkung der Wolffschen Schule ab 1735”, in Christian Wolff 1679–1754: Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung, Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 4 (Hamburg: 1986 [2d ed.]) 237–238, 241–243.

854

Hellerstedt

the defenders of a ‘free republic’, and absolutist principles were perceived as a threat to the established aristocratic order. Bibliography

Manuscript Sources



Printed Works

Rättegångshandlingar vid Kongl Cantzelie Rätten angående Cantzelie Rådet Ihres Disputationer, Uppsala University Library: shelf mark F358 Caspar Bödkers andra memorial i processen mot Johan Ihre 18 March 1748 (B10), Uppsala University Library: shelf mark Ihre 201 Handlingar i Ihreska målet 1751, Kanslirättens arkiv, vol. 11 (Kanslirätter 1750‒1751) Riksarkivet, Stockholm

Annerstedt C., Upsala universitets historia, Bihang III: Handlingar 1695–1749 (Uppsala: 1912). Bissinger A., “Zur metaphysischen Begründung der Wolffschen Ethik”, in Christian Wolff 1679–1754: Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung, Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 4 (Hamburg: 1986 [2d ed.]). Bodensten E., Politikens drivfjäder: Frihetstidens partiberättelser och den moralpolitiska logiken (Lund: 2016). Bonnet S., “Botero Machiavélien ou l’invention de la raison d’état”, Les Études philo­ sophiques 66 (2003:3). Botero Giovanni, Della Ragion di Stato Libri Dieci, con Tre Libri delle Cause della Grandezza, e Magnificenza delle Città (Venice, Gioliti: 1589). Brohed I., Stat, religion, kyrka: Ett problemkomplex i svensk akademisk undervisning under 1700-talet (Stockholm: 1973). Burius A., Ömhet om friheten: Studier i frihetstidens censurpolitik, Institutionen för Idéoch lärdomshistoria, skrifter 5 (Uppsala: 1984). Canz Israel Gottlieb, Disciplinae morales omnes etiam eae quae forma artis nondum hucusque comparuerunt perpetuo nexu traditae (Leipzig, Friedrich Matthias Friese: 1739). Descartes René, Meditationes de prima philosophia (Amsterdam, Johannes Blaeu: 1644). Frängsmyr T., Wolffianismens genombrott i Uppsala. Frihetstida universitetsfilosofi till 1700-talets mitt (Uppsala: 1972). Hellerstedt A., “En lärare i laster eller en försvarare av folkets frihet? Machiavelli i svenskt 1700-tal”, in Stenqvist C. ‒ Lindstedt Cronberg M. (eds.), Dygder och laster: Förmoderna perspektiv på tillvaron (Lund: 2010) 250‒264.

Reason of State as Radical Philosophy at Uppsala University

855

Hellerstedt A., “Cracks in the mirror: Changing conceptions of political virtue in mirrors for princes in Scandinavia from the Middle Ages to c.1700”, in Hellerstedt A. (ed.), Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century (Amsterdam: 2018) 281‒328. Hildebrand B., “Olof Estenberg”, https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx? id=15524, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, retrieved 21 April 2019. Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Diurdahl Mathias (Resp.), Dissertatio historico-politica de tumultu Dalekarlorum vulgo Naeftoget dicto (Uppsala, vidua Beati Höjeri: 1743). Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Wargentin Pehr Wilhelm (Resp.), Dissertationem academicam de politica Machiavelli […] submittet (Uppsala, vidua Beati Höjeri: 1743). Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Bergius Johan Gustaf (Resp.), Dissertatio philosophica de nexu juris et obligationis (Uppsala, no printer: 1745). Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Flodman Andreas Svensson (Resp.), Dissertatio academica, monarchomachos eorumque politicam sistens, cujus partem priorem sistit, Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1745). Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Montin Johan (Johansson) (Resp.), Dissertatio politica, de ratione status, Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1745). Ihre Johan (Pr.) – Gran Theophilus (Resp.), Specimen academicum, de poenis innocentum (Uppsala, [printer unknown]: 1747). Karlsson I., Parti – partiväsen – partipolitiker 1731–1743: Kring uppkomsten av våra första politiska partier (Stockholm: 1981). Köhler Heinrich, Juris naturalis ejusque cumprimis cogentis methodo systematica propositi exercitationes VII (Frankfurt a.M., Franz Varrentrapp: 1738). Lipsius J., Politica: Six Books of Politics or Political Instruction, ed. and trans. by J. Waszink (Assen: 2004). Lutterbeck K.G., Staat und Gesellschaft bei Christian Thomasius und Christian Wolff: Eine historische Untersuchung in systematischer Absicht, Forschungen und Materialien zur deutschen Aufklärung 16 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: 2002). Machiavelli N., Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Milan: 2010 [1984]). Machiavelli N., Il Principe (Milan: 2009 [1979]). Machiavelli N., Machiavelli and his Friends: Their Personal Correspondence, ed. and trans. J.B. Atkinson ‒ D. Sices (DeKalb Ill.: 1996). Malmström C.G., Sveriges politiska historia: från konung Karl XII:s död till statshvälfningen 1772, vol. 3 (Stockholm: 1897 [2 ed.]). Montin Johan (Johansson), Borgelig Regering, Til Des Uprinnelse och Art (Stockholm, Lars Salvius: 1749). Montin Johan (Johansson), Die bürgerliche Regierung nach ihrem Ursprunge und Wesen betrachtet […] (Stockholm, [printer unknown]: 1750).

856

Hellerstedt

Montin Johan (Johansson) (Pr.) – Gottmarck Andreas (Resp.), Quaestio politica: Quid respublica debeat privato? Dissertation Uppsala (Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius: 1750). Mühlpfordt G., “Radikaler Wolffianismus: Zur Differenzierung und Wirkung der Wolffschen Schule ab 1735”, in Christian Wolff 1679–1754: Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung, Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 4 (Hamburg: 1986 [2d ed.]). Nordenhielm Andreas (Pr.) – Forelius Hemming (Resp.), Gubernacula imperii togati Dissertation Uppsala 1681 (Stockholm, Nicolaus Wankijff: 1681). Schneiders W., “Die Philosophie des aufgeklärten Absolutismus: Zum Verhältnis von Philosophie und Politik, nicht nur im 18. Jahrhundert”, in Bödecker H.E. – Herrmann U. (eds.), Aufklärung als Politisierung ‒ Politisierung der Aufklärung, Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 8 (Hamburg: 1987). Skinner Q., Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Cambridge: 1996). Wolff Christian, Vernünfftige Gedancken von dem Gesellschafftlichen Leben der Menschen und insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen […] (Frankfurt ‒ Leipzig, Renger: 1736). Wolff Christian, Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, Der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, Auch allen Dingen überhaupt […] (Halle, Renger: 1752).

Chapter 32

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature in Swedish University Disputations Bernd Roling Summary With Olaus Rudbeck’s four volumed ‘Atlantica’ at the end of the 17th century the Swedish national ideology, the Gothicism, reached its climax. Almost all aspects of this ideology had also been ventilated at the universities. As a result before and after the Great Northern War in the Swedish Empire university disputations formed the most important medium to spread and debate key aspects of the national mythology, like the exorbitant age of the runic alphabet, the Futhark, and the Edda and its proclaimed proto-christian content. Disputations and university speeches on a primordial Old Norse tradition were held in all parts of the Swedish Empire, even in its German areas like Stade or Greifswald. While some scholars like Petrus Lagerlöf e.g. tried to demonstrate the basic character of Old Norse traditions towards all other cultures, or made attempts like the more sceptical Sven Lagerbring to deduce the concept of Trinity or the christian theology of Creation from the Edda, other scholars like Gustav Bonde even connected Old Norse mythology with hermetic or cabalistic philosophy. As the article is going to demonstrate, by using academical disputations all around the Baltic Sea as a distributive instrument, Swedish scholars were able to demonstrate their loyalty towards the Empire and to identify themselves with its special claims. As it comes clear, too, the great defeat of Charles XII and the loss of almost the third part of its dominion were not able to stop this patriotic movement at the universities.

From 1679 to 1702 the Swedish polymath, medic, geologist, classical scholar, zoologist, botanist, philosopher, poet, and composer Olof Rudbeck published four monumental volumes, at more than 4000 pages, with the title Atland eller Manheim (‘Atlantis and the Origin of Mankind’), which aimed to rediscover Atlantis, as it had been described by Plato. The true location of this Atlantis, so Rudbeck believed, was Scandinavia and the territory of the Swedish empire at that time, which had just reached its greatest extent. This ancient Atlantis, he believed, had been more than just a chimaera of Greek literature: it had been the mother-culture and cradle of every other cultural formation, and of

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_033

858

Roling

all ancient civilisations, both those of the Greeks and Romans and those of the Scythians, Celts, and Germans.1 Rudbeck’s was not the first attempt to bestow a glorious ancient past upon Swedish history by means of fantastical genealogies. Many European historians had undertaken similar hypostases of their homelands. In Sweden, the Gothicism of the brothers Johannes and Olaus Magnus had been flourishing since the sixteenth century. They had built on Cassiodorus to identify the Scythians and Getae with the Goths, and then declared the latter to be the ancestors of the present-day Scandinavians.2 In this way, within the tangled rivalries of the European powers, the North belatedly managed to assert a connection to classical antiquity. In the wake of the grand-scale confiscations of Gothic manuscripts by the Swedish military victors, and against the backdrop of a flourishing local engagement with classical antiquity, an enthusiasm for Old Germanic languages and literature had developed in Sweden which in the first decades of the seventeenth century took a metaphysical turn. By the 1640s Johannes Bureus and Georg Stiernhielm were proposing that the Hyperboreans described by Herodotus, the guardians of the temple of Apollo, had been the ancestors of the Scandinavians, that the temple had been located in Uppsala, and was a monument of the first European civilisation. But it was Rudbeck who brought the Atlantis myth into play. His massive work set about rewriting the history of human culture from this perspective. The key message of the work was that 2400 years before Christ, after the 1  On Olaus Rudbeck’s Atlantica see e.g. King D., Finding Atlantis. A True Story of Genius, Madness, and an Extraordinary Quest for a Lost World (New York: 2005) 55–250; Eriksson G., The Atlantic Vision. Olaus Rudbeck and Baroque Science (Canton: 1994) 13–86; Eriksson G., Rudbeck 1630–1702. Liv, lärdom, dröm i barockens Sverige (Stockholm: 2002) 257– 540; Lindroth S., Svensk Lärdomshistoria, 4 vols. (Stockholm: 1975) vol. 2, 284–296, and beside these key studies e.g. Svenbro J., “L’ideologie ‘gothisante’ et l’Atlantica d’Olof Rudbeck. Le mythe platonicien de l’Atlantide au service de l’Empire suédois du XVIIe siècle”, Quaderni di storia 6 (1980) 121–156; Eriksson G., Historia och naturalhistoria hos Olof Rudbeck, in Broberg G. – Eriksson G. (eds.), I Idéhistoriens virvlar. Festskrift till Rolf Lindborg (Stockholm: 1991) 29–60, Henningsen B., Die schwedische Konstruktion einer nordischen Identität durch Olof Rudbeck (Berlin: 1997) 14–23, Burman C., Folk jag aldrig mött. Porträtt (Stockholm: 2011) 23–37, 61–80, or Huhtamies M., Pohjolan Atlantis. Uskomattomia ideoita itämerellä (Helsinki: 2014) 53–66, Anttila T., The Power of Antiquity. The Hyperborean Research Tradition in Early Modern Swedish Research on National Antiquity (Oulu: 2015) 143–169, and esp. Nordström J., De yverbornes ö. Sextonhundratalsstudier (Stockholm: 1934) 136–154. 2  On sources, motives and models of gothicism in general see Svennung J., Zur Geschichte des Gotizismus (Stockholm: 1967) 1–33, and Schmidt-Voges I., De antiqua claritate. Gotizismus als Identitätsmodell im frühneuzeitlichen Schweden (Frankfort on the Main: 2004) 38–43, on the motif of a “scythian” genealogy see in addition Lindberg S.G., “‘Den ädle vilden’. Om skyterna i svensk historieskrivning”, Fenix. Tidskrift för humanism 12 (1996) 28–60, here esp. 29–47.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

859

Deluge, Magog the son of Japhet had set off for the North with his clan, tempted by the beauty of the landscape, the fertility of the soil, and the riches of the fisheries, and there they had laid the foundations of the first Western civilisation, Atlantis, and had built the capital of the Northern realm, Uppsala, with a golden temple at its heart, as it had been described by Adam of Bremen; periodic sedimentations of earth could prove beyond doubt the vast antiquity of the Swedish empire. In the next 600 years, the Scytho-Goths, Greeks, and Celts had emigrated out of the North in sporadic waves, allowing the spirit of this primordial culture to flourish throughout the whole of Europe. All of Europe’s religions and stores of myths should hence be understood as borrowings from the primordial Nordic mythology. With prodigious philological efforts and a daunting knowledge of historical and geographical detail, Rudbeck set Greek mythology in parallel to the web of myths in the Edda and demonstrated how all traditions had their origin in Atlantis. All poetry, philosophy, and natural science was owed to the Northern realm, all writings went back to the runic alphabet, which, like the apples of the Hesperides, had been carried south into Europe, so Rudbeck believed. As a scientific paradigm Rudbeck’s hermeneutic model – this attempt to locate in a Swedish origin-mythology the primordial matrix of all other cultures and for this purpose to, as it were, back-translate the ancient mythologemes into Nordic form – influenced a whole generation of scholars at the universities of the Swedish empire, allowing them to acquire a postulated proto-history. How this hypothesis, which is today, to put it charitably, somewhat counterintuitive, laid claim to the Swedish university network, and also how the reading of the Edda ended up as both a quasi-biblical revelation and at the same time a testament to the philosophia perennis, I shall show through some examples. It should also become clear how belief in a primordial Nordic tradition came, in the scholarly community of the Swedish empire, to be an obligatory demonstration of one’s own patriotic commitment. The decisive medium for the expression of this outlook in Sweden was, I believe, the university disputation.3

3  On university disputations in Sweden see in general Lindberg B., “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39, and e.g. Östlund K., “Några nedslag i disputationsväsendet under 1700-talet – exemplet Johan Ihre”, Sjuttonhundratal (2006/07) 151–167, and earlier e.g. Sahlin C.Y., “Om det akademiska disputationsväsendet med särskildt afseende på Upsala Universitet”, Nordisk universitets-tidskrift 2 (1856) 48–93.

860 1

Roling

A Primordial Northern Culture as Ideological Paradigm: Skalds in Academical Disputations

Not only were the runes of awesome antiquity, as Olaus Rudbeck had believed. It must also be possible, so it was thought, to trace the literature that they conveyed, the Old Norse poetry, back to the most archaic prehistoric era. Its creators, the caste of the skalds, must coincide with the earliest foundations of human culture. It should therefore be possible, so Olaus Rudbeck’s followers proclaimed, to reconstruct a family tree of world literature that passed from the Japhetites to the first Scythian singers, including the figures Abaris and Zalmoxis, exalted by the Gothicists, and on to the Edda, in which the primordial wisdom of the world had been given expression and in which, too, traces of the Old Testament truths could still be detected. It of course remained possible to write histories of philosophy and history in Sweden without repeating these Gothicist-Rudbeckian chains of filiation,4 but it should be remembered that even non-Swedish historians of philosophy entirely innocent of Scandophilia, such as Johann Heinrich Alsted,5 Theophilus Gale,6 Otto von Heurne,7 or Georg Hornius,8 had been prepared, under the weight of the sixteenth-century Gothicist publications, to inscribe at least the Scythians and Hyperboreans into their versions of the theory of the descent of wisdom. Thomas Burnet, who with his Archaeologia philosophica had written what was probably the most important late seventeenth-century history of ancient philosophy, not only mentions Abaris and Zalmoxis as Scythian representatives of an archaic philosophy that reached from the Egyptians to the Israelites, but also cites the Edda as a source that, so Burnet believed, could perhaps be accepted as a witness to this primordial philosophy.9 Rudbeck’s reflections 4  For a still valuable survey of the ‘Historia literaria’ in Sweden see Hamberg E., Olof Knös och 1700-talets lärda samlarkultur. Studier kring förmedling och samlade av böcker i Sverige under den gustavianska tiden (Gothenburg: 1985), at 58–78. 5  Alsted Johannes Heinrich, Thesaurus chronologiae, in quo universa temporum series digerantur (Herborn, Rab: 1637), Chronologia 49, 456–457. 6  Gale Theophilus, The Court of the Gentiles, or a Discourse touching the Traduction of Philosophy from the Scripture and Jewish Church, 3 vols. (London: John Hill – Gabriel Hindmarsh: 1676) vol. 2, Book I, c. 4, § 6, 81. 7  Van Heurne Otto, Barbaricae philosophiae antiquitatum libri II (Leiden, Platin: 1600), Liber I, 52. 8  Hornius Georg, Historiae philosophicae libri VII, quibus de origine, successione, sectis et vita philosophorum ab orbe condito ad nostram aetatem agitur (Leiden, Elsevier: 1655), Liber IV, c. 1, 226. 9  Burnet Thomas, Archaeologiae philosophicae sive doctrina antiqua de rerum originibus (London, J. Hooke: 1692), Liber I, c. 2, p. 7.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

861

on the antiquity of the runes and the priority of the Swedish language had even found their way into the Polyhistor of Georg Morhof, where they are cited, largely without value judgments, alongside the works of the Danes; Morhof himself, too, found in Sweden the basis for lectures on literary history.10 For the Helmstedt historian of philosophy Carl Wilhelm Lodtmann, the historical Odin was to be reckoned among the great sages, just as the Swedes had maintained,11 and the Kiel professor Friedrich Gentzke, in his history of philosophy, even named Rudbeck as the only true authority on a possible philosophia septentrionalis.12 Doubts about this model found no audience in Sweden. For the apologists of a Hyperborean primordial truth, the first step was to establish securely the superior position of the skalds, a superiority that was tied also to the superiority of their own scholarship. Rudbeck’s supporters proclaimed the Old Norse singers to be the heroic founders of a chain of transmission that had left the brilliant achievements of the ancient Mediterranean poetry and philosophy in its historical wake. Already in 1685, Petrus Lagerlöf, together with the later theologian Daniel Djurberg, devoted a disputation to these Old Norse singers, with two aims, namely as an introduction to the tradition of Norse poetry, and as a first aetiology of its creators.13 Lagerlöf recalls the great skalds of Iceland, such as Ragnar Lodbrog, Eyvind Skáldaspilir, Egill Skallagrimsson, who once had sung for Erik Bloodaxe, and Starkad in Gautreks saga.14 Odin, the prince of the Æsir, had been the most important representative of their caste, as he – rhythmos edens – had imported into Sweden the malrunar and with them literacy as a whole, so it was believed. There was no reason to look for the origin of the runes and their wisdom among the Greeks.15 To the contrary, Orpheus had been of the race of the Norsemen, Musaeus like Anacharsis had been among their number, and even Menander, the princeps comicorum, had been a 10  Morhof Daniel Georg, Polyhistor in tres tomos literarium, philosophicum et practicum divisum opus postumum, ed. by Johannes Möller, 2 vols. (3. edition) (Lübeck, Böckmann: 1708) (first 1688–1692) vol. 2/1, Liber IV, c. 3, § 3, 21–23, vol. 2/2, Liber I, § 14, 8–9. 11  Lodtmann Carl Gerhardt Wilhelm, Kurzer Abriß der Geschichte der Weltweisheit nach der Ordnung der Zeiten, zum Gebrauch academischer Vorlesungen (Helmstedt, C.F. Weygandt: 1754) I. Theil, 3. Hauptstück, 4. Abtheilung, 20–21. 12  Gentzken Friedrich, Historia philosophiae, in qua philosophorum celebrium vitae eorumque hypotheses notabiliores succincte et ordine sistuntur (Hamburg, Felginer: 1731) (first Kiel 1720), Pars I, c. 7, § 1, 37–38. 13  On Lagerlöf’s disputation see Jónsson F., Udsigt over den norsk-islandske filologis historie (Kopenhagen: 1918) 78. 14   Lagerlöf Petrus (Pr.) – Djurberg Daniel (Resp.), Dissertatio de Skaldis veterum Hyperboreorum (Uppsala, Curo: 1685) 3–5, 8–9. 15  Ibidem 9–11.

