Defending Descartes in Brandenburg-Prussia: The University of Frankfurt an der Oder in the Seventeenth Century PDF
Preview Defending Descartes in Brandenburg-Prussia: The University of Frankfurt an der Oder in the Seventeenth Century
Archimedes 62 New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Pietro Daniel Omodeo Defending Descartes in Brandenburg-Prussia The University of Frankfurt an der Oder in the Seventeenth Century Archimedes New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Volume 62 Series Editor Jed Z. Buchwald, Caltech, Humanitiers/Social Sciences 101-40, PASADENA, CA, USA Advisory Editors Mordechai Feingold, Div of Hum & Soc Scis,MC 228-77, California Inst of Tech, Pasadena, CA, USA Allan D. Franklin, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA Paul Hoyningen-Huene, Institute of Philosophy, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Zürich, Switzerland TREVOR LEVERE, UNIV OF TORONTO, University of Toronto, TORONTO, ON, Canada Jesper Lützen, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, København Ø, Denmark William R. Newman, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Jürgen Renn, Department I, Max Planck Institute for the History of, Berlin, Berlin, Germany Alex Roland, Department of History, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA NOEL SWERDLOW, AND SOCIAL SCI, MC 101-40, CALIFORNIA INST OF TECH, HUMANITIES, Pasadena, CA, USA Michael Dietrich, Dept of Biological Sci, Dartmouth College, Amherst, MA, USA Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Berlin, Germany Archimedes has three fundamental goals: to further the integration of the histories of science and technology with one another; to investigate the technical, social and practical histories of specific developments in science and technology; and finally, where possible and desirable, to bring the histories of science and technology into closer contact with the philosophy of science. The series is interested in receiving book proposals that treat the history of any of the sciences, ranging from biology through physics, all aspects of the history of technology, broadly construed, as well as historically-engaged philosophy of science or technology. Taken as a whole, Archimedes will be of interest to historians, philosophers, and scientists, as well as to those in business and industry who seek to understand how science and industry have come to be so strongly linked. Submission / Instructions for Authors and Editors: The series editors aim to make a first decision within one month of submission. In case of a positive first decision the work will be provisionally contracted: the final decision about publication will depend upon the result of the anonymous peer-review of the complete manuscript. The series editors aim to have the work peer-reviewed within 3 months after submission of the complete manuscript. The series editors discourage the submission of manuscripts that contain reprints of previously published material and of manuscripts that are below 150 printed pages (75,000 words). For inquiries and submission of proposals prospective authors can contact one of the editors: Editor: JED Z. BUCHWALD, [[email protected]] Associate Editors: Mathematics: JEREMY GRAY, [[email protected]] 19th-20th Century Physical Sciences: TILMAN SAUER, [[email protected]] Biology: SHARON KINGSLAND, [[email protected]] Biology: MANFRED LAUBICHLER, [[email protected]] Please find on the top right side of our webpage a link to our Book Proposal Form. Pietro Daniel Omodeo Defending Descartes in Brandenburg-Prussia The University of Frankfurt an der Oder in the Seventeenth Century Pietro Daniel Omodeo Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage Ca’ Foscari University of Venice Venezia, Italy ISSN 1385-0180 ISSN 2215-0064 (electronic) Archimedes ISBN 978-3-031-01963-0 ISBN 978-3-031-01964-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01964-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland A Brandenburg Star in a Cartesian Constellation In his monolithic history of Cartesian Philosophy, Histoire de la philosophie Cartésienne (1868), in two volumes, Francisque Boullier devoted most of his atten- tion to the French and Dutch strands of reception of Descartes’s work and ideas in early modernity. By doing so, he established a standard historiographical interpreta- tion, which still looms large over studies on this topic. The French and Dutch geo- cultural contexts still occupy the central stage in studies on early Cartesianism. To a lesser extent, Boullier also discussed other contexts, especially Switzerland, England, and Italy. Yet, national compartments that reflect nineteenth-century patri- otic feelings are unsuited for an overarching European comprehension of the intel- lectual phenomenon of Cartesian philosophy. Narrow identity boundaries unjustifiably assume that philosophy and science can be reconstructed along mon- adological national lines of development. Germany constitutes a unique case, as Boullier’s discussion of the reception of Descartes en Allemagne almost exclusively dealt with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz