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