862

Roling

descendant of the Getae. The oft-hymned art of singing and the wisdom of the Hyperboreans had been exported with the skalds to Greece.16 In the German-speaking world this myth of the skalds by and large found no hearing; the apologists for Germanic singers found their model instead in the bards, who were securely attested in classical historical writings, but made only superficial efforts to integrate the skalds into the picture. Johann Christoph Gottsched, who devoted a relatively well-informed work to tracing the beginnings of German poetry and Dittrich’s saga, endorsed Rudbeck’s reflections as a contribution to mythology, but he did not find them a reasonable contribution to historical debate.17 In the Swedish sphere, on the other hand, the picture that emerges is as we might expect; in fact, a strong impression arises that it was especially the edges of empire that wanted to inscribe themselves in the imperial community via the ur-Nordic skalds. Lagerlöf’s professorial colleagues and successors, such as Gabriel Sjöberg in Dorpat,18 Johan Bilberg,19 and the Uppsalensers Laurentius Norrmann,20 Laurentius Arrhenius,21 Johan Hermannson,22 and Laurentius Hydrén,23 all duly repeat the eulogy of the skalds and of their founding role far into the eighteenth century in treatises on the history of Swedish poetry, and they insist on the extraordinary antiquity of the Edda. All these texts had been university disputations. Fabian Törner,24 as well as the Professor of Poetry at Lund, Johannes Corylander, integrated the new theories into their lectures.25 Even in 1754 Corylander still maintained in 16  Ibidem 12–15. 17  Gottsched Johann-Christoph, De temporibus Teutonicorum vatum mythicis (Leipzig, Breitkopf: 1752) III–IV. 18  Sjöberg Gabriel (Pr.) – Edenius Magnus Gabriel (Resp.), Liber philosophus repraesentandus aliquot exercitiis academicis quorum praeliminaria submittit (Riga, Nöller: 1690), § 11, fol. D2v–D4v. 19  Bilberg Johan (Pr.) – Kalckberner Petrus (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de anagnostis (Uppsala, Henricus Keyser: 1689), § 9, 30–32. 20  Norrmann Laurentius (Pr.) – Wallenius Daniel (Resp.), Genius poeticus secundum quattuor causas descriptus (Uppsala, Eberdt: 1688), here Thesis III, 18–21. 21   Arrhenius Laurentius (Pr.) – Pratenius Jacob (Resp.), Dissertatio gradualis poesin Suecanam hodiernam sistit (Uppsala, Werner: 1718), § 2, 3–6. 22  Hermansson Johannes (Pr.) – Lörbohm Magnus (Resp.), Tentamina nonnulla de poesi Suecana antiqua et hodierna (Uppsala, Werner: 1734), c. 1, § 3, 15–17. 23  Hydrén Laurentius (Pr.) – Axelson Axelius (Resp.), Specimen academicum de primordiis et incrementis poeseos Suecanae (Uppsala, Werner: 1748), there on the Scythian Orpheus, § 4, 6–10, on the Edda, § 6, 12–16. 24  Törner Fabian, Observationes in poesin Suecanam (Uppsala Universitets Biblioteket, MS. R 615), c. 2, § 4, 11–14. 25   Corylander Johannes, “Collegium historicum”, Annotationes in historiam Suecicam (Stiftsbiblioteket Linköping, MS. H 118 [2 vols.], vol. 1, fol. 78r–148v), there ‘De studiis Sveogothorum’, fol. 91r–92v.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

863

a disputation on Orpheus that it was at least possible that Orpheus had been a Scandinavian skald of the earliest eras.26 In Swedish Bremen and Verden the Conrector of the Swedish gymnasium, Luneberg Mushard, declaimed a speech on the philosophia veterum Gothorum and their singers,27 while Johann Daniel Denso in Stargard, which had likewise long been very close to Swedish influence, recalled the same tradition in the town gymnasium.28 Thorsten Rudeen in Turku stressed that it was the Hyperborean skalds whose genius had yielded the technique of the mythological involucrum, the technique of weaving truths of moral and natural science into a cloak of figurative metaphors; they had transmitted this strategy via singers such as Orpheus to the Greeks and Romans. Homer had got this knowledge from Orpheus, who, in turn, had received it from the Odin, the original Hyperborean Apollo.29 Even a superficial glance at the continuity of poetic images and metaphors was enough to confirm this impression, Rudeen insisted.30 This cult of protohistoric Gothic sages was astonishingly popular in Swedish Pomerania. The Pomeranian historian Nicolaus von Klemptzen had once made two claims in his Chronicle of Pomerania, though they had no larger influence as the work was not printed. This humanist from Wollgast had stressed that the cities of Vineta and Wollin described by Adam of Bremen were the oldest metropoleis of the ancient land of the Pomeranians;31 but also, according to von Klemptzen, it had been the Swedish Goths, under their legendary leader King Erik, who had been the first to occupy this region, shortly after the birth of Christ.32 In the eighteenth century these speculations would be drawn on again and connected to the national myths being aired in Sweden. Gabriel Lütkemann, who as a theologian in Swedish service made it as far as 26  Corylander Johannes (Pr.) – Sommelius Magnus (Resp.), Dissertatio historico-litteraria gradualis de Orpheo Graecorum philosopho (Lund, Berling: 1754), § 1, 3–7. 27  Mushard Luneberg (Pr.) – Cordes Heinrich (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de vera antiquitate priscae urbis Stadae (Bremen, Brauer: 1700), § 10, 10–11. 28  Denso Johann Daniel, Oratio de re scholastica Pomeranorum (Stargard, Tiller: 1732) 8–9. 29  Rudeen Thorsten (Pr.) – Haartman Gabriel J. (Resp.), Philosophia fabularis necnon poetarum vindiciae (Turku, Wallius: 1700), § 3, 8–12; and Rudeen Thorsten (Pr.) – Wijker Jacob (Resp.), Specimen academicum de aenigmatibus (Turku, Wallius: 1703), § 3, 7–8. 30  Rudeen Thorsten (Pr.) – Jesenhaus Michael (Resp.), De parabolis tirocinium academicum (Turku, Wallius: 1705), § 8, 18–21, § 11, 30–31, § 13, 33–35. 31  Klemptzen Nicolaus von, Vom Pommer-Landes und dessen Fürsten, Geschlecht-Beschreibung in IV Büchern, ed. by Johann Carl Dähnert (Stralsund, Struck: 1771), Erstes Buch, 3–5. The original manuscript exists as Nicolaus Klemzen, Chronica Pomeranica (Stadtarchiv Stralsund, MS. HS 0275) as part of the collection of Gottlieb Mohnicke. 32  Ibidem, Zweytes Buch, 43–44.

864

Roling

Governor of Gotland, in Greifswald defended with his Swedish respondents the exceptional position of the skalds, using the familiar arguments, and also guarded the runes against all attempts to interpret their age in any way other than Rudbeck’s.33 His colleague in Greifswald, Albert Georg Schwartz assiduously researched the antiquities of archaic Pomerania and utilised the Swedish myth of the skalds for Pomeranian local history. The Germans of his homeland were descendants of the Scythians too, Schwartz insisted, and their heroes Zalmoxis, Abaris, and Anacharsis had exported their wisdom to Greece.34 Why else would they have worshipped the gods of eloquence, Mercury and Hercules,35 as Tacitus reported?36 It had been the learning of these Scythian skalds, so Schwartz, that had provided gymnasia to the earliest metropoleis of the region, the famous Vineta and Jomsburg.37 Above all the enigmatic Jomsburg, the great Old Norse trading city described by Adam of Bremen, had, according to Schwartz, in this way become a schola atque officina militaris per omnem septentrionem nobilissima.38 The centre of the skaldic cult would admittedly still have to be Sweden. Anders Anton von Stiernman, who was from 1747 the presiding secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm,39 duly repeated the findings of his predecessors in a treatise on the topic and pointed out once more the distinctive skills of the skalds, their fine art of riddling that gave them the ability to convey philosophical content in metaphors, and their outstanding knowledge of natural science.40 In the time of the ancestors every royal court had been a school of eloquence, Stiernman insists, and every temple of the gods, as a Gudahaus, had, as in ancient Israel or among the Egyptians, also been a garden of the Muses, in which physical and intellectual training overlapped 33  Lütkemann Gabriel Timotheus (Pr.) – Fagerroth Olaus (Resp.) – Düvall Jacob Arnold (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de varia litterarum humaniorum in Suecia fortuna (Greifswald, Struck: 1743–1744), Pars I, §§ 1–4, 5–15, Pars I, § 7, 20–22. 34  Schwartz Albert Georg (Pr.) – Wilde Johannes (Resp.), Commentatio academica de eloquentia purpurata cum veteris orbis tum Pomeraniae atque Rugiae dum gentiles fuerint (Greifswald, Struck: 1740), c. 1, § 9, 13–18. 35  Tacitus, Opera minora, ed. by Michael Winterbottom – R.M. Ogilvie (Oxford: 1975), Germania, c. 9, § 1. 36   Schwartz – Wilde, De eloquentia purpurata, c. 1, §§ 10–11, 18–22. 37  Ibidem, c. 2, §§ 1–3, 25–28. 38  Ibidem, c. 2, § 4, 28–29. 39  On Anders Anton von Stiernman’s “History of Science” see Sallander H., “Vår första lärdomshistoria. Några anteckningar om Anders Anton von Stiernmans ‘Tal om the Lärda Vettenskapers tillstånd i Svearike under Hedendoms och Påvedoms tiden’”, Lychnos (1941) 230–247. 40  Von Stiernman Anders Anton, Tal om de Lärda Vettenskapers tilstånd i Svearike, under Hedendoms och Påvedoms tiden (Stockholm, Lars Salvius: 1758) 15–18.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

865

among the castes of the priests and the skalds.41 And alongside the art of poetry came music. Minstrels had been held in high honour at the ancient courts, and crumhorns and trumpets had accompanied their songs. It was only with the introduction of Christianity that the music of the ancient Goths, which had always also been in the service of the cult of the gods, as Stiernman remarks almost bitterly, had fallen into disfavour.42 2

The Edda as First Philosophy: Patriotic Disputations on the Old Norse Tradition

2.1 A Biblical Subtext of the Edda What was the primordial philosophical-theological truth that had been taught at these Scythic-Gothic universities at the dawn of history? There was a wide consensus that it had been an archaic philosophy which was conveyed in the most important work of the Old Norse tradition, the Edda. At the same time, it was believed that this archaic philosophy also included, at its core, essential elements of the biblical religion, and had anticipated the key dogmas of Christianity. If the Goths were direct descendants of Noah, then they would have preserved his archaic knowledge. But if the Edda was as old as humanity itself, then it must be the foundational document of all wisdom, and as a medium of the philosophia perennis it must also comprehend all later traditions. Already the Icelander Guðmundur Andrésson, who in Denmark had been involved in the first translation of the Edda, had presented his readers with crypto-Christian motifs in his commentary on the ‘Philosophia antiquissima’ of the Völuspá: Odin, the Alfader, corresponded to the highest god, and Bore or Bure was a hint at the Hebrew root bara, ‘creation’.43 Swedish apologists for a Nordic primordial tradition added a bouquet of details to these reflections in their academical writings. Petrus Lagerlöf in his disputation recalls the ancient Hyperboreans’ belief in immortality, which, like the Judaeo-Christian afterlife, had a place of punishment, Hel or Nifelheim, but also a place of reward, Gimle and Glaesisvall, the Elysian fields.44 Fabian Törner, responsible for a whole gallery of disputations 41  Ibidem 22–24. 42  Ibidem 14–15. 43  Guðmundur Andrésson, Philosophia antiquissima Norvego-Danica dicta Wøluspa alias Edda Saemundi, ex bibliotheca Petri Joh. Resenii (Copenhagen, Gödian: 1673), Cantio I, 3–4, Cantio II, 7–8, Cantio IV, 12. 44   Lagerlöf – Djurberg, De Skaldis veterum 18–19, 20–21, 22–23, 25–28.

866

Roling

on this theme,45 in his apology for the skalds likewise set a predictable focus on belief in the afterlife, in the form of Valhalla, the home of the righteous hymned by the poets. There Odin ensured that the Valkyries left the warriors in want of nothing, while Nifelheim, the sedes scelerosa, housed the damned.46 Had these otherworldly places not been sung in the ‘swansongs’ of the saga literature? The Edda also featured a Creation out of nothing, known already in the Völuspá, as Törner stressed. When the poets of the Edda talked of the primeval giant Ymir, they had been signalling the primeval chaos that must precede all creation, the Tohu-wa-bohu of the Bible.47 The creation of Ask and Embla, the first human couple, likewise not only stood in direct relation to the six days of Creation through the animation of their souls, but also recalled the relation of Adam and Eve. Was Eva not also created out of a rib, just as Embla was created from a piece of wood?48 The skalds had thus preserved relics of the truth in lumen naturale, so Törner concludes, which had been saved and brought to Sweden by the descendants of Noah and later concealed under magic and astral cults.49 2.2 Johan Göransson’s Edda and Sven Lagerbring’s Critical Approach The doctrine of the Trinity, eschatology, and the Creation remained the fixed points in the Noahid crypto-Christianity that the university patriots wanted to distill out of the Edda. Typologies of Christ would be added later. In 1746, almost 80 years after Resenius’ famous edition of the Edda, the pastor Göransson from Gillberga finally liberated the Swedish elite from the deeply felt failing that they had no Edda edition of their own.50 Göransson accompanied his 45  For a summary of Törner’s disputations see Roling B., “Akademischer Hyperboreer-Kult. Rudbeckianische Disputationen zwischen Netzwerkbildung und nationaler Überhöhung”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 199–216, here 209–213. 46  Törner Fabian (Pr.) – Wettersteen Nicolaus B. (Resp.), Dissertatio academica de poesi Skaldorum septentrionalium (Uppsala, Werner: 1717), c. 4, § 4, 47–49. 47  Ibidem, c. 4, § 2, 38–40, and see Edda Islandorum – Völuspá – Hávamál, ed. by Peder Resenius (Copenhagen, Gödian: 1665) (Reprint Reykjavík: 1977), Mythologia 3–4, Old Norse and Latin, fol. D2r–E2. 48   Törner – Wettersteen, De poesi Skaldorum, c. 4, § 2, 40–44. 49  Ibidem, c. 4, § 6, 52–53. 50  On the figure of Johan Göransson in general see Egardh J., Prosten Göransson. En sägenomspunnen värmlandspräst (Stockholm: 1935) passim, on Johan Göransson’s translation of the Edda see e.g. Ebel U., “Studien zur Rezeption der ‘Edda’ in der Neuzeit”, in idem, Gesammelte Schriften zur skandinavischen Literatur vol. 3: Zur Renaissance des ‘Germanischen’ vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Metelen: 2001) 19–78, 28–29, Stenroth I., Myten om goterna. Från antiken till romantiken (Stockholm: 2002) 162–164.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

867

Latin-Swedish Edda with a treatise,51 Is Atlinga, which once more celebrated to the full the runes and the doctrine of salvation linked to them. It is barely possible to summarise the meandering contents of this work, but it displays all the characteristics of the grand Swedish project: both language and script were instruments of salvation provided to mankind by God, Göransson begins, and the alphabet must therefore have been composed from a direct revelation by a Mästare, a first master. This was the wisdom that had been communicated to mankind by God already before the Flood and had been carved upon the golden columns of Atlantis.52 Naturally this first system of symbols become script was identical to the futhark, Göransson insisted, which, after the Hebrew alphabet, had also served as a matrix for all other sets of signs. The very fact that the runes express their sign-value on rods revealed the divine judge whose instructions were implemented by the first runic master.53 The ur-rune Is, out of which all other graphic characters were composed, corresponded to the Yod, the first letter of the tetragram, but Is at the same time corresponded to the Hebrew Yesh, the start of the name Jesus.54 The first rune Fu stood not only for the Fadur, the first person of the Trinity, but, through the threefold division of its tip, it also stood for the whole Trinity.55 The cross was not a classical or oriental symbol; according to Göransson, countless post-deluge runestones attested that it had been present in the North as a symbol of salvation right from the start and was even drawn on the drums of the Sami shamans.56 With Mercury, who was only a variant of Thor, and Hermes, whose name ought really to be read Hermannus, this system of signs had passed to Egypt and from there to the Greeks.57 To support his thesis, Göransson devised a wide-reaching genealogy that was able to pursue the three first Swedish kings, Bore, Odin, and Thor, through countless derivations through the Hyperboreans, Atlanteans, Greeks, Scythians, Thracians, Germans, Celts, Phoenicians, Assyrians, and on to the Chinese and 51  As translations see Göransson Johan, De Yfverborna Atlingars, eller, Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners, Edda. Hyperboreorum Atlantiorum, seu Suiogotorum et Nordmannorum Edda (Uppsala, Merckell: 1746), and idem, De Yfverborna Atlingars eller Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners Patriarkaliska Lära, eller sådan hon var före Odhin II:s tid af Sämund hin Frode på Island, efter gamla Runoböcker År Chr. 1090 afskrefven (Stockholm, Hecht: 1750). 52  Göransson Johan, Is atlinga, det är: De forna Göters, här uti Svea rike, bokstäfver ok salighets lära, tvåtusend tvåhundrad år före Christum, utspridde i all land (Stockholm, Lars Salvius: 1747), §§ 1–3, 1–9. 53  Ibidem, § 6, 15–17. 54  Ibidem, § 8, 19–22. 55  Ibidem, § 9, 22–23. 56  Ibidem, § 11, 26–31. 57  Ibidem, § 16, 45–50.