as the most significant heir (!) to the French philosopher. Apart from this, he reduced the German reception of Descartes to one paragraph (Boullier 1868, 403), in which he mentioned those scholars who brought the teaching they had been imparted in Leiden, Utrecht, and Groningen to Herborn, Duisburg, and other localities. In a short footnote, Boullier referred to the introduc- tion of Cartesian ideas into Brandenburg: Johannes Placentinus, professor of mathematics, who defended Descartes in his writings and in public discussions. He is the author of a work entitled Renatus Cartesius triumphans, dedicated to the Electoral Prince of Brandenburg, who protected him.1 To date, secondary literature on Cartesianism in Brandenburg-Prussia is quite lim- ited, with rare exceptions. Johann Christoph Becmann, an early-modern historian at the University of Frankfurt, did not spend many words on Placentinus, only two decades after had passed away. He did not think that this mathematician and 1 Boullier 1969, 404, n. 1: “Jean Placentinus, professeur de mathématiques, qui défendit Descartes par ses écrits et dans des discussions publiques. Il est l’auteur d’un ouvrage intitulé : Renatus Cartesius triumphans, dédié à l’électeur de Brandebourg, qui le protégea.” v vi A Brandenburg Star in a Cartesian Constellation Cartesian philosopher deserved more than the following brief mention, provided in the section on Professores matheseos (professors of mathematics) of his Notitia Universitatis Francofurtanae (News on the University of Frankfurt, 1707): Johannes Placentinus of Leszno was appointed as a professor of mathematics in December 1653, became mentally ill in 1665, and died in March 1683.2 This context of Cartesianism, which Becmann and Boullier did not consider worthy of more than a few lines, is the specific area of concern in this book. Indeed, it deals with the early reception of René Descartes in the much-neglected environment of Brandenburg-Prussia, particularly the Academia Viadrina (the University of Frankfurt an der Oder) which benefited from the patronage of the Hohenzollern court of Cölln an der Spree (present-day central Berlin). My study aims to better understand the early dissemination of Descartes’s scientific philosophy – or ‘philo- sophical science’ – beyond the traditional centers of Cartesian studies, and to inte- grate them with a central-European case. This area of inquiry is still marginal in the studies on seventeenth-century science and philosophy, although in-depth research on Cartesian logic, ontology, and medicine has shown the originality of its German initiates (Trevisani 1992, 2011; Savini 2011). Johannes Clauberg and Christopher Wittich, to name only two influential figures in this reception, are known as the sober promoters of a ‘Scholastic’ adaptation of Cartesian ideas, especially in the institu- tional context of the University of Duisburg, in which logic and methodological questions took the center stage. Less typical features of Cartesianism emerge from the eccentric life and work of the Polish professor of mathematics at Frankfurt, the fervent disseminator of Cartesian cosmology and epistemology Johannes Placentinus (1630–1683). His passion for astronomy led him to support Cartesian heliocentrism against late defenders of scriptural (and Aristotelian) geocentrism, while his keen interest in astrology made him a kind of ‘mechanistic astrologer’ (Figs. 1 and 2). Placentinus, as the above-mentioned sources remind us, ultimately failed to establish the teaching of Cartesian philosophy in the Philosophical Faculty of Frankfurt, but his legacy was continued in the Medical Faculty by the professor of medicine Tobias Andreae (1633–1685), the nephew of the renowned supporter of Descartes in the Netherlands of the same name (Tobias Andreae, 1604–1676). Andreae’s conceptions met with less resistance on the part of physicians than Placentinus’s ideas, which were harshly attacked by philosophers and theologians. Andreae successfully presided over psycho-physical Cartesian disputes and intro- duced innovative medical practices. Together with his students and other scholars (among them, the local pastor), he carried out anatomical experiments inspired by a novel philosophical attitude toward observation. He presided over anatomical dis- sections and embalmed small animals as well as humans. The present study of the Frankfurt environment looks at Cartesian scientific practices and their institutional settings in relation to a wide range of theories and habits that may be seen to fall within the compass of Cartesian philosophy, including mathematics, mechanics, 2 Becmann 1707, 73: “Johannes Placentinus Lesnensis, Matheseos Professor factus A. 1653 M. Decembri, in debilitatem animi lapsus A. 1665, mortuus A. 1683 M. Mart.” A Brandenburg Star in a Cartesian Constellation vii Figs. 1 and 2 Two images from Placentinus’s booklet on the solar eclipse, Newlicher Sonnenfinsternis, of 1661, that bears witnesses to the author’s connection of Cartesian natural philosophy, astronomical observation and astrological interpretation. Provenance: Herzog August Library, Wolfenbüttel