868

Roling

Arabs. Throughout, the runic philosophy was always passed onward.58 As well as the history of salvation, Göransson also managed to read in the futhark alphabet a sequence of cosmic ages that began at the Creation and the first Saturnian-Odinic age and prophetically ran through all the epochs of biblical history in 200-year intervals, reaching the Deluge at the rune Is. The last runes, which had already covered 5600 years of human history, could be understood as symbols of the Reformation and the renewal of the Swedish monarchy, while the final one already indicated the young pretender, Gustav, son of the reigning king, Adolph Frederick of Holstein.59 Göransson’s interpretive enthusiasm took on a distinctive note through the figure of the sibyl, through whom the Old Norse tradition could be linked directly to classical proto-Christian prophecy. The true archetype of the sibyl, indeed her direct historical original, Göransson claimed, was the consort of Thor, the golden-haired Sif, who had been addressed as Sibylla already by Snorre.60 As Vola she had been responsible for the Völuspá, as Rhea and consort of Saturn she also corresponded to Cybele, and was a ‘kabbalah’ in personal form, as Göransson was not afraid to claim, a guarantor of the primordial tradition that had been passed from generation to generation.61 From the initial Völuspá there must therefore be a direct line via Orpheus, whom Göransson dated to around 1250 BC, to the many sibylline texts in the classical tradition; like the acrostichs cited by Augustine in the City of God, the Völuspá too, with its prospect of a human race reconstituted after the cosmic conflagration, must therefore be interpreted as a prophecy of Christ, announcing the Redeemer and Son of Man.62 Göransson’s elaborate edifice of associations culminated in a Swedish-Hyperborean translation and commentary on the Sibylline Verses of Vergil’s Fourth Eclogue; according to Göransson, these laud not only the Son of God born of the Virgin in the Annunciation of Isaiah, but, with their mention of the regna Saturnia, they also herald the age of the Messiah, Thores regering, which would be brought back again by Lucina, the Liudesgunna. The reign of

58  Ibidem, § 17, 54–91. 59  Ibidem, § 18, 105–117. 60  Göransson, De Yfverborna Atlingars, eller, Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners, Edda, II. Historia, 25. 61  Göransson, De Yfverborna Atlingars eller Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners Patriarkaliska Lära, Str. 37, 16. 62  Augustinus Aurelius, De civitate Dei libri XXII, 2 vols., ed. by B. Dombart – A. Kalb (CCSL 48) (Turnhout: 1955), Liber XVIII, c. 23, 613–614, and also Lactantius Caelius Firmianus, divinarum institutionum libri VII, Opera omnia, ed. by S. Brandt – G. Laubmann (CSEL 19) (Wien: 1890), Liber VII, c. 16, 635–638.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

869

the Apolline Odin would begin again when the diabolic Midgard Serpent was finally banished.63 In its claim to universality no one thereafter was able to surpass the interpretation of the runes and the Edda that the pastor from Gillberga had presented with no less ambition than ingenuity. The next generation of university disputations in the Swedish Empire responded with more reserve to the Swedish patriots’ claim that the semi-Christian knowledge of salvation of the ur-Goths had been preserved through all the epochs from Noah, but a reduced version of the chains of filiation still met with success in Sweden even in the latter eighteenth century, as we will see. It remained possible to read Snorre’s Prose Edda and the Völuspá as a crypto-Christian document and to distill elements of dogma out of them. Was it not possible that the Edda might contain the basic Christian truths concealed among its involucra? Might it not still be the source of all philosophy? Once again it was disputations that could provide answers to these questions and to face the challenging of Göransson. The great scholar of Lund, Sven Lagerbring,64 together with many respondents, chose to propagate a more modest version of Germanic cryptoChristianity, but for him too this tradition of the skalds becomes, above all, a philosophia perennis.65 Lagerbring presents it in an Enlightenment variant, as it were. The Lund historian no longer believes in primordial runes.66 For Lagerbring, while the Havámal, the ‘Ethics of Odin’, may in large part have expressed a simple lived wisdom with a focus on practical reason, nonetheless this text should not be exalted to an exaggerated degree.67 The Edda was a more difficult case. It was ultimately impossible to determine, Lagerbring 63  Göransson, Is atlinga, § 17, 91–105. 64  On Sven Lagerbring as historian Eriksson N., Dalin – Botin – Lagerbring. Historieforskning och historieskrivning i Sverige 1747–1787 (Gothenburg: 1973) 33–41, 61–68, 78–79, 98–100, 117–132, and in addition e.g. Bollerup E., “Lagerbrings Svea Rikes Historia. Tillkomst, utgivning, motagande”, Scandia 36 (1970) 298–332, and Hallberg P., Ages of Liberty. Social Upheaval, History Writing, and the New Public Sphere in Sweden, 1740–1792 (Stockholm: 2003) 260–263. As most useful recent study on Lagerbring see now Wallette A., Sagans svenskar. Synen på vikingatiden och de isländska sagorna under 300 år (Malmö: 2004) 169– 222, and of course Lindroth, Svensk lärdomshistoria vol. 3, 678–687. 65  On Lagerbring, facing the Old Norse (unfortunately without any hint on the disputations), see: Wallette A., “Lagerbring och jakten på den fornnordiska religionen”, in Raudvere C. – Andrén A. – Jennbert K. (eds.), Hedendomen i historiens spegel. Bilder av det förkristna Norden (Lund: 2005) 57–81. 66  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Hansson Munthe Sven (Resp.), Dissertatio gradualis de origine lite­ rarum (Lund, Decreaux: 1743), §§ 13–16, 25–34. 67  Lagerbring Sven, “Die Schicksale der Wissenschaften in Schweden in den vorigen Jahrhunderten”, in Schlözer August Ludwig (ed.), Neueste Geschichte der Gelehrsamkeit in Schweden vol. 1 (Rostock, Berger und Bödner: 1756) 138–163, here §§ 2–3, 141–142.

870

Roling

declares programmatically, whether the Norse nations had possessed remnants of a revelation, which would make the Edda no longer the object of science, but of religion, or whether it was the ‘light of nature’ that was speaking from the Edda, in which case the Germanic peoples would have gained their knowledge through mere inferences from the natural world.68 In a whole series of disputations Lagerbring puts both possibilities up for discussion. A disputation by Lagerbring on Old Norse eschatology picks up older traditions. What of the Cliff of Death, the precipice described in Gautreks saga from which whole families leapt to their deaths for Odin, did they not provide a perfect example of Old Norse optimism about the afterlife?69 Odin as Alfader and Creator God guaranteed them immortality.70 And what of Módgurdr and the river of the dead, Gjöll, across which the dead Baldur was borne, was this not an unambiguous but permeable border between life and death, just like in Christianity?71 The Old Norse architecture of afterlife and punishment characterised the dichotomy of good and evil even more clearly, Lagerbring insisted. In Nifelheim and the Narstrand, the ‘beach of corpses’ guarded by the dragon Niðhöggr, did the ancient Swedes not possess a clear parallel to Hell,72 just as the Christian paradise found an all too obvious equivalent in Valhalla and Gimle, with its feasts and homage to the sages who bore the sign of Odin, the Geirs Odda?73 The same was true of the Old Norse apocalypse which, right through to the Fimbulvetur, the ‘eternal winter’, seemed to be following stage directions from John’s Apocalypse.74 The Edda, so it seemed at first sight, had laid a foundation by the lumen naturae upon which Christianity had been able to build with ease. In another disputation, Lagerbring cites the trinitarian figurations that Guðmundur Andrésson and Törner had garnered from the doctrine of the soul in the Völuspá.75 With the help of the later Neoplatonists they could indeed be made comprehensible by setting them in a larger context. Cudworth, whose writings had reached Sweden via Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, had showed that 68  Ibidem, §§ 3–4, 143–144. 69  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Hollström Nils (Resp.), Meletema philosophico-historicum de immortalitate mentis ad doctrinam Hyperboreorum (Lund, Berling: 1748), § 1, 1–5. 70  Ibidem, § 2, 5–11. 71  Ibidem, § 3, 14–16. 72  Ibidem, § 4, 17–22. 73  Ibidem, § 5, 22–33. 74  Ibidem, § 6, 33–36. 75  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Dahlmann Olofsson Nicolaus (Resp.), Dissertatio philosophicohistorica de creatione mundi ad doctrinam Hyperboreorum (Lund, Berling: 1752), §§ 11–13, 7–13.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

871

an emblem of the Trinity could be found in the triad of Isis, Osiris, and Horus,76 a prefiguration of the events of salvation that also included a Redeemer, in the figure of Horus, who had overcome the diabolic serpent Tryphon.77 Were there not also similar models among the Orphics and Neoplatonists?78 And Lucian, an expert on the Scythians, as Johannes Matthias Gesner had recently shown, had he not in his dialogue ‘Philopater’ addressed God as aether out of which came both the Son and the Spirit?79 It was against this background of pagan prefigurings that the trinitarian figures of the Edda, too – the sons of Bore, but above all the triad of Odin, Thor, and Freya – were to be understood.80 Lagerbring is no longer prepared to go as far as his compatriot Göransson. Perhaps it was no accident that Thor suffered nine wounds in combat with the Midgard Serpent during the Ragnarök, just as the Saviour had given up the ghost in the ninth hour after the Passion.81 Likewise the custom, documented in the saga literature, of seeking asylum in the temples of Thor or Baldur could have been a historical precursor of to the practice of protection in churches in medieval Sweden.82 However, whether it could be asserted with equal conviction that the final rune Belgthor should be ranked as a reflection of the Virgin Birth, as the pastor Göransson had maintained, is not a claim Lagerbring is ready to make.83 More complex than the doctrine of the Trinity and eschatology are the analogies that Lagerbring is able to find between the Creation story in the Edda and the Christian-philosophical interpretation of the Creation. In Odin the Father of All and Ymir the abyssus and Ginnungagap, so Lagerbring elaborates, the pure, divine actuality and potentiality meet.84 Should we here be talking, the professor from Lund ponders, of a correlative matter, or rather of an absolute 76  Cudworth Ralph, Systema intellectuale huius universi, seu de veris naturae rerum originibus commentarii, translated by Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, 3 vols. (Jena, Meyer: 1733) vol. 1, Liber I, c. 4, § 18, 412–414. 77  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Boraeus Laurentius Johannes (Resp.), Dissertatio problematica an trinitas personarum in Deo gentibus sit cognita (Lund, Berling: 1749), § 3, 3–6. 78  Ibidem, § 5, 8–10. 79  Gesner Johannes Matthias, De aetate et auctore dialogi Lucianaei qui Philopatris incribitur dissertatio (Jena, Bielcke: 1714), there on the “Christian character” of the text §§ 17–21, 23–34. 80   Lagerbring – Boraeus, An trinitas personarum in Deo gentibus sit cognita, § 11, 20–21. 81  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Kemner Johannes Michael (Resp.), Dissertatio gradualis gentium de Christo olim probata testimonia examinans (Lund, Berling: 1750), § 7, 17–18. 82  Lagerbring Sven (Pr.) – Aggrell Olaus (Resp.), Dissertatio historica de priscis per Sueciam asylis (Lund, Berlin: 1775), § 4, 15–18. 83   Lagerbring – Kemner, De Christo olim probata testimonia examinans, § 7, 18–19. 84   Lagerbring – Dahlmann Olofsson, De creatione mundi ad doctrinam Hyperboreorum, § 10, 4–7.

872

Roling

vacuum as the first product of the Creation, a sensorium Dei, as Newton had claimed?85 Could the Edda have been so clearsighted that it anticipated the developments of contemporary physics? Or had it defined matter as principium mali, when it links it to the Fenris Wolf and Loki? In that case, Lagerbring observes, it would admittedly be maintaining a dualistic doctrine and would have left Christianity behind.86 3

Old Norse Paracelsism: Gustaf Bonde’s Edda

Just how far a Christianising reading of the Edda could still go in Sweden is shown by some examples from the latter eighteenth century. Uppsala’s then university chancellor and head of the mining college, Gustaf Bonde, had also made a name for himself as the author of Paracelsist-Hermetic works.87 A work by Bonde on alchemy bears the title Clavicula hermeticae scientiae ab hyperboreo consignata. The arcane knowledge of alchemical transmutation was, Bonde suggests at the start, identical to the content of the ‘Golden Tablets’, the Gullnar toplur, of which the Völuspá had told. The sages had carved this knowledge in stone before the Flood, in order to pass it on in hieroglyphic form via the Egyptians onward to the Scythians.88 Of course Zalmoxis and Abaris had possessed this wisdom.89 The contents of this secret doctrine, which must have been present also in the Edda, Bonde explains, included the correspondence of microcosm and macrocosm and the ternary structure of the creation, in which, as was to be expected, a triad of anima mundi and sol, spiritus, and chaotic hyle corresponded to the human ternary of soul, spiritus vivens, and body.90 Bonde attempts to undergird this eccentric synthesis of Norse primeval tradition and Paracelsism in a series of disputations, which were held from 1760 onwards under the aegis of the economist Claes Blechert Trozelius.91 At 85  Ibidem, § 10, 4–7. 86  Ibidem, § 14, 13–14. 87  On Gustaf Bonde as alchemist and supporter of paracelsism see Åkerman S., Fenixelden. Drottning Kristina som alkemist (Möklinta: 2013) 256–266, and esp. Edenborg C.M., Gull och Mull. Den monstruöse Gustaf Bonde (Lund: 1997) 126–159. 88  Bonde Gustaf, Clavicula hermeticae scientiae ab hyperboreo quodam horis subsecivis calamo consignata – La clavicule de la science hermétique écrite par un habitant du nord, dans ses heures de loisir (Amsterdam, Casimir Müller: 1751) fol. A2r., Latin and French 24–25, 28–29. 89  Ibidem, Latin and French, 8–9. 90  Ibidem, Latin and French, 16–19, 66–67. 91  Trozelius Claes (Pr.) – Tegnér Esaias (Resp.) – Fagerlin Magnus B. (Resp.) – Lindgren Johannes P. (Resp.) – Samuelsson Esaias (Resp.) – Lundborg Paulus (Resp.) – Nyman

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

873

the centre of these works was the reading of the natural order proposed by Bernhard Nieuwentijd and other physico-theologians of the time, which saw in all spheres of the order of creation the working of the great divine world reason, whether it be in the harmonious arrangement of the planets or the economical architecture of the honeycomb.92 A Paracelsian triad of Kopp, Ande, and Siel – body, spirit, and soul – had always been an element of the primordial philosophy, Bonde claimed, and had been passed down as Cabala from the Egyptians, Chaldaeans, and Chinese to the first Goths.93 Since this system included an anima sensitiva, its ternary view of the body-soul relation could, in Bonde’s opinion, be offered in opposition to the mechanistic worldview of a La Mettrie, which had emerged as the final logical consequence of Cartesian dualism.94 The afterlife and immortality that was propagated equally by the Hermetics, kabbalists, and Paracelsists had its correspondence in the Old Norse Glysisvall, that is, Elysium.95 Bonde’s eccentric synthesis of Paracelsism, kabbalah, and belief in a primordial Nordic tradition was given a different twist in another heterogeneous treatise of his, from 1760, which received very much more attention. One more time Bonde begins with the Paracelsic, and for him also proto-Swedish, doctrine of the soul, which was the heart of the Nordic philosophy. The biblical triad of Ruah, Nefesh, and Neshama, the three manifestations of the soul, corresponded directly to the triad of anima, spiritus, and corpus, as formulated by the

Andreas (Resp.) – Tengberg Petrus (Resp.) – Hjertzell Johannes Hinrich (Resp.) – Enberg Hezekiel (Resp.) – Engstrand Jonas (Resp.) – Engstrand Daniel (Resp.) – Sundborg Knut (Resp.) – Kjelin Adolf Fredrik (Resp.) – Blohm Petrus (Resp.), Tankar om Guds underverk uti Naturen (Lund, Berling: 1761–71). A part of this chain appeared under a different title, namely Kong. Majest och Riksens Råd […] Herr Gustav Bondes Tankar om Guds Underverk uti Naturen. The whole text consisted of a treatise of Bonde, which first existed as a manuscript, see Bonde Gustaf, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, som man them sjelf klokom till någon del föreställa tänkar genom Guds bistånd (1749) (Stiftsbiblioteket Linköping, MS. T 100). 92   Trozelius – Lindgren, Tankar om Guds underverk, about stars see: Pars I, c. 7, 17–19, in manu­script Bonde, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, Pars I, c. 7, 10–13, Trozelius – Tengberg, Bondes Tankar om Guds underverk, there on the honeycombs, Pars I, c. 20, 51–58, in manuscript Bonde, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, Pars I, c. 20, 72–86. 93   Trozelius – Engstrand, Tankar om Guds underverk, Pars III, c. 1, 3–8, in manuscript Bonde, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, Pars III, c. 1, 174–183; Trozelius – Sundborg, Bondes Tankar om Guds underverk, Pars III, c. 2, 8–11, in manuscript Bonde, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, Pars III, c. 2, 184–190. 94   Trozelius – Enberg, Bondes Tankar om Guds underverk, Pars II, c. 1, 73–82, in manuscript Bonde, Guds Underwärk i Naturen, Pars II, c. 1, 112–124. 95   Trozelius – Blohm, Bondes Tankar om Guds underverk, Pars III, c. 9, 31–32.

874

Roling

Paracelsists.96 How were these correspondences to be explained? Bonde, too, attempted to inscribe the Scytho-Goths into the story of salvation. It was not just that the biblical cast of characters, as was to be expected, were reflected in ancient mythology, and thus the figure of Seth had found its match in Thoth or Mercury, or Tubal-Kain in that of Vulcan; the biblical figures had echoes also in the North. Noah, Necken, and Neptune were one; Hercules, or rather Asa-kolle, was the ‘Warrior of the Æsir’, and so at once recognisable as a Scythian.97 The Scythian descendants of Japhet, Bonde believed, must have been inhabitants of the Holy Land right from the start. The ur-Goths had been the goyim of the Bible, the Scythopolis mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees had been one of their cities, and even the King of Jerusalem, Melchisedech, so Bonde fabulated, had been a Goth.98 Through their close connection with the Israelites, the forefathers of the Swedes had been continuously involved in the knowledgetransfer of philosophia perennis: in the symbol-drenched wisdom of Hermes, which in the year 2722 after the Creation had been carved onto the Golden Column in Egypt, but also in the Kabbalah, whose arcane knowledge had been transmitted in the Liber gloriae, the Zohar, and the Liber Mezahab. Here, Bonde insists, Johan Göransson had provided the essential theses. Could it be mere chance, wondered Bonde, that the first seven words of the Creation story consist of 7 × 3 letters, setting down a marker for the Trinity of the Elohim?99 4

Two Last Examples: Friedrich Mozelius and Olaus Westman

As a medium to treat the Edda and its secrets the university disputations remained the crucial instrument. Friedrich Mozelius, an Uppsala theologian with a decidedly enlightened outlook, in his 1755 Philosophia Suio-Gothorum summed up one more time the basic theses of the Norse-Christian amalgam. The first Japhetite-Scythian immigrants had still been committed to monotheism; this cult had been expressed in the worship of the Alfader.100 In Odin, Thor, and Freya, as was to be expected, it was the Trinity that was worshiped: Odin as deus omnipotens, Thor as deus mediator, whose Christlike nature as mediator was supported by the signs of the cross on the runestones, and Freya,

96  Choraelius Eric (Gustaf Bonde), Utkast til en Jämnförselse emellan den Bibliska och Werldliga Historien (Stockholm, Lars Salvius: 1760), Praefatio, 5*–10*. 97  Ibidem, c. 2, 4–14, and see 2 Maccabean, 12, 29. 98  Ibidem, c. 5, 19–27, c. 9, 42–46. 99  Ibidem, c. 7, 35–38, c. 11, 72–76. 100  Mozelius Friedrich (Pr.) – Wahlberg Martin (Resp.), Dissertatio historico-litteraria de philosophia veterum Suio-Gothorum (Strängnäs, Collin: 1755), c. 1, § 2, 3–7, c. 2, § 1, 23–24.

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

875

finally, as Holy Spirit.101 The story of the Fall found a parable-like echo in the killing of Baldur, whom the Satanic principle Loki had driven to perdition.102 All these elements of a Nordic proto-Christianity would then, step by step, be converted by the rise of polytheism and the astral cult, introduced above all by the historical Odin, into its opposite in a theologia ab Odino perversa.103 When, finally, Olaus Westman, freemason and rector of the Gymnasium at Gothenburg in 1779 addressed the Edda in his History of Philosophy of Sweden,104 he tends in the same direction as his predecessors, even though he strikes a more modest tone. According to Westman, the involucra of the Edda, the allegories that had been passed on by the Skalds, were known to have concealed knowledge of the immortal soul and the Alfader, the Creator God.105 But, he adds, a more telling mark of the ancient North-Germanic peoples’ knowledge is the knowledge of natural science that was transmitted encoded in the genealogies. Fornjoter, the supposed ancestor of the Fundinn Noregr, stood for the principle of the earth, the descendants Aegir, Kare, and Loge for the primordial elements water, air, and fire. From Kare came the children Froste and Jokull, that is, ice. The son of Froste, Snorr, or mountain snow, begat Torre, as well as the daughters Prifva, Miöll, and Fönn, the more lowly variants of snow. From Loge, fire, came Glöd, embers, and Eisa and Einmyria, coal and ash. Did this not clearly reveal that the transformation chains of the natural world were understood through metaphors?106 The wisdom of the Edda had already contained the knowledge of physics, and it had been passed down across all the epochs. 5

Conclusion

In the end, a curious impression may have arisen. Today we should not make the mistake of thinking that the Edda were treated from the start as an object of literary or religious history. It was men like Schlözer in Göttingen or the Brothers Grimm who would succeed in arriving at such a point of view, but it would take substantial time and effort before their views managed to become 101  Ibidem, c. 2, § 2, 24–28. 102  Ibidem, c. 2, § 3, 28–32. 103  Ibidem, c. 2, § 4, 32–34. 104  On Westman as praeses of disputations in Gothenburg see now the masterly study of Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820 (Gothenburg: 2018) 128–129. On Westman’s freemasonry see Westman Olof, Tal hållna i Salomoniska fri-murare logen uti Götheborg (Gothenburg, Samuel Norberg: 1786) passim. 105  Westman Olavus O. (Pr.) – Stamberg Andreas Henricus (Resp.), Dissertatio de fatis philosophiae in Suecia, particula prima (Uppsala, Johannes Edman: 1779), c. 1, §§ 2–4, 5–9. 106  Ibidem, c. 1, § 5, 10–13.

876

Roling

established in nineteenth-century Sweden. There it was far more appealing to the country’s own national self-image to accept the model that Rudbeck and his supporters had offered. All philosophy, all mythology had been founded in Sweden, the home of the Goths; Sweden had thus stood at the beginning of all culture. With this premise, it must have been easy in disputations to treat the Edda, the most important witness to this pre-classical civilisation, not as the product of a half-Christian North-Germanic Middle Ages, but as the Corpus Hermeticum or the Kabbalah; that is, like prize records of what was thus a primordial Swedish philosophy set down by a primeval caste of scholars, the skalds. I have given here a series of examples of such extravagant exaggerations. They were the expression of a sense of superiority that was being aired in many variants at the Swedish universities until the end of the eighteenth century. As a grand narrative of the nation’s own brilliance, as a self-confirmation of national superiority, this constructed history of philosophy had survived even the loss of Sweden’s great power status at the end of the Northern War. Select Bibliography Anttila T., The Power of Antiquity. The Hyperborean Research Tradition in Early Modern Swedish Research on National Antiquity (Oulu: 2015). Åkerman S., Fenixelden. Drottning Kristina som alkemist (Möklinta: 2013). Bollerup E., “Lagerbrings Svea Rikes Historia. Tillkomst, utgivning, motagande”, Scandia 36 (1970) 298–332. Burman C., Folk jag aldrig mött. Porträtt (Stockholm: 2011). Ebel U., “Studien zur Rezeption der ‘Edda’ in der Neuzeit”, in idem, Gesammelte Schriften zur skandinavischen Literatur, vol. 3: Zur Renaissance des ‘Germanischen’ vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Metelen: 2001) 19–78. Edenborg C.M., Gull och Mull. Den monstruöse Gustaf Bonde (Lund: 1997). Egardh J., Prosten Göransson. En sägenomspunnen värmlandspräst (Stockholm: 1935). Eriksson G., The Atlantic Vision. Olaus Rudbeck and Baroque Science (Canton: 1994). Eriksson G., Rudbeck 1630–1702. Liv, lärdom, dröm i barockens Sverige (Stockholm: 2002). Eriksson G., Historia och naturalhistoria hos Olof Rudbeck, in Broberg G. – Eriksson G. (eds.), I Idéhistoriens virvlar. Festskrift till Rolf Lindborg (Stockholm: 1991) 29–60. Eriksson N., Dalin – Botin – Lagerbring. Historieforskning och historieskrivning i Sverige 1747–1787 (Gothenburg: 1973). Finnur Jónsson, Udsigt over den norsk-islandske filologis historie (Kopenhagen: 1918). Hallberg P., Ages of Liberty. Social Upheavel, History Writing, and the New Public Sphere in Sweden, 1740–1792 (Stockholm: 2003).

Atlantic Uppsala: Paganism and Old Norse Literature

877

Hamberg E., Olof Knös och 1700-talets lärda samlarkultur. Studier kring förmedling och samlade av böcker i Sverige under den gustavianska tiden (Gothenburg: 1985). Henningsen B., Die schwedische Konstruktion einer nordischen Identität durch Olof Rudbeck (Berlin: 1997). Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820 (Gothenburg: 2018). Huhtamies M., Pohjolan Atlantis. Uskomattomia ideoita itämerellä (Helsinki: 2014). King D., Finding Atlantis. A True Story of Genius, Madness, and an Extraordinary Quest for a Lost World (New York: 2005). Lindberg B., “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39. Lindberg S.G., “‘Den ädle vilden’. Om skyterna i svensk historieskrivning”, Fenix. Tidskrift för humanism 12 (1996) 28–60. Lindroth S., Svensk Lärdomshistoria, 4 vols. (Stockholm: 1975). Nordström J., De yverbornes ö. Sextonhundratalsstudier (Stockholm: 1934). Östlund K., “Några nedslag i disputationsväsendet under 1700-talet – exemplet Johan Ihre”, Sjuttonhundratal (2006/07) 151–167. Roling B., “Akademischer Hyperboreer-Kult. Rudbeckianische Disputationen zwischen Netzwerkbildung und nationaler Überhöhung”, in Gindhart M. – Marti H. – Seidel R. (eds.), Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne – Weimar – Vienna: 2016) 199–216. Sahlin C.Y., “Om det akademiska disputationsväsendet med särskildt afseende på Upsala Universitet”, Nordisk universitets-tidskrift 2 (1856) 48–93. Sallander H., “Vår första lärdomshistoria. Några anteckningar om Anders Anton von Stiernmans ‘Tal om the Lärda Vettenskapers tillstånd i Svearike under Hedendoms och Påvedoms tiden’”, Lychnos (1941) 230–247. Schmidt-Voges I., De antiqua claritate. Gotizismus als Identitätsmodell im frühneuzeitlichen Schweden (Frankfort on the Main: 2004). Stenroth I., Myten om goterna. Från antiken till romantiken (Stockholm: 2002). Svenbro J., “‘L’idéologie ‘gothisante’ et l’Atlantica d’Olof Rudbeck. Le mythe platonicien de l’Atlantide au service de l’Empire suédois du XVII siècle”, Quaderni di storia 6 (1980) 121–156. Svennung J., Zur Geschichte des Gotizismus (Stockholm: 1967). Wallette A., Sagans svenskar. Synen på vikingatiden och de isländska sagorna under 300 år (Malmö: 2004). Wallette A., “Lagerbring och jakten på den fornnordiska religionen”, in Raudvere C. – Andrén A. – Jennbert K. (eds.), Hedendomen i historiens spegel. Bilder av det förkristna Norden (Lund: 2005) 57–81.

Chapter 33

Disputations and Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium Axel Hörstedt Summary During the early modern period, disputation culture was an important part of the whole Swedish education system, from top to bottom. The first gymnasia in Sweden were founded in the 1620s in cathedral towns. Initially, these gymnasia were nodes of learning that attracted pupils from around the region. The purpose of the gymnasia was to educate church officials as well as administrative personnel, creating a bridge between lower education and the academy. Therefore, disputations held at the Swedish gymnasia were – just as disputations at universities – an important part of the education, in which pupils trained their efficiency in oral Latin as well as showing proof of their learning and ability to argue. Methodologically, this article is based on a genre study of nearly eight hundred printed dissertations issued in different gymnasia from the period 1620–1820. In the seventeenth century, these gymnasial dissertations were strikingly similar to academic dissertations, e.g. by being equipped with the same kinds of peritexts, such as dedications, dedicatory epistles and congratulatory verses. However, the structure of the eighteenth century gymnasial dissertations changed drastically to constitute short theses-dissertations of four pages each. By the nineteenth century disputations were no longer considered as a relevant educational method, marking a shift in educational norms.

1

Introduction

It is an unquestionable fact that disputations and dissertations – i.e. the printed or handwritten specimen as basis for the oral defence act – were essential components in academic life during the Swedish early modern period. However, disputations were held in various contexts in this period of time in Sweden, not only in academic environment such as in student nations1 or 1  Student nations were – and still are – fraternities in Uppsala and Lund made up of students from the same region.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004436206_034

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

879

pro exercitio and pro gradu at universities.2 Indeed, disputations were important elements also in synods and – later – in the examen pastorale, as well as in lower education and in the gymnasium. Until recently, Swedish scholarly attention has been focused on academic disputation culture and dissertations, while little attention has been paid to the vivid culture of disputation in the Swedish gymnasia.3 Gymnasial dissertations and disputation culture deserve more scholarly attention. Many prominent members of the early modern Swedish Academia began their career – as pupils or as teachers – at a gymnasium, which makes gymnasial dissertations a good but yet neglected source of history of ideas and knowledge and of personal history. Disputations were an intrinsic part of the whole Swedish education system, from the bottom to the top. This article will give a brief overview of the practice of disputation in the early modern Swedish gymnasium, from the beginning of the 1620s to the first decades of the nineteenth century. Before turning to the heart of the matter some words need to be said about the sources. The primary material for disputations held at Swedish gymnasia consists of printed – and to a lesser degree also handwritten – Latin dissertations kept in various libraries and archives all around in Sweden, of which the most comprehensive collections are found in the University Library of the University of Uppsala (Carolina Rediviva) and in the Royal Library in Stockholm.4 Earlier, gymnasial dissertations have been registered in Johan Henrik Lidén’s Catalogus disputationum in academiis et gymnasiis Sveciae (1778–1780) and in Gabriel Marklin’s Catalogus disputationum in academiis Scandinaviae et Finlandiae Lidenianus continuatus (1820) – however, both these lists of gymnasial dissertations stop in the late 1770s. My investigation 2  Good overviews of academic disputations and dissertations in early modern Sweden are found in Lindberg B., “Den lärda kulturen”, in Christensson J. (ed.), Signums svenska kulturhis­ toria: Frihetstiden (Lund: 2006) 97–141, idem, “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar, Scripta Minora Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis 16 (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39, Östlund K., “Några nedslag i disputationsväsendet under 1700-talet – exemplet Johan Ihre”, Sjuttonhundratal (2006/2007) 151–167, Sjökvist P., “Att förvalta ett arv – dissertationerna på Södertörn, nylatin och exemplet Harald Vallerius”, in Jansson E. (ed.), En bok om böcker och bibliotek tillägnad Louise Brunes (Huddinge: 2009) 95–119, and Burman L., Eloquent Students. Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663–2010 (Uppsala: 2012). 3  The first comprehensive study of gymnasial dissertations and disputations is Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium c. 1620–c. 1820. A Study of a Latin School Tradition, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Gothenburg: 2018). 4  There are also important collections of dissertations for instance in the University Library in Lund, in the Diocesenal Library in Västerås, in the University Library of the University of Gothenburg and in the Rogge Library in Strängnäs.

880

Hörstedt

of printed dissertations comprises a little less than eight hundred printed dissertations extant from the beginning of the 1620s to the end of the eighteenth century, and there are undoubtedly a few more that have not been included – primarily from 1800 to 1820.5 This said, the material is thus considerably more limited than the Swedish academic dissertations from the same period of time. A scholar interested in gymnasial dissertations may unfortunately have some difficulties finding them, since the material may be catalogued in various ways, if even properly catalogued in diocesenal and gymnasial libraries and archives, for example theses/dissertationes gymasticae, theses/dissertationes consistoria­ les, disputationer inför domkapitlet, gymnasialdissertationer, or simply theses. In addition to dissertations, valuable information on disputation culture at the gymnasia is found in national as well as in regional school regulations, in memoirs, in letters, in school protocols and in notes by opponents.6 2

Background: the Swedish Gymnasium

The first Swedish gymnasia were founded in the early 1620s, in Västerås in 1623 by bishop Johannes Rudbeckius, followed by the gymnasium in Strängnäs in 1626, founded by bishop Laurentius Paulinus Gothus.7 During the course of the seventeenth century more gymnasia were founded in different parts of the Swedish realm.8 A gymnasium was under the control of the consistory with the bishop as its ephorus (‘inspector’ or ‘supervisor’) and was located in a cathedral town, since it was considered that towns that had a university did not need a gymnasium.9 The gymnasia became learned regional melting pots that attracted pupils, students and church officials from within the diocese as

5  For a detailed catalogue of printed gymnasial dissertations, see appendices in Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 322–502. 6  See Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 20–21 for further discussion of sources to disputations held at Swedish gymnasia. 7  On the earliest gymnasia in Västerås and Strängnäs, see Kallstenius G., “Allmänna läroverket i Västerås historik”, in Camenae Arosienses (Västerås: 1923) 13–100, and Falk A., “Strängnäs gymnasiums historia”, in Falk A. (ed.), Regium Gustavianum Strengnense MDCXXVI–MCMXXVI (Strängnäs: 1926) 3–340. 8  Other towns where gymnasia were founded are for instance Linköping (1627), Åbo/Turku (Finland 1630–1640), Dorpat/Tartu (Estonia 1630–1632), Skara (1641), Växjö (1643) and Gothenburg (1648). Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 30–32 (with further references). 9  Sandberg E., Västerås gymnasium. Från stiftsgymnasium till borgerligt läroverk (Västerås: 1994) 52.

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

881

well as from other parts of the country.10 When the gymnasia were first introduced there were no school regulations with national coverage. Instead, each gymnasium had its own local constitutions that governed the curriculum content and the teaching.11 In 1649 the so-called school regulations of Queen Christina were established to control the new gymnasia. In these school regulations the interposition of gymnasia between lower education and university was emphasised.12 It should be mentioned, however, that disputations were conducted already in the schools existing before the concept of gymnasium was introduced, as mentioned in the school regulations of 1611. Concerning the period under investigation, the important and comprehensive school regulations of 1649 were followed by new regulations in 1693, 1724, 1807 and 1820. The curriculum of the Swedish gymnasia is best described as Latin with strong theological content, which means that the study of classical languages (Latin, Greek and Hebrew in that order) and theology stand out as the most important subjects. This is not surprising since the overall purpose of the gymnasia was to educate church officials, school men and administrative personnel to the state who needed training in the Latin language, rhetoric and theology.13 According to the school regulations of 1649 a full-sized gymnasium had seven lectores (first and second lector in theology, a lector in physics and logic, one in rhetoric and eloquence, one in history and poetry, one in Greek and finally one in mathematics).14 Although the content of gymnasia was set for the centuries to come with the school regulations of 1649, changes were made in later regulations. In the eighteenth century the natural sciences became more pronounced in the content of study, even though classical languages and theology remained the significantly most important features of the gymnasium. A few noticeable differences between an early modern university and a gymnasium were on the one hand that the gymnasium had no right to award 10  Askmark R., Svensk prästutbildning fram till år 1700 (Stockholm: 1943) 111–112. 11  Examples of local constitutions are Leges et constitutiones illustris gymnasii scholaeque Arosiensis from Västerås 1628 (ed. by Brolén 1895), Constitutiones collegii Strengnensis from Strängnäs second half of the 1620s (ed. by Thyselius 1841) and Methodus didactica in collegio Aboënsi from Åbo/Turku early 1630s (ed. Tengström J. 1799). 12  In the school regulations of 1649 the following is being stated on the division of educational levels: ‘Loca studiis tractandis destinata sunt in triplici differentia: summa, Academias; proxima, Gymnasia; ima, Scholas triviales appellamus. […] Quum gymnasia inter scholas triviales et academias medio sint loco, ita lectiones et exercitia eorum adtemperare oportet, ut scholasticis paulo altiora, inferiora vero sint academicis’. School regulations of 1649, 46 and 99. The school regulations of early modern Sweden (henceforth SR) have been edited by B. Rudolf Hall in several volumes which are listed in the bibliography. 13  Sandberg E., Västerås gymnasium 52–55, and Askmark R., Svensk prästutbildning 108–116. 14  See the SR of 1649 edited by Hall in ÅSU 4, 19, 1921.

882

Hörstedt

academic degrees, and on the other hand the great weight that was attached to theology in the gymnasial course of study. At the university, on the contrary, theology was not included in the curriculum of the preparatory faculty of philosophy, but was a matter solely for the higher faculty of theology.15 Location, curriculum, purpose and control of gymnasia stress the fact that Swedish education was a concern of the church that had what might be called a monopoly of public education in Sweden until the middle of the nineteenth century.16 Local and national regulations are among the most important sources for our knowledge of how and to what extent disputations were arranged at the gymnasia. 3

Disputations in the Gymnasium – A Long-Lived Tradition

In the pre-gymnasial school regulations of 1611, disputation exercises were prescribed to be held on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The exercises held Wednesday afternoons were on excerpts from Latin grammar, gradually raised in difficulty, while the exercises held Saturday mornings were proper disputations, supervised on a rota between the rector, the conrector and the (only) lector of theology.17 If we turn to the local regulations and constitutions from different gymnasia, we notice that the rules surrounding disputations were emphasised to a higher degree than in the school regulations of 1611. The Leges and constitutiones illustris gymnasii Arosiensis from Västerås (1628) may be used as an example of the local constitutions: It is stressed in the Leges and constitutiones that he who wanted to try his skills in a disputation had to hand over his theses to the dean of the gymnasium eight days before for the dean to approve them and then he (the respondent) nailed them to the door of the upper auditorium.18 During the disputation, the Leges et constitutiones continues, the participants should discuss the matter clearly, modestly and from memory, and no one participating in the disputation – nor the audience – should go beyond the boundaries of good manners by being sarcastic or making mockery, especially not the praeses himself who should not harass the

15  L indberg B., Den akademiska läxan. Om föreläsningens historia (Stockholm: 2017) 30–31. 16  T  havenius J., Modersmål och fadersarv. Svenskämnets traditioner i historien och nuet (Järfälla: 1988) 77–78. 17  S R of 1611, ÅSU 4, 35. 18  Leges et constitutiones in Brolén (ed.) 9: ‘Si quis disputare voluerit, octiduo ante theses easque breves et perspicuas Gymnasii Decano exhibebit eoque approbante januae superioris auditorii affiget’.