cosmology, matter theory, medicine, anatomy, and even the ‘wretched sciences’ (on which concept, see Taub 1997). Placentinus and Andreae were proud to be part of an international network of northern European scholars in Germany, Poland, and other countries, especially the Netherlands. They continued earlier Dutch controversies over Descartes that pitted theological censors such as Gijsbert Voet against ‘radicals’ such as Henricus Regius, or more moderate defenders of Cartesian philosophy (Verbeek 1992; Van Bunge viii A Brandenburg Star in a Cartesian Constellation Figs. 1 and 2 (continued) 2019). They were active promoters and circulators of Descartes’s views, but their intellectual attitude is eccentric with respect to classical interpretations of Cartesianism. For instance, Andreae went so far as to develop a demonological dis- course based on Descartes’s Principia philosophiae (Andreae 1691). This intellec- tual endeavor – just like Placentinus’s astrology – seems far removed from the image of Descartes’ method as an essential ingredient of the modern (and perhaps positivistic) conception of science. The Frankfurt case might induce us to revise our understanding of early-modern Cartesian rationality. The problem of who and what counts as ‘Cartesian’ is not only a contemporary historiographical question (cf. Schmaltz 2019, 447). The eclectically Peripatetic A Brandenburg Star in a Cartesian Constellation ix philosopher Christian Thomasius, a detractor of Cartesian ‘sectarism’ who had received part of his education in Frankfurt, depicted Descartes’s followers, in his Introductio ad philosophiam aulicam (Introduction to Aulic Philosophy, 1688), as a multifarious group of people with different agendas: They are called Cartesians after Descartes [Cartesius] but in an ambiguous manner. Indeed, one can use this label for those who follow Descartes in all respects, moved by a blind impetus. It can denote those who adhere to his rather distinctive dogma of doubt. One can use the term Cartesians to refer to those who extol philosophy in order to abusively under- mine the simplicity of the sacred field of theology and faith through some declaration uttered by Descartes. Likewise, the label may also apply to those who do not wish to join forces with the main enemies of Descartes or to share with them a symposium against Descartes but judge his sayings to be acute and vigorous. Finally, as a calumniation one may call [Cartesians] those who have ceased to be Aristotelians or left Aristotle by aban- doning some of his doctrines.3 The present study deals with scholars who considered themselves – and were con- sidered by their contemporaries – to be ‘Cartesians’, no matter how extravagant their theses might seem in light of an ex-post analysis of Descartes and Cartesianism.4 Although the book discusses mostly neglected authors and contexts related to early Cartesianism between the Netherlands and Germany, it can benefit from existing scholarship on so-called ‘Cartesian Scholastic’, beginning with Josef Bohatec’s seminal work (1912). As far as the early reception of Descartes is concerned, Theo Verbeek’s Descartes and the Dutch (1992) remains an important reference work, as it has been the source of other accurate investigations on the Dutch reception of Descartes and the relevance of academic and religious controversies. Verbeek’s analysis of primary sources and his reconstruction of university contexts has helped many historians, including myself, to trace patterns of reception of Cartesian phi- losophy that loom large over later events, including the German controversies that I here discuss. Moreover, Roger Ariew’s Descartes Among the Scholastics (2011) pointed to significant patterns in the circulation of Cartesian ideas, the validity of which should not be limited to the extra-German cases on which he focuses. I will particularly refer to his discussion of the problem of the complex coexistence of novel philosophical trends and traditional models at early-modern universities. As Arriew has shown, Cartesianism and Scholastic ideas met in different ways, includ- ing through the hybridization of Aristotelian and Cartesian perspectives. Medicine, as he argues, was a particularly relevant field of encounter between old and new 3 Thomasius 1688, 36: “A Cartesio dicunt Cartesiani, sed ambigue. Modo enim ii, qui caeco impetu Cartesium sequuntur in omnibus, sic appellantur, modo illi denotantur, qui eius dogmati quasi characteristico de dubitatione suscribunt, modo illi Cartesianorum nomine compellantur, qui Cartesianorum philosophiam extollentes Theologiae pomoeria et fidei simplicitatem hoc aut isto Cartesii effato abusi turbant; modo isti sic appellantur, qui non assurgere hostibus Cartesii capitali- bus, nec cum ipsis ad convita adversus Cartesium diffluere cupiunt, sed eius acute et nervose dicta aestimant; modo denique ii per calumniam sic vocantur qui defierunt esse Aristotelici, vel ne deserto quidem penitus Aristotele a quibusdam saltem decretis discedunt.” 4 On the importance of studying controversies to understand what it meant to be a Cartesian, see Roux 2013.
The list of books you might like