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

883

opponent, who, in turn, would be severely punished if he did not behave well.19 The similarities to other local constitutions are striking in the stress of rules of conduct during disputations. Worth noting is that both the local constitutions from Strängnäs and Åbo/Turku highlight that absence from disputations was punished in different ways, which suggests that disputations were indeed seen as important events.20 Regarding lower education in scholae triviales, the school regulations of 1649 describe disputations with words such as concertatiunculae (‘small disputations or controversies’) and velitationes (‘skirmishes with words’), indicating that these exercises were preparations for the disputations that the pupils would later encounter at the gymnasium.21 The purpose of these small exercises was also to invoke competition between the schoolboys, and by choosing equally skilled boys to partake as respondent and opponent, the teacher could make sure that their learning was promoted.22 The teacher, in his capacity of praeses for these events, should lead the interrogation between the schoolboys, keep the discussion from degenerating into quarrels, correct the answers, and decide whether the critique was legitimate or not.23 For the gymnasium’s part, the school regulations of 1649 are not as detailed concerning the arrangement of disputations. Instead, focus is on the content of disputation exercises: In materia eligenda ea opus est prudentia, ut illa duntaxat assumantur themata, quae tum captum discipulorum non excedunt, tum magnum in 19  L eges et constitutiones in Brolén (ed.) 9: ‘[…] atque tam hic [sc. respondens] quam illi [sc. opponentes] distincte, modeste et memoriter loquantur et conferant. Inter disputandum Praeses opponentem non increpet aut durioribus verbis excipiat, secus marcam fisco dabit. […] Nemo vel Lectorum vel scholarium ingenii ostendandi gratia non rogatus vel praesidem interpellet vel opponentis partes defendendas suscipiat, ne exinde aliqua aemulatio et contentio inter Lectores causetur. Si opponens modestiae limites transgressus ad sarcasmos et convitia devenerit, eidem poenae obnoxius esto’. 20  Constitutiones collegii from Strängnäs in Thyselius (ed.) 90: ‘In disputationibus omnes in universum erunt praesentes, sive opponant, sive non. Absentes graviter mulctabuntur’. The Methodus didactica from Åbo/Turku in Tengström (ed.) 40, primarily highlights that if a lector should neglect to hold disputations he was punished: ‘Disputationem si quis non habuerit eo die, quo tangit ipsum ordo, solvet prima vice 4 thal. monetae argenteae; secunda vice 6, tertia 10; at quarta ab officio removebitur’. 21  S R of 1649, ÅSU 4, 83. 22  Ibidem 83–84. 23  Ibidem 84: ‘Initio inferior loco superiorem interroget, et in respondendo errantem corrigere conetur: recte autem an perperam correxerit, decidet praeceptor. […] Providebit autem praeceptor, ne istae concertatiunculae in odia et rixas abeant, sed ut collationi serviant studiorum’.

884

Hörstedt

artibus intelligendis, et regenda vita vsum habent. Vnde in artibus non de generalibus, sed specialibus et praxi ipsi propinquis erunt.24 The choice of topic should be undertaken prudently, so that the subjects would not be beyond the schoolboys’ comprehension, in addition, the subjects should be for the benefit of both educational studies and life. Therefore, in the subjects focus should be on specific questions and on questions that are close to the practice rather than on general propositions. Later regulations only offer small adjustments on the arrangement of disputations. For instance, the following regulations of 1693 state that disputations should be held in syllogistic form.25 A novelty in the regulations of 1724 is that every applicant for a position in a gymnasium was obliged to hold a pro locodisputation.26 Although no school regulations suggest a particular order in which the lectores were obliged to preside over disputations, the investigation of dissertations from early eighteenth century-Strängnäs suggests that there may have been set orders of appearance of the different subjects in different gymnasia. The rotation of Strängnäs runs as follows: theology, mathematics, Greek, history, eloquence, logic/physics and from the beginning again, starting with theology.27 The participants of gymnasial disputations were primarily the members of the teacher staff – as praesides – and the schoolboys – as respondents and opponents. During the seventeenth century, there is usually only one respondent mentioned on the title page of dissertations, which may be compared to the academic praxis. However, in the shorter eighteenth century-dissertations there were up to three respondents. Opponents are not mentioned on the title page of the early dissertations, while they appear alongside the respondents in later dissertations. But not only schoolboys acted as opponents. Teachers, returning university students, or even the bishop himself could act as ordinary or extra-ordinary opponents. In a handwritten theses-dissertation from Härnösand in 1745, there are orations to a total of seven opponents criticising the single respondent.28 By examining several dissertations from the same gymnasium it is possible to notice how schoolboys gradually rose in the 24  Ibidem 104. 25  S R of 1693, ÅSU 7, 13–14. 26  S R of 1724, ÅSU 7, 21. 27  Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 157–158. 28  Gissler Nils (Pr.) – Martin Roland (Resp.), Theses publice ventilandae (manuscript, Här­ nösand: 1745).

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

885

disputation ladder, from second or extra-ordinary opponents to first or sole respondent (sometimes referred to as primipilus ‘best of his class’).29 Having an active part in a disputation appears to have been an important step in the schoolboys’ education. During these events they had the opportunity to show their skills in the art of argumentation. In memoirs, acting in disputations is sometimes mentioned with pride, as not all schoolboys had the opportunity to be selected as respondent or opponents.30 4

Gymnasial Dissertations – From Treatises to Theses

As has already been stated, the gymnasium had no right to award academic degrees. This means that the academic division between dissertations pro ex­ ercitio and pro gradu did not exist in gymnasial context. Rather, we may notice that there are primarily two other types of gymnasial dissertations, namely dissertations exercitii gratia and pro loco. In a sense, all dissertations submitted at a Swedish gymnasium were a case of exercise for the pupils who either participated in the audience or had active roles as respondents or opponents during the disputation. Disputation exercises were preparations for the ones that the pupils would later face as university students. The division of pure exercises and pro loco-dissertations becomes more emphasised by the latter half of the eighteenth century. Some Swedish gymnasia produced more printed dissertations than others. Most notable is the gymnasium in Strängnäs that stands out as having the largest number of dissertations, followed by the gymnasia in Västerås, Gothenburg and Linköping; some gymnasia produced very small numbers of printed dissertations (e.g. Kalmar, Karlstad and Gävle), or even – as far as I know – no printed dissertations at all (Härnösand).31 In other words, there were great differences in terms of production of dissertations, due to differences in size, economy and activity between the gymnasia, and also due to the fact that some 29  Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 142–144. 30  See for instance the memoirs of bishop Anders Rhyzelius in Helander J., Biskop A.O. Rhy­ zelius och hans anteckningar om sitt lefverne (Uppsala: 1904) 17, and Böttiger C.W., Självbio­ grafiska anteckningar. Från skolan och studentlivet, ed. Gamby, E. (Uppsala: 1961) 71–72. 31  The gymnasium in Strängnäs stands for approximately forty six percent of all printed dissertations in my study, if both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are included. If one only takes into consideration the dissertations from the eighteenth century, Strängnäs’ contribution of printed specimen is almost fifty percent of the total number of dissertations. See numbers and discussion in Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 70–76.

886

Hörstedt

gymnasia had access to a printer while other gymnasia did not.32 In some cases it seems that the disputation activity and printing of dissertations depended on the bishop in his capacity as supervisor.33 The fact that there are no printed dissertations from some gymnasia does not, however, mean per se that no disputations were held there; rather it appears that handwritten specimens were used as a basis for the disputations. 5

Topics of Gymnasial Dissertations

Regarding topics of gymnasial dissertations, there is a great variety of subjects, of which theology constitutes by far the greatest part.34 This does not come as a surprise since the curriculum was to a high degree focused on theological matters, due to the overall purpose of education. Most often, dissertations on theology treat fundamental questions of Christian Faith, not seldom excerpted from loci theologici.35 The second most common topics of gymnasial dissertations are related to philosophy, physics and mathematics. In the same breath may also be mentioned the large number of dissertations treating logic and syllogisms.36 Questions related to education and rhetoric constitute a fairly large number of dissertations. It seems that people applying for positions as collegae in lower school forms (scholae triviales) cherished these issues.37 To these main categories of subjects may be added dissertations on history, poetics, philology and exegetics, as well as a few dissertations on more peculiar subjects, such as scurvy, dragons and the Bernicla goose.38 The abovementioned topics are most noticeable in the seventeenth century-material. In the 32  Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 175–178. 33  The revitalisation of the disputation activity at the gymnasium in Strängnäs in the 1760s, after a period of low activity, was the result to the enterprising bishop Jacob Serenius. Annell G., “Lärdomsstaden, gymnasium och djäkneliv: Tiden 1724 till våra dagar”, in Jägerstad H. (ed.), Strängnäs stads historia (Strängnäs: 1959) 608. 34  A fuller discussion of subjects is provided in Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 79–109 and 116–132. 35  Theological dissertations are found in all gymnasia, but especially present in the seventeenth century in the gymnasia of Västerås, Stockholm and Gothenburg. Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 80–86. 36  Two dissertations that treat logic and syllogisms are Saebenius Claudius (Pr.) – Gangius Andreas Erici (Resp.), De categoriis (Västerås: 1663) and Holstenius Johannes (Pr.) – Hesselius Andreas Olai (Resp.), De syllogismo (Västerås: 1666). 37  An example of a pro loco-dissertation treating education is Torpadius Daniel Z. (Pr.) – Boman Zacharias/Lomerinus Petrus (Resp.), De scholis trivialibus (Linköping: 1748). 38  Palmberg Johannes O. (Pr.) – Wahlberg Nicolaus Theodori (Resp.), Exercitatio me­ dica brevissimam scorbuti delineationem exhibens (Strängnäs: 1671), Bolinus Andreas

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

887

eighteenth century, new topics were introduced or emphasised to a greater extent than before, such as experimental physics, the discoveries of the New World and questions related to the usefulness of Latin studies and to the art of disputation.39 6

Question of Authorship

As in many cases of early modern dissertations, there is no all-embracing answer to the question of authorship of gymnasial dissertations. Rather, each text must be analysed separately with regard to its context; sometimes it is fruitful also to take into consideration other texts involving the same people (prae­ ses and respondents) as basis for comparison.40 To my mind, it is especially hard to establish the authorship of the comprehensive dissertations from the seventeenth century since both praeses and respondent may be equally likely to have composed the text. As far as the dissertations exercitii gratia are concerned originating from the eighteenth century and onwards in which sometimes more than one respondent was engaged, the authorship may be attributed either to the lector leading the disputation, or to all of the respondents, who had contributed with one part each of the theses.41 However, as far as pro loco-dissertations are concerned, it is most likely that the person who also applied for the position wrote these. The same applies for the returning university students who acted as respondents (or even as praesides) to gymnasial

(Pr.) – Fabricius Samuel L. (Resp.), De draconibus (Strängnäs: 1695) and Trautzel Daniel (Pr.) – Raam Petrus (Resp.), Berniclas seu anseres Scoticos (Strängnäs: 1694). 39  The experimental sciences are the objective of the many theses-dissertations presided by Stephanus Insulin, lector of physics and logic in Strängnäs in the 1760s and 1770s. These dissertations are often thematic and treat a variety of phenomena related to experimental physics, such as motion, force, weight, heavenly bodies etc. All the dissertations submitted under Insulin are unfortunately titled Theses, which makes it hard to distinguish one from another. In 1793 he was appointed doctor of theology and became bishop of Strängnäs the same year. Topics concerning the New World, history and the usefulness of Latin and the act of disputation are found in dissertations titled Theses or similar from different gymnasia. Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 116–132. 40   See discussion on the authorship question in Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 160–174. 41  There is evidence of the latter of these cases in the letters from Carl Jacob Lundström, who attended the gymnasium in Västerås in the early 1770s. In the letters to his father, Carl Jacob says that he in the autumn of 1772 had been selected to act as respondent on four theses that had written himself.

888

Hörstedt

dissertations and whose duty it was to show their learning in disputations, and the dissertations that had been produced to be used in the teaching.42 7

Diachronic Changes and Social Role

By studying a comprehensive and yet clearly-defined material it is possible to distinguish interesting diachronic changes. Indeed, gymnasial dissertations went through noticeable changes during the period 1620–1820. There are especially in the seventeenth century a great number of comprehensive gymnasial dissertations that by their content and length show resemblance to dissertations submitted at the university.43 Also, seventeenth century-dissertations are sometimes equipped with social peritexts, such as dedications and dedicatory epistles from praeses or respondents, prefaces and congratulatory poetry written by friends and colleagues. Thus, printed gymnasial dissertations were important tools in the social interplay and network building between dedicators and benefactors as well as between equal friends. The use of corol­ laria is also primarily attested in the seventeenth century-material. The early dissertations cover one single subject each and are arranged as continuous texts, similar to academic dissertations in lay-out and ambition. Per contra, this is to be compared to the development and standardization that began in the early eighteenth century and was fully implemented by the early 1750s in all gymnasia – except for Linköping where dissertations were generally more comprehensive almost throughout the whole eighteenth century. Nearly every gymnasial dissertation was by now submitted in the form of theses (or positio­ nes or similar) often covering a variety of subjects (theology, philosophy, history, rhetoric, the importance of Latin studies, natural sciences etc.) in short statements quite similar to the corollaria found in earlier dissertations. Only theses-dissertations treating theology seem to comprise one single subject. Another difference in the eighteenth century-dissertations in comparison to earlier dissertations is that more respondents acted in the same disputation. This is discernible when examining the title pages where up to three respondents (and three opponents) may be mentioned, which is something that does not occur in seventeenth century-dissertations. 42  Hörstedt, Latin Dissertations and Disputations 169 and 172–173. 43  Three such comprehensive dissertations from three different gymnasia are Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Laurentii Bothniensis Johannes (Resp.), De mixtorum ortu et interitu (Västerås 1626), Juhlbeck Johan (Pr.) – Linder Nicolaus (Resp.), De spiritu corporis humani (Strengnensi/Strängnäs 1685) and Martinius Matthias (Pr.) – Nehrman Gustavus (Resp.), De praedestinatione ad vitam aeternam (Viborg 1699) that each are over forty pages.

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

889

It would also be fruitful to further investigate the social aspect of gymnasial dissertations and the importance of them in network building through the study of paratextual features, especially concerning dissertations from the seventeenth century. 8

Epilogue

From what has been said above, gymnasial disputations had their heyday in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. What happened in the nineteenth century? Swedish education began gradually to change according to the utilitarian demands of society, meaning that Latin and disputations were considered as remnants of the past. Demands for oral proficiency in Latin were one aspect that more or less disappeared in the course of the century, rendering Latin disputations superfluous. Still, education tends to cling to old habits, which was also the case in Sweden. Latin continued to be a pronounced subject in the Swedish gymnasial curriculum until the beginning of the twentieth century, despite the severe criticism against it.44 Judging by the school regulations of the nineteenth century (1807, 1820, 1856, 1859 and 1878), disputations as a pedagogical method of learning were diminished gradually by the course of the century. In the school regulations of 1807 it was stated that disputation exercises were the concern only of the lectores of eloquence and of philosophy, who were obliged to preside over disputations in Latin – as often as time permitted – on theses drawn from the material that was explained in their lectures; the purpose of disputations was to exercise the knowledge of the pupils.45 The following school regulations of 1820 mention disputations as one alternative together with general repetition and reading aloud. It was no longer mandatory to hold disputations in Latin; only the lector of eloquence and rhetoric was obliged to conduct disputations in Latin, the other teachers were free to choose language.46 In later regulations disputations as exercise for pupils are not mentioned at all. One type of disputation did however survive and was in use throughout the nineteenth century, namely the disputation pro loco. Until the beginning of the twentieth century the lector designate had to submit a dissertation and hold a

44  Tengström E., Latinet i Sverige. Om bruket av latin bland klerker och scholares, diplomater och poeter, lärdomsfolk och vältalare (Lund: 1973), 100–105. 45  S R 1807, ÅSU 7, 103 and 109. 46  S R 1820, ÅSU 9, 9.

890

Hörstedt

public disputation in a language suitable for the applied position in the presence of the consistory to earn a lectureship at a Swedish gymnasium.47 Bibliography Sources Dissertations

Bolinus Andreas (Pr.) – Fabricius Samuel L. (Resp.), De draconibus (Strängnäs, B. Joh. Billingsley: 1695). Gissler Nils (Pr.) – Martin Roland (Resp.), Theses publice ventilandae (manuscript, Härnösand: 1745) in MS Martiniana D 29 (Uppsala University Library). Holstenius Johannes (Pr.) – Hesselius Andreas Olai (Resp.), De syllogismo (Västerås, Eucharius Lauringerus: 1666). Juhlbeck Johan (Pr.) – Linder Nicolaus (Resp.), De spiritu corporis humani (Strängnäs, Zacharias Asp: 1685). Martinius Matthias (Pr.) – Nehrman Gustavus (Resp.), De praedestinatione ad vitam aeternam (Viborg, Widua M. Syngmanni: 1699). Palmberg Johannes O. (Pr.) – Wahlberg Nicolaus Theodori (Resp.), Exercitatio medica brevissimam scorbuti delineationem exhibens (Strängnäs, Zacharias Brockenius: 1671). Rudbeckius Johannes (Pr.) – Laurentii Bothniensis Johannes (Resp.), De mixtorum ortu et interitu (Västerås, Olaus Olai: 1626). Saebenius Claudius (Pr.) – Gangius Andreas Erici (Resp.), De categoriis (Västerås, Eucharius Lauringerus: 1663). Torpadius Daniel Z. (Pr.) – Boman Zacharias/Lomerinus Petrus (Resp.), De scholis trivi­ alibus (Linköping, impressum Lincopiae [Gabriel Biörckegren]: 1748). Trautzel Daniel (Pr.) – Raam Petrus (Resp.), Berniclas seu anseres Scoticos (Strängnäs, B. Joh. Billingsley: 1694).



School Regulations

School regulations of 1611 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU ) 4, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1921) 25–40. School regulations of 1649 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU) 4, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1921) 42–111. School regulations of 1693 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU) 7, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1922) 1–15.

47  See for instance the SR of 1878, the last of the nineteenth century, in SR 1878, ÅSU 22, 23–26.

Dissertations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium

891

School regulations of 1724 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU) 7, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1922) 17–65. School regulations of 1807 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU) 7, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1922) 67–122. School regulations of 1820 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU ) 9, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1923) 1–96. School regulations of 1878 in Årsböcker i svensk undervisningshistoria (ÅSU) 22, ed. Hall B. R. (Lund: 1927) 1–52.



Other Sources

Böttiger C.W., Självbiografiska anteckningar. Från skolan och studentlivet, ed. Gamby E. (Uppsala: 1961). “Constitutiones collegii Strengnensis”, in Thyselius P.E. (ed.), Handlingar rörande sven­ ska kyrkans och läroverkens historia 2 (Örebro: 1841) 79–103. Helander, J., Biskop A. O. Rhyzelius och hans anteckningar om sitt lefverne (Uppsala: 1904). “Leges et constitutiones illustris gymnasii scholaeque Arosiensis”, in Brolén C.A. (ed.), Bidrag till Vesterås läroverks historia II (sine loco: 1895) 9–31. Letters from Carl Jacob Lundström to Anders Lundström ( father), Västerås 27 October 1772–15 December 1772 in the Anders Lundström collection in Stora Enso ABs arkiv, Arkivcentrum Dalarna (Falun). “Methodus didactica in collegio Aboënsi, in quo tota encyclopedia philosophiae, cum linguis Latina, Graeca et Hebraica, ac theologia, a professoribus sex proponitur”, in Tengström Jacobus (Pr.) – Hjelt A.R. (Resp.), Dissertationis academicae vitam et merita M. Isaaci B. Rothovii expositurae particulam III: tiam […] publicae disquisitioni subjiciunt (Åbo/Turku: 1799).



Secondary Literature

Annell G., “Lärdomsstaden, gymnasium och djäkneliv: Tiden 1724 till våra dagar” in Jägerstad H. (ed.), Strängnäs stads historia (Strängnäs: 1959) 603–638. Askmark R., Svensk prästutbildning fram till år 1700 (Stockholm: 1943). Burman L., Eloquent Students. Rhetorical Practices at the Uppsala Student Nations 1663– 2010 (Uppsala: 2012). Falk A., “Strängnäs gymnasiums historia”, in Falk A. (ed.), Regium Gustavianum Strengnense MDCXXVI–MCMXXVI (Strängnäs: 1926) 3–340. Hörstedt A., Latin Dissertations and Disputations in the Early Modern Swedish Gymnasium. A Study of a Latin School Tradition c. 1620–c. 1820, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Gothenburg: 2018). Kallstenius G., “Allmänna läroverket i Västerås historik”, in Camenae Arosienses (Västerås: 1923) 13–100.

892

Hörstedt

Lindberg B., “Den lärda kulturen”, in Christensson J. (ed.), Signums svenska kulturhisto­ ria: Frihetstiden (Lund: 2006) 97–141. Lindberg B., “Om dissertationer”, in Sjökvist P. (ed.), Bevara för framtiden. Texter från en seminarieserie om specialsamlingar, Scripta Minora Bibliothecae Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis 16 (Uppsala: 2016) 13–39. Lindberg B., Den akademiska läxan. Om föreläsningens historia (Stockholm: 2017). Östlund K., “Några nedslag i disputationsväsendet under 1700-talet – exemplet Johan Ihre”, Sjuttonhundratal (2006/2007) 151–167. Sandberg E., Västerås gymnasium. Från stiftsgymnasium till borgerligt läroverk (Västerås: 1994). Sjökvist P., “Att förvalta ett arv – dissertationerna på Södertörn, nylatin och exemplet Harald Vallerius”, in Jansson E. (ed.), En bok om böcker och bibliotek tillägnad Louise Brunes (Huddinge: 2009) 95–119. Thavenius J., Modersmål och fadersarv. Svenskämnets traditioner i historien och nuet (Järfälla: 1988).

Index Nominum Abraham ibn Ezra 795 Acoluthus, Andreas 457, 460, 466, 468 Adalbert, Saint 592 Adam of Bremen 859, 863, 864 Adam, Andreas 268, 275, 279 Adam, Melchior 343, 344 Addison, Joseph 175, 176, 183 Adolph Frederick (King of Sweden) 868 Aelian 718, 722 Aelius Aristides 793, 797, 798 Aenelius, Georgius 706, 753 Aeschylus 784, 800 Aesop 494, 566 Agricola, Rudolphus 374, 376 Aland, Magnus Magni 688 Alanus, Georg 640 Albategnius 248 Albertini, Johann Baptist 447 Albrecht (Margrave of Brandenburg) 584, 592 Alexander the Great (King of Macedonia) 661, 818, 831 Alexander Numenius 793 Alexanderson, Aron Martin 786 Alfarghani 238, 248, 251 Alinus, Johannes 663 Alsted, Johann Heinrich 644, 733, 745, 753, 860 Althusius, Johannes 635 Alting, Heinrich 370 Alvinci, Péter 369, 371 Amasis (King of Egypt) 824 Ambigenius, Petrus O. 707 Ambrogio, Teseo 456, 458 Ambrose 117, 127, 349, 350 Amelot, Charles 83, 84 Ames, William 634 Amfilokhiĭ, Archimandrite 596 Amoreux, Pierre-Joseph 203, 204 Andreae, Andreas 747 Andreae, Petrus 690 Andreae, Tobias 483, 487, 496, 503 Andrés, Juan 470 Andrésson, Guðmundur 865, 870 Andrew of Crete 793

Anne of Austria (Queen of France) 208, 221 Apin, Siegmund Jacob 654, 656 Apollonius of Rhodes 784 Archimedes 238, 248 Aristarchus 238 Ariston of Chios 722 Aristophanes 784 Aristotle 2, 5, 17, 37, 38, 41, 86, 147, 149, 151, 152, 171, 235, 237, 239, 240, 241, 246, 249, 250, 291, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 346, 349, 350, 352, 353, 503, 511, 512, 513, 514, 518, 521, 528, 530, 584, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 637, 638, 640, 642, 644, 655, 657, 658, 662, 665, 668, 703, 704, 706, 710, 711, 714, 715, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 753, 783, 784, 793, 817, 823, 826, 836 Arminius (Chieftain of the Cherusci) 486 Arnold, Gottfried 359 Arosiensis, Laurentius Laurentii  707 Arrhenius, Laurentius 862 Arrivabene, Andrea 471 Artabanus 814, 819, 826‒828, 831 Arz und Vassek, Christoph Felix von 447 Ascham, Roger 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 126, 132, 133 Astyages (Median King) 818 Augustine 117, 126, 127, 134, 344, 351, 443, 632, 826, 868 Aurifaber, Andreas 583 Aurivillius, Carl 792 Aurivillius, Olaus 713 Aurivillius, Petrus 703‒725 Ausius, Henricus 703, 704, 705, 706, 708, 710, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 725, 728, 749, 750 Ausonius 784 Avicenna 405 Axt, Basilius 257 Ayliffe, John 150, 151 Aylmer, John 135 Babuty, François-Joachim 225 Bacher, Stephan 265, 266, 274

894 Bachmann, Johannes Gottfried 484 Bacon, Francis 172, 175, 183, 354, 659 Baier, Johann Jacob 292 Baillieul, François 214 Banniza, Johann Leonhard 447 Baranyai Decsi, János 376 Barbeck, Friedrich Gottfried 482, 488, 498, 502, 504 Barberini, Francesco, Cardinal 79, 81 Barbirianus, Jacobus 375 Barchius, Johannes 707 Barlaeus, Caspar 357 Baron, Hyacinthe-Théodore 194 Bartholin, Thomas 297 Basil, Saint 127 Bassano, Cesare 81, 82 Baudouin, Benoît 347 Bauhin, Caspar 268, 273, 275 Bäumler, Markus 601, 604 Bayle, Pierre 611 Beck, Matthias Friedrich 465 Becker, Conrad Hermann von 498 Beckher, Johann 581 Beddoes, Thomas 319 Behm, Johann 582, 586 Bekker, Balthasar 359 Bellarmino, Roberto S.J. 364, 368, 372, 373, 374, 379, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 393, 394 Beltzer, Georg 733 Bëm, Elizaveta 591 Benedict XIII (Pope, born Pietro Francesco Orsini; Vincenzo Maria Orsini O.P.) 215 Bentz, Johann 376 Benzelius, Eric, the Younger 793 Berengar of Tours 125 Berger, Simon 277 Bergius, Jonas 689 Bergmüller, Johann Georg 92 Besnard, François-Yves 201 Bethlen, Gabriel (Prince of Transylvania) 369, 370, 371, 374, 389 Bianchi, Giovanni Paolo 81 Bibliander, Theodor 458, 461, 469, 471, 601 Bidermann, Johann Gottlieb 559 Biel, Gabriel 393 Bilberg, Johan 862 Bill, William 111, 117

Index Nominum Bion of Smyrna 784 Bjugg, Petrus 690 Blaese, Ulrich Wilhelm 312, 322, 323, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 333, 336, 337 Bläsing, David 592 Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich 316 Boberg, Andreas 793, 795 Bobrov, Viktor 590 Bocskai, Stephen 369, 370, 372 Bödker, Caspar 849, 850 Bodmer (printer) 613 Bodmer, Johann Jacob 602, 611 Bodocki, Lorenz 815 Boerhaave, Herman 322 Boethius 650 Boetius, Jacobus 707 Böhme, Jacob 359 Böhmer, Samuel Friedrich 557, 558 Bonde, Gustav 857, 872, 873, 874 Boreus, Andreas Erici 694, 695, 696 Born, Johann 571 Bose, Caspar 585 Botero, Giovanni 838, 840 Botvidi, Johannes 690 Boyle, Robert 170, 171, 172, 173, 499 Brand, Adam 357 Brandom, Robert 480, 493 Brauns, Bernhard Heinrich 488 Breitinger, Johann Jacob (1575–1645) 602 Breitinger, Johann Jacob (1701–1776) 611 Breitkopf, Bernhard Christoph (printer) 585 Brendel, Adam 736, 737, 751, 752 Brever, Johann 814‒832 Brevichius, Petrus Andreae 707 Bring, Ebbe Samuel 787 Brochard, René 199 Broke, Heinrich Matthias von 342 Browallius, Johan 353, 354, 355 Brown, John 312‒337 Bruhn, Carl Andreas 799 Brunnius, Ericus 641 Bruxius, Adam 267 Bucer, Martin 109, 122, 125, 131, 132, 134 Budai, János 385 Budde, Johann Franz 518 Buffon, Georg-Louis Leclerc de 611, 612 Bufler, Petrus 358

Index Nominum Bullinger, Heinrich 601 Bunnie, Edmund 375 Bürger, Adam Sigismund 359 Burghausen, Johannes 820, 821 Buridan, John 238, 239, 243 Burnet, Thomas 860 Caelestius 446 Callimachus 784 Callot, Jacques 83 Calov, Abraham 44, 46 Calpurnius Siculus 784 Calvin, Jean 116, 375, 378, 379, 380, 383, 388, 690 Cambyses (Persian King) 814, 829, 831 Camerarius, Joachim 346, 798 Canz, Israel Gottlieb 839, 845 Capullio Cortonensis, Petrus O.F.M. 76 Cardano, Girolamo 248 Carl (Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel) 288 Carpzov, Friedrich Benedict 357 Cars, Jean-François 83, 213, 225 Cars, Laurent 83, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 224, 225 Cartwright, Nicholas 121 Casimir (Count of Lippe-Brake) 486 Casimir (Palsgrave) 366 Casimir, Saint 221 Caspari, David 584 Casseri, Giulio 270 Cassiodorus 858 Castrodardo, Giovanni Battista 471 Cato the Elder 344, 794, 795 Catullus 784 Cecil, William, 1st Baron Burghley 119, 120, 132, 133 Celsius, Anders 851 Celsius, Olof, the Elder 793, 795 Cesalpino, Andrea 242 Chardon, Moritz S.J. 72 Charles IV (Holy Roman Emperor) 73, 74, 75 Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) 570, 847 Charles VI (Holy Roman Emperor) 71 Charles IX (King of Sweden) 682 Charles XI (King of Sweden) 817 Charles XII (King of Sweden) 857

895 Charles Philip (Duke of Södermanland) 689 Chauliac, Guy de 264 Chedsey, William 121, 123, 130, 135 Cheke, John 132, 133, 134, 135 Chelius, Ulrich, the Younger 264 Chesnecopherus, Johannes 640 Chesnecopherus, Laurentius 689 Chotek von Chotkow, Rudolph 433, 437, 442 Christian Ernst (Count of Stolberg-Wernigerode) 587 Christiernin, Pehr Niclas 670 Christina (Queen of Sweden) 708, 751, 752, 818, 823, 881 Christoph (Duke of Wuerttemberg) 259 Chrysippus 723 Cicero 2, 347, 354, 556, 719, 783, 784 Clauberg, Johannes 300, 481, 487, 490, 491, 492, 495, 499, 500, 504, 505, 506 Claudian 784 Clavis, Jean 219 Cleanthes 784 Clement VII (Pope, Giulio de’ Medici) 460 Clement IX (Pope, Giulio Rospigliosi) 211 Clement of Alexandria 546 Clement of Rome 784 Clenardus, Nicolaus 460 Clothilde, Saint 221 Coccejus, Johannes 520, 608 Coddaeus, Guilelmus 457 Colb, Heinrich 588 Colbert de Croissy, Charles-Joachim 210 Colladon, Nicolas 375 Columbus, Albert 592 Columella 344 Comenius, Johannes Amos 709, 728, 740, 741 Concius, Andreas 595 Constantine the Great (Roman Emperor) 829 Conte, Heinrich Jacob 497, 498, 502 Cooke, Anthony 133 Cooke, James 158, 159 Copernicus, Nicolaus 233, 234, 235, 237, 244, 246, 248, 251, 252, 610, 611 Cornelius Celsus 344 Corvin, Christoph 390‒395

896 Corylander, Johannes 862 Cotton, John 55 Cox, Richard 121, 128 Coxe, Leonard 376 Cramer, Johann Jacob 603, 607, 608, 611 Cranmer, Thomas 110, 114, 120, 137, 138 Crates of Thebes 784 Crépy, Louis 212, 214 Crinesius, Christoph 452 Croesus (King of Lydia) 814, 819, 824, 826, 831 Crusius, Christian August 60 Cudworth, Ralph 870 Cullen, William 316, 317, 318 Curtius Rufus 818 Custos, Dominikus 85 Cyprian 117, 127 Cyrus (Persian King) 828 Dach, Simon 753 Dahl, Christopher 787, 789, 790, 791, 792, 799 Dahlen, Philipp Ludwig von 502, 504 Dalser, Ignaz Xaver 441 Dannhauer, Johann Conrad 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 59 Danz, Johann Andreas 465 Darius (Persian King) 820, 822, 823 Daubmann, Hans (printer) 583 Daullé, Jean 225 De La Gardie (family) 711 De La Gardie, Ebba Brahe 712 De La Gardie, Jacob August 712 De La Gardie, Johannes Carol 712 De La Gardie, Magnus 712 De La Métherie, Jean-Claude 612 De la Paix, Johann Franz 444 Demophilus 794 Demosthenes 709, 783, 784 Denso, Johann Daniel 863 Derham, William 173, 175 Descartes, René 11, 24, 194, 197, 199, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 478, 506, 512, 515, 518, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 608, 656, 658, 659, 667, 711, 724, 754, 838, 873

Index Nominum Diderot, Denis 203 Didier, père 221, 223, 224, 226 Didymus, Emanuel 262, 263, 264 Diemerbroeck, Ysbrand van 297 Diepenbeeck, Abraham van 85 Diest, Samuel 487, 488, 501 Dilherr, Johann Michael 377 Diogenes of Babylon 545, 546 Dionysius, Saint 127 Diophantus 783, 784 Diurdahl, Mathias 851 Djurberg, Daniel 861 Doerer, Andreas 264 Dominicus Germanus de Silesia O.F.M. 463 Donne, John 367 Dorothea of Montau 592 Dorsche, Johann Georg 346, 347 Dorsche, Lorenz 346 Dorsten, Johann Daniel 307 Drechsel, Johann Georg 737 Dreier, Christian 595 Driest widow (printer) 592 Du Fay, Jacobus 344 Du Ryer, André 469, 470, 471 Duchanoy, Claude-François 200 Dufour, Philippe-Sylvestre 357 Duns Scotus, Johannes O.F.M. 78 Dunte, Georg von 829, 830 Düring, Christian 590 Duvaerus, Jacob 792 Eck, Valentin 376 Edelinck, Gérard 97, 217 Edward VI (King of England) 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 119, 121, 135, 136, 137, 139 Edwards, Thomas 178 Eek, Petrus J. 797 Egidio da Viterbo, Cardinal 470 Egli, Raphael 613, 614 Eisenhart, Johann 59 Ek, Johan Gustaf 787 Ekphantus the Pythagorean 237, 238 Eliae, Isaacus 747 Elie, Jean-Jacques 197 Elingius, Laurentius Ingevaldi 707 Elizabeth I (Queen of England) 110, 139 Ellinger, Johann 731, 733 Emporagrius, Johannes 706, 751

Index Nominum Enagrius, Johannes 706 Engel, Heinrich Gottlieb 585 Engel, Moritz Adolf 568 Engelen, Gerhardus 523 Engelke, Adrian 586 Engeström, Johan 793 Enochi, Elias 706 Epicurus 629, 711 Erasmus, Desiderius 60, 375, 376, 794 Erastus, Thomas 610 Erhard, Johann Benjamin 318 Erhardi, Albert 588 Erici, Matthias 705 Erni, Andreas 298 Ernst, Bartholomäus 740, 741 Erpenius, Thomas 452, 456, 457, 458, 459, 461, 462 Ertl, Franz 447 Estenberg, Olof 843, 850, 851 Esthius, Lubertus 279 Euclid 248, 250, 752 Euripides 709, 784, 800 Evenius, Sigismund 740, 741, 753 Ewers, Johann Philipp Gustav von 593, 594 Fabius Cunctator 661 Fabricius, Johann 452, 462 Fabricius, Johann (printer) 583 Fabricius, Johann Bernhard 520, 521 Fabrizi d’Acquapendente, Girolamo 269, 270, 271 Fabry, Wilhelm 267, 268 Fagon, Guy-Crescence 97 Fahlenius, Ericus 796 Falger, Sebastian O. Praem. 440 Fant, Ericus Michael 744 Fattenborg, Johannes Henricus 792 Faust, Johannes 754 Feckenham, John 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138 Fedele, Roberto 79, 80 Fegyverneki L., Izsák 377 Feigenbuz, Johann Andreas 89, 90 Félegyházi, Tamás 376, 379, 388 Feltmann, Gerhard 497 Felwinger, Johann Paul 38, 40, 45 Fergelandus, Jonas Halvardi 688 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 320, 321, 325 Flacius Illyricus, Matthias 501

897 Fleck, Ludwig 235 Fleischer, Johann 268, 274 Floderus, Johannes 717, 791, 792 Florus 784 Forbin-Janson, Jacques de 219 Forgách, Ferenc 372 Fox, George 359, 360 Foxe, John 130, 131, 136, 137 Francisco de Xavier S.J. 89 Franck, Cajetan O. Praem. 438 Francke, Heinrich Gottlieb 568 Frank, Johann Peter 321, 326 Frank, Joseph 318, 319, 326 Frederick III (Margrave of Brandenburg) 486, 487, 499 Frederick Maurice (Count of Bentheim) 486 Freinsheim, Johann A. 751 Freyer, Hieronymus 555 Frid, Johann Sebastian 264 Fries, Jacob Friedrich 323 Fritsch, Ahasver 350, 351 Fritsch, Johann Thomas (publisher) 358 Fritzsche, Bartholomäus 267, 268 Frölich, Samuel 799 Froschauer, Christoph, the Elder (printer) 601 Fugger, family 264 Fulgentius, Saint 391 Furly, Benjamin 344 Gabled, Christophe 197 Gale, Theophilus 860 Galen 201, 256, 273, 294, 300, 718 Galilei, Galileo 171, 172, 234, 242 Gantrel, Étienne 83 Gardère, Joseph 225 Garnet, Henry 158 Gartzaeus, Andreas 588 Gassendi, Petrus 172 Gaub, Hieronymus David 316, 322, 323, 333 Gaultier, Léonard 78 Geijer, Erik Gustaf 670 Geilfus, Bernhard Wilhelm 297, 299 Geleji Katona, István 372 Gellius, Johannes Baptista 347 Gentzke, Friedrich 861 Georgii, Daniel 707

898 Gerard, Henry 159, 160 Gerhard, Johann 586 Gerth, Christoph Gustav 323 Gesner, Johannes Matthias 871 Gessner (printer) 613 Gessner, Conrad 546, 601 Gessner, Johannes 611, 612, 613 Gestrinius, Martin 697 Geulincx, Arnold 54, 529 Gezelius, Johannes, the Elder 644, 703, 704, 705, 706, 708, 709, 710, 728, 733, 735, 736, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 753, 754 Gidelli, Isa 469, 470 Glaum, Philipp 728, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 752, 755 Glazemaker, Jan Hendrik 471 Glisson, Francis 297 Glyn, William 122, 123, 126, 127, 138 Goclenius, Rudolph 639, 643, 644 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 312, 324, 325, 326, 331, 337, 612 Goldstein, Carl Christian von 541 Goldstein, Carl Gottlob von 541 Golius, Jacob 452, 461, 462, 468 Gonzaga, Aloysius S.J. 89 Göransson, Johan 866‒871, 874 Gotʹe (Gautier), I͡Uriĭ Vladimirovich 593 Götlin, Eric 787 Gottsched, Johann Christoph 590, 862 Götze, Georg Heinrich 340, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 734 Göz, Gottfried Bernhard 75 Graff, Ludwig, the Younger 259 Gran, Theophilus 834, 835, 845, 852 Graser, Giovanni Battista 430 Gregory of Corinth 547 Gretser, Jacob S.J. 47, 48, 49, 50 Greuter, Johann Friedrich 79 Grevillius, Daniel 843, 844, 845 Griesinger, David 590 Grimm, Jacob 875 Grimm, Wilhelm 875 Grindal, Edmund 122, 132, 133 Grotius, Hugo 608, 609, 823, 829, 849 Grüner, Christian Gottfried 321, 323, 325, 333

Index Nominum Grustner, Casimir O. Praem. 438, 440 Grynaeus, Johann Jacob 377 Grynaeus, Simon 734 Guadagnoli, Filippo 462 Guericke, Otto von 173 Guest, Edmund 122 Guevara, Antonio 370 Gulich, Abraham 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 529, 531 Güntherode, Carl von O.S.M. 444, 446, 447 Gustav II Adolph (King of Sweden) 690, 697, 815 Gustav III (King of Sweden) 868 Gutenberg, Johannes 682 Gutterwitz, Andreas (printer) 682, 683, 684, 685, 692 Gyldén, Nils Abraham 783, 787 Gyúrói, Pál 385 Hackspan, Theodor 452, 464 Haddon, James 135, 137 Haeser, Heinrich 333 Hagberg, Carl August 787 Haller, Albrecht von 195, 314, 316, 317, 322, 323, 325 Hannibal (Military Commander) 343, 496, 661 Hanstein, Friedrich Wilhelm 484, 489, 490, 495 Happel, Johann Heinrich 300 Harckman, Ericus 705 Hardmeyer, Johann (printer) 606 Harhoff, Wilhelm 515, 529 Harleß, Gottlieb Christoph 542 Harpsfield, John 138 Hartknoch, Christoph 584, 592 Hartung, Gottlieb Leberecht (printer) 585, 592 Harvey, William 302, 307 Hasselberg, Johannes Laurentii 707 Hausmann, Hermann 528 Hawenreuter, Ludwig 376 Haydn, Joseph 331 Hearne, Thomas 151 Hebenstreit, Johann Ernst 571 Hecker, August Friedrich 320 Hecquet, Robert 83, 225 Hedemoraeus, Ericus Laurentii 707

Index Nominum Hedemoraeus, Johannes 706, 707 Hedwig I (Queen of Poland) 221 Hedwig Sophie (Regent of Hesse-Kassel) 296, 297 Heereboord, Adrian 518 Heffter, Carl Johann 165 Heidanus, Abraham 520 Heidegger, Johann Heinrich 608, 609, 610 Heidelberger, Hugo Adolf 96 Heilbrunner, Jacob 47, 48, 50 Heilsberg, Friedrich 582 Heine, Johann Friedrich 54 Heining, Friedrich 277 Heinrich Julius (Duke of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) 268 Helladius, Alexander 543 Hellenius, Johannes 707 Helm, Abraham 536‒553 Helmont, Jean-Baptiste van 294 Heltai, János 369, 373 Helwich, Christian 590, 592 Hendel, Peter (printer) 581 Henry IV (King of France) 79, 80, 209, 221 Hensel, Gottfried 552 Heraclides Ponticus 237, 239 Herberger, Valerius 347 Hermannson, Johan 862 Hermesianax of Colophon 784 Herodotus 784, 814‒832, 858 Herz, Johann Daniel 73, 74, 93, 95 Hesiod 713, 718, 719, 784 Hesse, Zacharias 592 Hesselius, Andreas O. 707 Hesslén, Nils 792 Heurne, Otto von 860 Heydenreich, Christoph 595 Heyne, Christian Gottlob 789 Hicetas (Tyrant of Syracuse) 237 Hiertzelius, Henricus 705 Himmelsbergius, Samuel Gustavi 707 Hinckelmann, Abraham 451, 465, 466, 468 Hippias of Elis 347 Hippocrates 202, 256, 300, 304, 317, 356, 496 Hobbes, Thomas 611 Hodászi, Lukács 372 Hoffmann, Friedrich 324 Hoffmann, Gottfried 355, 357 Hoffmann, Paul 824, 825

899 Hoffwenius, Petrus 658, 713 Hofmann, Conrad 279 Höijer, Joseph Otto 787 Holm, Petrus 464 Holstenius, Ericus 705, 706, 724, 749, 750 Holstenius, Gabriel 705, 709, 728, 740, 741, 742, 749, 750, 751, 753, 755 Holstenius, Lucas 794 Holtman, Wilhelm 486, 496, 498 Homer 488, 711, 783, 784, 790, 863 Hommel, Carl Ferdinand 565 Hommel, Ferdinand August 561, 565‒569, 572 Honn, Hermann 489 Hooke, Luke-Joseph 203 Hooke, Robert 172, 173 Horace 356, 783, 784 Hornius, Georg 860 Hospinian, Rudolf 603 Hottinger, Johann Heinrich 464, 468, 608 Hottinger, Salomon 610 Hövell, Georg 581 Höveln, Johannes von 815 Howson, John 145, 146, 157, 158, 159 Hoynovius, Michael 586 Hubert, Étienne 469 Hufeland, Christoph Wilhelm 316, 318, 321, 322, 325, 326, 330, 331, 334, 337 Huhn, Johann Christoph 592 Hulsius, Heinrich 495, 500, 501 Hume, David 203, 321 Hund, Martin 484, 494 Hunger, Albert 47, 49, 50 Hunnius, Ägidius 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55 Hunter, John 316 Hutchinson, Roger 108, 111, 114, 117 Huth, Johann Christoph 737, 751 Hutter, Leonhard 371 Hydrén, Laurentius 862 Hylander, Andreas 799 Ignatius of Loyola 23, 89, 91 Ihre, Johan 834, 835, 837, 843, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853 Imfeld, Nicolaus O.S.B. 75 Ingelgren, Georg 790 Ingelheim, Adam Franz von 95, 96 Ingelius, Axel Gabriel 783

900 Irenaeus 117, 127 Isocrates 713, 718, 722 Isthmenius, Isak 638, 712 Jacob Ben Israel Ha-Levi 467 Jagenteuffel, Johannes 581 Jäger, Alderik O. Praem. 444 Jeckelmann, Franz 272 Jellenz, Franz Xaver 447 Jeremias, Friedrich 359 Jeschke, Martin 590, 591 Jheringius, Christianus 705 Johannes de Sacrobosco 238, 250, 251 John the Grammarian (Philoponus) 239, 547, 548 John (Duke of Östergötland) 693 John Chrysostom 117, 127, 784, 793, 797 John of Seville 248 Jonae, Petrus 682, 688 Jones, Robert 319, 320, 333 Joseph II (Holy Roman Emperor) 425, 426, 427, 428, 431, 432, 433, 442, 444, 445, 447 Juan de Segovia 469, 470 Julien, Chrysostôme O.F.M.Rec. 217 Jullienne, Jean de 215 Justinian (Roman Emperor) 566, 569 Juvenal 784 Kalchschmidt, Leopold Carl O. Praem. 438, 439 Kant, Immanuel 60, 320, 836 Károlyi, Zsuzsanna 370 Keckermann, Bartholomäus 631, 639 Kepler, Johannes 234, 304 Keserűi Dajka, János 371, 372 Kesler, Andreas 38, 45, 46, 59 Kilian, Bartholomäus 86, 87, 88, 90, 91 Kilian, Lucas 85 Kilian, Wolfgang 85 Kirberg, Johann Wilhelm 486 Kircher, Athanasius S.J. 173 Kirchmaier, Georg Caspar 539, 543 Kirchmaier, Georg Wilhelm 542, 543 Kirstenius, Georg 347 Kirstenius, Petrus 461 Klauber (publisher) 92, 96 Klauber, Johann Baptist (printer) 75

Index Nominum Klemptzen, Nicolaus von 863 Kloeckhof, Balthasar 484, 485, 496 Koch, Johannes 486, 487 Köhler, Heinrich 839, 841 Kolmodin, Olof 787 Königsegg-Aulendorf, Johann Ernst von 447 Kös, Gustaf 786, 787 Kostka, Stanislas S.J. 221 Kotzebue, August von 322 Krede, Eberhard 516 Krogius, Gabriel 799 Krzystanowicz, Stanisław 584 Kuhn, Thomas S.  235, 288, 289, 290, 291, 296, 297, 299, 303, 307 Küsell, Melchior 88 Kylander, Daniel Jonae 697 Kylander, Jonas 693 La Mettrie, Julien Offray de 873 La Renoudiaire, Blain de 201 Laborde, Michel Granger de 200 Lactance 784 Lagerbring, Sven 869, 870, 871, 872 Lagerlöf, Petrus 857, 861, 862, 865 Lagus, Andreas Johannes 799 Laignier, Valentine-Marie 199 Lamberg, Joseph Dominicus von 75 Landry, Pierre 98 Lang, Johannes Joseph 440 Lang, Joseph 376 Langdale, Alban 122 Lange, Johann Michael 451‒472 Lange, Johannes 257 Langenkamp, Philipp 512, 513, 514, 528, 530 Laplace, Pierre-Simon 173, 183 Larmessin, Nicolas IV de 212 Latimer, Hugh 137, 138 Latrobe, Benjamin 330 Latrobe, Johann Friedrich 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337 Latrobe, Johann Wilhelm 312, 322, 323, 326 Laudensack, Johann Eberhard 95 Laurbecchius, Petrus 793 Laurentius, Johann 595 Lavater, David 611 Lavater, Heinrich 603 Le Blanc, Augustin O.P. (Jacques-Hyacinthe Serry) 439

Index Nominum Le Bleu, Jacob 377 Le Brun, Charles 83, 84, 85, 217 Le Court, Jean-François 202 Le Prestre, Jean 198 Le Roux, Philippe 215, 216 Le Sauvage, René 200 Lebh (Loew), Jehuda 796 Leczinska, Marie (Queen of France) 200, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226 Lefrén, Laurentius 792 Lehrberg, Aaron Christian 331 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 34–60, 447 Leiherer, Georg 280 Lembka, Martinus 273 Lemoyne, François 215 Leopold I (Holy Roman Emperor) 86, 87, 423 Leopold II (Holy Roman Emperor) 434 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim 607 Lessius, Leonhardus 372 Lettow, Werner 588 Leusden, Johannes 548, 549 Lever, Thomas 111, 114, 117 Leyser, Polycarp II 371 Libanius 793 Lidén, Johan Henrik 879 Lidenius, Petrus Svenonis 641, 642 Liedbergh, Andreas 712 Liedert, Johann Daniel 592 Lightfoot, John 495 Lilienfeld, Carl Magnus von 331 Lilienthal, Theodor Christoph 592 Linnaeus, Carl 204, 611, 612, 668 Linsén, Johan Gabriel 787 Lipsius, Justus 182, 344, 841, 849 Littorinus, Andreas Andreae 747 Liungh, Petrus Ericus 655 Livy 494, 783, 784 Löbbecke, Zacharias 484 Löben, Johann Wolfgang von 588 Löber, Christoph Wilhelm 342, 343 Lobherr, Johannes Conrad 451, 454 Locke, John 24, 60 Loder, Justus Christian 321 Lodtmann, Carl Wilhelm 861 Loesel, Johannes 581 Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilʹevich 593

901 Lossius, Petrus 386 Louis XIII (King of France) 78, 221 Louis XIV (King of France) 83, 84, 85, 86, 208, 221 Louis XV (King of France) 200, 207, 208, 221, 225 Luca, Ignaz Franz 447 Lucian 784, 871 Ludwig, Michael Conrad 451, 454 Lundius, Daniel 793, 795 Luther, Martin 22, 37, 46, 47, 109, 125, 344, 346, 351, 369, 380, 381, 382, 383, 388, 458, 501, 518, 529, 539, 540, 632, 826 Lütkemann, Gabriel 863 Lysias 784 Machiavelli, Niccolò 661, 662, 838, 842, 849, 850, 852, 853 Maciej of Miechów 235 Madew, John 114, 122 Magirus, Johannes 289, 290, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 304 Maillet, Benoît de 612 Maldonado, Juan S.J. 60 Malebranche, Nicolas 447 Malmström, Petrus 799 Mandellius, Franciscus 267 Mandeville, Jean de 175 Mannhart, Franz Xaver S.J. 442 Marci, Johann Gottfried 525, 526, 527, 529, 531 Marcus, Adalbert Friedrich 320 Mardonius (Military Commander) 826, 828 Margitai Láni, Péter 374 Maria de’ Medici (Queen of France) 208 Maria Theresa of Spain (Queen of France) 208, 221 Maria Theresa (Archduchess of Austria) 425, 426, 427, 428, 431, 432, 433, 437, 444, 445 Marklin, Gabriel 879 Marracci, Lodovico 451, 465, 466, 470, 471 Martial 784 Martini, Cornelius 38, 39, 45, 377 Martini, Jacobus 643 Mary I (Queen of England) 106, 107, 110, 135, 137, 139 Mascov, Christian 592

902 Massa, Apollonio 258 Masschop, Johann 497, 504 Mastricht, Gerhard von 483 Matthiae, Ericus 707 Matthiae, Eschillus (printer) 694, 695, 696, 699 Mauritius, Erich 609, 610 Mazarin, Jules, Cardinal 83, 377 Mead, Richard 305 Mecenati, Eugenio O.Carm. 215, 217 Meelführer, Rudolph Martin 753 Meisius, Friedrich Ernst 359 Melanchthon, Philipp 346, 364, 368, 369, 375, 376, 379, 390‒395, 501, 536, 539, 540, 632, 633, 637 Melber, Johann Georg David 312, 323, 324, 325, 326, 336, 337 Mellerus, Laurentius 705 Mellet, Johannes 489 Menander 861 Menedemus of Eretria 722 Menelius, Johann 35 Mense, Pascha (printer) 595 Menzer, Balthasar 633 Mersenne, Marin 172 Meurisse, Martin O.F.M. 78 Meyer, Heinrich (printer) 451, 452, 454 Meyer, Johann Caspar (printer) 596 Mezger, Casimir 445 Michaelis, Johann 581 Micrander, Julius 793, 795 Migne, Jacques-Paul 793 Milotai Nagy, István 388 Milotai Nyilas, István 369, 372, 374, 376, 379, 389 Milton, John 367 Mimnermus 784 Minucianus 793 Miskolczi Csulyak, István 372 Mithob, Hector Johann 592, 594 Mitzel, Johann 586 Moderus, Sveno Ionae 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688 Mögling, Daniel 280 Mögling, Israel 280 Mohl, Friedrich von 588 Moibanus, Ambrosius 346 Moibanus, Georg 346 Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin) 328

Index Nominum Molina, Luis de S.J. 438 Mollerus, Abrahamus 799 Monimus 391 Monthelius, Olaus 707 Montin, Johan Johansson 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 851, 853 Morand, Pierre de 207, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223 Moretus, Olaus 640 Morhof, Daniel Georg 861 Morison, Richard 132 Moscati, Pietro 318, 319, 328, 333, 335, 336, 337 Moschus 784 Mosheim, Johann Lorenz von 870 Mostadius, Johannes 712 Mottet, Gélase O.F.M.Rec. 217, 223, 224, 226 Mottini, Carlo 81, 82 Movius, Caspar 586 Movius, Georg Friedrich 530 Mozelius, Friedrich 874, 875 Müller, August Friedrich 571 Müller, Daniel 557, 558 Müller, Gottfried 377 Müller, Henning (printer) 592 Müller, Johann Ernst 558, 559 Muntelius, Ericus 705 Muralt, Johannes von 602 Muratori, Ludovico Antonio 428, 429, 430, 431 Musaeus 784 Musculus, Wolfgang 364, 375 Mushard, Luneberg 863 Mylius, Gustav Heinrich 561‒565, 572 Nanteuil, Robert 83, 84 Napoleon (Emperor of the French) 204, 205 Naumachius 784 Neerkorn, Johann 385, 387 Nemorarius, Jordanus 248 Nerreter, David 470, 471 Nettelhorst, Wolfgang Christoph 592 Neuberger, Martin 586, 587 Neufeldt, Cölestin Conrad 590 Neufeldt, Conrad 588 Nevostruev, Kapiton Ivanovich 592, 593 Newton, Isaac 171, 173, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 197, 305, 872 Nicephorus, Hermann 515, 518, 519, 528

Index Nominum Nicetas of Byzantium 468 Nicolai, Ernst Anton 321, 323, 333 Nieuwentijd, Bernhard 873 Niger, Daniel O.F.M. 76, 77 Nisius, Johann (printer) 584 Nissel, Johann Georg 464, 470, 471 Niurenius, Olaus Petri 692 Norberg, Matthias 792 Norcopensis (Nordenhielm), Andreas 793, 794 Norrmannus, Laurentius 793, 797, 798, 862 Novalis (Georg Philipp Friedrich von Hardenberg) 325 Nycopensis, Nicolaus Laurentii 641 Obrazt͡sov, Dmitriĭ Ilarievich 588, 589 Obrecht, Elias 798 Odhelius, Ericus 710 Oecolampadius, Johannes 125 Olai, Petrus 699, 700 Olearius, Gottfried 542 Olevianus, Caspar 375 Oliva, Giovanni Paolo S.J. 89, 90 Opitz, Heinrich 596 Opitz, Martin 372, 794 Opsopaeus, Simon 279 Oresme, Nicole 238, 239 Örnberg, Carolus Jacobus 789 Osterberger (printer) 582, 583 Ouvray, Jean-Baptiste 198 Ovid 178, 783, 784 Oxenstierna, Axel 690, 709, 712 Oxenstierna, Erik 709 Packbusch, Carl Otto 562 Paganini, Alessandro 458, 459, 465 Paganini, Paganino 458 Palaiologos, Michael 831 Palmblad, Vilhelm Fredrik 786, 787 Palmroot, Johannes 793, 795, 796 Pannonius, Ianus 389 Panyassis 784 Papius, Johann 583 Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) 872, 873, 874 Paré, Ambroise 264 Pareus, David 364‒395 Pareus, Johann Philipp 389 Parker, Thomas 122

903 Pastelberg, Johannes Elias 796 Pataki Füsüs, János 369, 370 Paul III (Pope, Alessandro Farnese) 460 Paula von Wissenegg, Franz de 442 Pauli, Martin Gottlieb 570 Pauli, Reinhold 292 Paulinus, Laurentius 627, 642, 880 Paulinus, Simon 706, 753 Paulus, Apostle 724 Payr, Franz 440 Pázmány, Péter S.J. 372, 373, 374, 389 Pécseli Király, Imre 373 Pehem, Johann Nepomuk 447 Pelagius 446 Perbandt, Caspar 588 Perckhofer, Matthias O. Praem. 440 Pereira, Benedict 642, 643 Peringer (Lillieblad), Gustaf 793, 796 Perne, Andrew 122, 124, 126, 127, 136 Persius 784 Persons, Robert 136 Pesarovius, David 595 Peter, Apostle 130 Petreius, Johannes 234, 235, 248 Petri, Christian 583 Petrus de Alliaco 382 Petrus Hispanus 632 Petrus Lombardus 350 Petrus Venerabilis O.S.B. 468 Peuerbach, Georg 246, 248 Pfeiffer, August 465 Pfeiffer, Johann Philipp 596 Pfister, Adam S.J. 95 Phillips, Morgan 121, 125, 126, 130 Philolaus the Pythagorean 237 Philoponus, John 239, 547, 548 Philpot, John 135, 136, 137 Phocylides 718 Phoibammon, Saint 793 Picart, Étienne 83 Piccolomini, Francesco 632 Pichler, Sigismund 588 Pietro da Cortona 79 Pilkington, James 122, 123 Pindar 712, 718, 721, 783, 784, 789, 799 Pipping, Heinrich 344 Pisanski, Georg Christoph 592 Piscator, Johannes 375, 378, 379, 390‒395 Piscator, Peter 377

904 Placentius, Johannes 292 Plantin, Olaus 703, 708, 725 Platner, Joachim O. Cist. 443 Plato 2, 237, 343, 345, 349, 353, 356, 357, 518, 629, 632, 715, 718, 721, 722, 783, 784, 857 Plato of Tivoli 248 Platter, Felix, the Elder 272, 273, 274, 275, 730, 731 Pliny the Elder 610 Pliny the Younger 784 Plutarch 356, 686, 698, 718, 719, 721, 722 Polignac, Melchior de, Cardinal 217 Pollard, Leonard 122 Pomponius Mela 783, 784 Pontius, Paulus 85 Poppius, Johannes 792 Porphyrius 495 Porro, Angelo Francesco O.E.S.A. 81 Posner, Tobias 589 Posselius, Johannes, the Elder 710 Postel, Guillaume 456, 458, 460 Pott, Heinrich August Georg 593 Potter, Charles 152 Prades, Jean-Martin de 203 Prágai, András 373 Proclus 784 Propertius 784 Pseudo-Longinus 783, 784 Pseudo-Lycophron 784 Pseudo-Smerdis 814, 819, 829‒831 Ptolemy 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 246, 248 Publilius Syrus 794 Pufendorf, Samuel 602, 655, 657, 658, 849 Pythagoras 152, 179 Quintilian 347, 610 Quintus Smyrnaeus 784 Raey, Johannes de 520 Raggi, Lorenzo 81 Raigersperger, Nicolaus Georg 514 Rákóczi, Georg I 370 Rålamb, Clas 797 Ramus, Petrus 13, 378, 514, 515, 528, 625, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 643, 644, 645, 657, 711, 740, 753, 818 Rappe, Moritz Ernst 595

Index Nominum Rast, Christian Friedrich 592 Ratke, Wolfgang 741 Rausch, Martin 364 Raussin, Louis-Jérôme 195 Ravius, Christian 463, 465 Rechenberg, Adam 542 Rechenberg, Carl Otto 561, 569‒571, 572 Regiomontanus, Johannes 11, 233‒252 Reich, Jacob (printer) 584 Reni, Guido 81, 82 Reuchlin, Johann 538, 539 Reusner heirs (printer) 590, 592, 595, 596 Reusner, Friedrich (printer) 584, 587, 589, 590, 592 Reusner, Johann (printer) 581, 588, 595 Reusner, Johann Friedrich (printer) 592 Rezander, Petrus 706 Rhalambius, Elias Magni 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 691, 692 Rhamacker, Johann Theodor 486, 496, 499 Rheticus, Georg Joachim 235 Rhodman, Theodor 590 Rhyzelius, Andreas Olofsson 793 Riccoldo da Monte di Croce O.P. 469 Richelieu, Cardinal (Armand-Jean du Plessis) 83, 377 Richter, Johann Gottfried 564 Richter, Johann Tobias 566 Ridley, Nicholas 122, 123, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 136, 137, 138 Riegger, Paul Joseph 430, 441 Rigaud, Hyacinthe 97 Rinder, Andreas 754 Rippen, Heinrich Friedrich von 584 Rivetus, Andreas 610 Robert of Ketton 468, 470 Robert, I. 199 Rohan-Soubise, Armand I Gaston Maximilien de, Cardinal 208 Rohault, Jacques 300, 301, 305 Rohde, Johann Jacob 590, 592 Romanelli, Giovanni Francesco 79 Romanus, Adrianus 280 Romieu, chevalier de 223 Röschlaub, Andreas 313, 319, 320, 322, 323, 337 Roschmann, Anton 429, 433, 441 Ross, Alexander 471

Index Nominum Ross, Isaac 791 Rousselet, Gilles 83, 84 Rousset, François 268 Rubens, Peter Paul 85, 98 Rudbeck, Johannes 631, 691, 708, 709, 858, 880 Rudbeck, Olaus 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 864, 876 Rudbeck, Olaus Magnus 858 Rudeen, Thorsten 863 Rugendas, Christian 93, 94 Rugendas, Georg Philipp 97 Rumler, Johann Ulrich 264 Rumpaeus, Justus Wesselus 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 528, 530, 531 Rydelius, Andreas 669, 671, 672 Sachs, Hans 348 Sahlin, Carl Yngve 672 Sahme, Arnold Heinrich 352, 353, 358 Salmuth, Georg 279 Samarjai, János 371 Samson, Hermann 814, 815, 816, 818 Sandaeus, Maximilianus S.J. 373 Sanden, Bernhard von 596 Sanderson, Robert 147, 148, 153 Sappho 784 Sas, Alexander 485 Sas, Franz 485 Sas, Johann 485 Saubert, Johannes, the Younger 452 Saulx-Tavannes, Nicolas de 209 Saumaise, Claude de 546, 547, 548 Saunders, Lawrence 356 Savary de Brèves, François 209 Savary de Brèves, Pierre-Cosme 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 223, 225 Savonius, Michael 638, 639 Scaliger, Joseph Justus 468, 495, 794 Scapula, Johannes 547 Scharf, Johann 38, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 643 Schatz, Johann Jacob 559, 560 Schaubinger, Jacob 91 Schedviensis, Johannes Olai 747 Schefferus, Johannes 663, 836 Scheibler, Christoph 515 Scheidt, Balthasar 728, 736, 739, 745, 746, 748, 749, 750, 753

905 Scheidt, Johann Valentin 746 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm 320, 325 Schermer, Friedrich 595 Scheuchzer, Johann Jacob 602, 611 Scheumäder, Ambrosius 754 Schieferdecker, Johann David 466, 468 Schimmelpfennig, Hieronymus 588 Schlözer, August Ludwig 593, 594, 875 Schmedes, Arnold 498, 499 Schmidt, Erasmus 539, 547 Schmidt, Georg (Smidios) 742, 743, 744, 752 Schneider, Benjamin 483, 488, 496 Schnell, Andreas Friedrich 592 Schnützlein, Georg Michael 451, 454 Schöbel, Christoph 278 Schombart, Johannes Theodor 482 Schomerus, Petrus 640, 641 Schönborn, Franz Georg von 96 Schöner, Johannes 233, 234, 235, 236, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252 Schöner, Lazarus 635 Schönfeld, Georgius 644 Schroeter, Johannes (printer) 732 Schultén, Carl 793, 796 Schupp, Johann Balthasar 355 Schurff, Augustin 257 Schut, Cornelis 93, 94 Schwackenberg, Johann Arnold 488, 500, 502, 503 Schwartz, Albert Georg 864 Schwartz, Christian Gottlieb 536‒553 Schwarzl, Carl 444 Schweigger, Salomon 471 Schweizer, Johann Heinrich 609 Schwenter, Daniel 452 Searle, John 479 Sedgwick, Thomas 122, 131, 138 Segebade (printer) 581, 595 Segebade, Lorenz (printer) 586 Seignelay, Jean-Baptiste Colbert de 198 Senckenberg, Heinrich Christian von 560, 561 Seneca the Younger 496, 794 Sennert, Daniel 294, 300 Sergievskiĭ-Kazant͡sev, Pavel Ivanovich see Amfilokhiĭ, Archimandrite  Severini, Hermann Johannes 485 Severne, Thomas 152

906 Seymour, Edward 119, 120 Sharpius, George 197 SHeremetev, Sergeĭ Dmitrievich 589, 590, 591, 592 SHeremeteva, Ekaterina Pavlovna, née Vi͡azemskai͡a 589 SHibanov, Pavel Petrovich 588 Sickingen-Hohenburg, Ferdinand Hartmann von 71, 72 Siglicius, Johannes 279, 730, 731, 732, 737, 751, 752 Sigwart, Georg Friedrich 195 Silhon, Jean de 377 Sillewijk, Arvid Henric 691 Silverstein, Rudolf 565 Simler, Josias 129 Simon Atheniensis Coriarius 345, 346 Simonides 789, 799 Sivers, Peter von 331 Sjöberg, Gabriel 862 Sjöström, Axel Gabriel 786, 787 Škréta, Karel 86, 87, 88 Skulth, J. 706 Skunk, Carolus 796 Skytte, Johan 627, 628, 632, 634, 636, 643, 644, 690 Snellius, Rudolph 643 Snorri Sturluson 869 Soanen, Jean 210 Socrates 17, 60, 343, 345, 346, 347, 627 Söderholm, Johannes Albertus 783 Solenius, Johannes 707 Solomon ibn Melekh 795 Solon 356, 784, 814, 819, 824‒826, 831 Solon, M. 225 Sonntag, Christoph 724, 728, 744, 748, 749, 753, 754 Sonntag, Heinrich 724, 754 Sophocles 784, 800 South, Robert 160, 161 Spaur, Marian von O. Praem. 440 Specht, Johann 738, 754 Speckmann, Johann Stephan 485 Sperlette, Jean 525 Spinoza, Baruch 359 Spitzel, Gottlieb 346 Stadtlender, Friedrich 592 Stahn, Samuel Rudolph 571

Index Nominum Stalenus, Petrus 706, 710, 713, 718 Stapleton, Thomas 368 Starck, Sebastian Gottfried 465 Statius 784 Steele, Richard 175, 176, 183 Stegemann, Ludwig Reinhold 331 Steger, Adrian 357 Stehen, Sveno 706 Steinberger, Franz 444 Stengel, Georg S.J. 397‒414 Stentzel, Christian Gottfried 733, 735, 738, 748, 754 Sternbach, Innozenz O.S.M. 446 Sternberg, brothers (Counts) 86, 87 Sterzinger, Casimir O. Cist. 443 Steuber, Johannes 728, 731, 733, 741, 742, 749, 750, 751, 754 Steuchius, Johannes 851 Stiernhielm, Georg 540, 858 Stiernman, Anders Anton von 864, 865 Stigzelius, Laurentius 641, 642, 711, 712 Stöckel, Leonard 376 Stockenström, Eric von 850 Storer, Johann Christoph 81, 88, 90, 91 Strauß, Lorenz 298, 299 Stridsberg, Nils 793 Stridzberg, Haquin 793 Ström, Jonas O. 797 Struborg, Johann 815, 826, 827 Stucki, Johann Wilhelm 603 Stupan, Johann Niclaus 273, 274, 275 Sturm, Johannes 376 Stütz, Wenceslaus Alois 323, 324 Stymmel, Christoph 271 Suárez, Francisco S.J. 512, 513 Südeck, Johannes 484, 496, 499, 504 Sulpicia 784 Sulzer, Johann Georg 607, 611 Summermann, Caspar Theodor 486, 500 Sundius, Johannes 706, 707, 728, 746, 749, 750 Suter, Reinhold 584 Swedberg (Swedenborg), Emanuel 794, 795 Swedberg, Jesper 793, 794, 795 Sydenham, Thomas 317 Sylvius, Franciscus 297 Szántó, István S.J. 384 Szegedi Kis, István 376, 380

907

Index Nominum Szenci Molnár, Albert 372, 376 Szilvásújfalvi Anderkó, Imre 372 Tacitus 496, 783, 784, 864 Tagault, Jean 264 Talon, Omer 635 Tannenberg, Joseph Anton Ignaz von 72 Tanner, Johannes S.J. 86, 88 Tartarotti, Girolamo 429, 430, 441 Tegnér, Esaias 787 Tencin, Pierre Guérin de 210 Tennigs, Michael Friedrich 592 Terence 784 Terrolensis, Johannes Gabriel 470 Tertullian 117, 349 Tessin, Carl Gustav 848 Thales of Miletus 356, 357 Thauvonius, Abrahamus Georgii 642 Themistocles 496 Theocritus 784 Theodoret 127 Theodosius of Bithynia 248 Theognis 712 Theon Alexandrinus 236 Theophilus Veronensis 440 Theophrastus 784 Thermaenius, Andreas 706, 749 Thomas Aquinas O.P. 108, 438, 439, 443, 496 Thomas de Argentina O.E.S.A. 393 Thomas Magister 793, 797 Thomasius, Christian 60, 345, 346, 669 Thomasius, Jacob 41 Thucydides 343, 718, 783, 784 Thurzó, György 371 Thurzó, Imre 371 Tibullus 784 Tidgren, Gabriel 792 Tilesius, Balthasar 387 Timpler, Clemens 407, 408, 409 Tingstadius, Johan Adam 792 Titius, Simon 583 Törner, Fabian 794, 795, 862, 865, 866, 870 Tournel, Joseph-Simon 204 Tralles, Balthasar Ludwig 325, 330 Tranér, Johan 786, 787, 790 Trattner, Johann Thomas (printer) 441, 446 Tresham, William 121, 125, 130, 138 Trozelius, Claes Blechert 872

Tryphon 547 Tschudi, Dominicus O.S.B. 403‒413 Tuning, Gerard 356 Turnowski, Jan 613 Tyrtaeus 784, 789, 790, 799 Übelbacher, Hieronymus C.R.S.A. 98 Uhse, Erdmann 555, 556 Újfalvi Katona, Imre  369, 372, 373 Ulm zu Erbach, Ferdinand Carl von 441 Ulrich, Johann Jacob 603 Ulrika Eleonora (Queen of Sweden) 798 Unckel, Carl (printer) 741, 742, 749 Unonius, Olaus 711, 714, 715, 725 Urban VIII (Pope, Maffeo Barberini) 85 Ursin, Georg Heinrich 550 Ursinus, Zacharias 366 Valerius Flaccus 784 Vallerius, Harald 698 Vallet, Guillaume 83 Van Horne, Johannes 297 Van Loo, Jean-Baptiste 207, 212, 213, 214, 224, 225 Várdi Dobrán, Mihály 385 Varro 344, 816 Vautrollier, Thomas 375 Vavasour, Thomas 122, 123, 125, 130 Velechinus, István 370, 373, 382 Veresmarti, Mihály 372, 373, 382 Vermigli, Pietro Martire 109, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 375, 601 Vesalius, Andreas 270, 272, 307 Vesling, Johann 297 Vi͡azemskiĭ (Prince) 589 Vicq d’Azyr, Félix 204 Villamena, Francesco 76, 77, 79, 80 Villars, Claude-Louis-Hector de 217 Virgil 180, 347, 630, 784, 868 Visca, Angelo 262 Vizsolyi, Mihály 379 Voetius, Gisbertus 610 Vom Damm, Heinrich Dietmar 517, 518, 519, 520, 530 Vossius, Gerhardus Johannes 516 Vossius, Isaac 499 Wagenseil, Johann Christoph 452, 469

908 Wagner, Friedrich 583 Wagner, Jacob Christoph 439 Wagner, Johann Nepomuk 444, 446 Wagner, Michael Anton 440, 441, 443 Waldau, Martin 583 Waldburg-Wolfegg, Maximilian Willibald von 98 Walder, Johann 734 Waldschmidt, Johann Jacob 288‒307 Waldstein, Johann Friedrich von 86 Wallin, Georg, the Younger 793 Wallius, Laurentius Olai 681, 697, 698, 699, 700 Walther, Augustin Friedrich 585 Walther, Bernard 247 Warner, Levinus 463 Wartenberg, Franz Wilhelm von, Cardinal 514 Waser, Caspar 606 Wasserbach, Ernst Casimir 483, 485, 496 Watson, Thomas 133, 134, 135, 137, 138 Watteau, Antoine 215 Watts, William 159 Weger, Laurentius 584 Weigel, Erhard 293 Weikard, Melchior Adam 319, 322, 325, 328, 329, 333, 335, 336, 337 Weinzierlin, Franz Xaver 439 Weitenauer, Ignaz 445, 446, 447 Weltin, Johann Michael 441 Wenckbach, Johannes Christoph 527 Wendeler, Michael 38 Wenker, Georg 538 Werenfels, Samuel 529 Werner, Ludwig Reinhold von 592 Wesenbeck, Matthäus 41, 42 Westman, Olaus 875 Weston, Hugh 135, 136, 138 Westphal, Joachim 347 Wettstein, Johann Rudolf 731, 737, 751 Wexionensis, Jonas Magni 693, 694, 695, 696 Wexionius, Michael Olai 637

Index Nominum Whately, Richard 41 Whytt, Robert 316 Wichelmann, Hartwig 588 Wicquefort, Joachim de 358 Widmanstetter, Johann Albrecht 461, 469 Wieland, Christoph Martin 318 Wiering, Thomas von (printer) 584 Wildvogel, Christian 496, 497 Willi, Jacob S.J. 89 William Henry of Orange-Nassau (later William III, King of England) 486, 487 William of Ockham 382 Williams, Roger 55 Wintherus, Petrus 707, 728, 746, 749, 750 Wirtz, Felix, the Younger 272 Witelo 248 Wittich, Christopher 481 Wolder, Theodor 588, 589 Wolf, Johann (printer) 614 Wolf, Johann Caspar 609 Wolff, Christian 13, 17, 447, 669, 834, 836, 837, 839, 840, 842, 845, 849, 850, 853 Wolff, Joseph 442 Wolfframsdorff, Hermann von 541 Woringen, Augustinus Arnold von 482, 489 Wygaerden, Adrian 485 Xenophon 343, 709, 784 Xerxes (Persian King) 814, 819, 826, 828, 831 Young, John 122, 131, 132, 134, 138 Zabarella, Giacomo 631, 632 Zechendorff, Johann 461, 462 Zedritz, Carl Edvard 787 Zenon of Elea 722 Zimmermann, Georg Caspar 754 Zimmermann, Johann Jacob 602 Zopyrus 814, 818, 819, 820‒824, 831 Zosimus (Pope) 446 Zwinger, Jacob 268, 547 Zwinger, Theodor 274, 375 Zwingli, Ulrich 125