Abstract
This issue of Daphnis will examine the use of invective between scholars in the early modern period. The introduction places the findings of the individual contributions in a broader context.
Criticising arguments and theories is a key element of the scientific process. However, debates are not always restricted to content but also target other, often unrelated aspects, such as the persona of the author or the form in which a theory is presented. The tone, in which criticism is voiced, also makes a difference. While modern scholars and scientists sometimes experience harsh attacks directed not against the content of their work but against their persona, such behaviour is generally not regarded as appropriate. Most editors and publishers do not allow for polemics or ad personam invectives in academic books and papers. Such vilifications can be found in certain media outlets or on social media, but they form no part of the academic discourse per se.
In the early modern period, however, harsh criticism, denigrations, and ad hominem arguments were a vital part of the res publica litteraria, as recent studies have shown.1 Invectives and other forms of reproachful speech were a widespread phenomenon not only in the political and religious spheres but also in the academic sphere. Early modern scholars followed a tradition that can be traced back to antiquity where polemical arguments could also be found in philosophical and “scientific” texts.2 As Dániel Margócsy will argue in his contribution to this special issue, the so-called Republic of Letters was partly conceived as an army fighting against outsiders, but occasionally involved in “civil war” too. The militaristic nature of the Res publica litteraria might have played a role in shaping their polemic forms. Envy, a cardinal sin and the source of many quarrels, could even be legitimised in academic contexts, as Robert Seidel will show in his article about early modern dissertations dealing with the so-called “invidentia licita”.
From a modern perspective, polemics in the natural sciences seem to be a particularly odd phenomenon given that scientific literature is considered as rather dry, matter-of-fact texts presenting data and findings. While modern scientific papers hide the individual authors and their opinions through nominal style, passive constructions, the avoidance of personal pronouns such as “I” or “we”, and a lack of rhetorical embellishment, quite the opposite is true for many early modern texts.3 Humanist authors often employed the rhetorical strategies pathos, ethos, and logos inherited from the Aristotelian tradition to convince their readers.4 The prominent appearance of the authors in their texts surely facilitated ad hominem arguments, just as the emotional descriptions invited responses in the same or opposite tone.
The articles in this special issue take a closer look at forms of polemics and denigration in early modern academic texts especially but not exclusively from the natural sciences. Their results will be tentatively summarised in the following pages and some further examples added to give a broader overview of the topic.
1 Identifying and Attacking Opponents
The targets of polemical attacks could range from single persons to rather large, impersonal groups, such as adherents of Arabic medicine or alchemists. Often, such attacks came from colleagues who had different scientific concepts and theories. Proponents of influential theories could be vilified even after their death, as the cases of René Descartes (see the article by Johanna Luggin) and Nicolaus Copernicus (see the article by Irina Tautschnig) show. To a certain extent, criticism of the founders of a particular theory also aimed at the contemporary followers of that theory.
Sometimes the attackers shied away from openly naming their opponent and just hinted at them. Still, the relevant peer group would have easily guessed who was attacked. Sarah Lang will present the example of Michael Maier only hinting at Johann Grasse through expressions like “a gramine dictus” (“named after grass”) or the pun “grassator” (“bandit”). A similar case can be found in Tycho Brahe’s Epistolae astronomicae (1596). In his last letter to Christopher Rothmann, dated 14 January 1595 (pp. 284–305),5 Brahe attacks inter alia a certain Scot, a medical doctor following Galen and an exceedingly close adherent of the Aristotelian doctrine (“Scotus quidam natione fuit, medicinae Galenicae doctor et Aristoteleae philosophiae supra modum addictus”; p. 286). This Scot, who had condemned Brahe’s interpretation regarding the comet of 1577, was probably John Craig.6 The Epistolae astronomicae contain a number of polemical attacks, but it is interesting to see that Brahe did not mention Craig’s name, while he was not afraid to do so in other cases, most notably in the case of his main opponent Nicolaus Reimers Baer, called Ursus. In a letter to Kepler from 1599, Tycho claimed that he wanted to leave out Ursus’s name in the published version as well, but his students overseeing the publication left everything as it was in the autograph.7 It is not very likely that this explanation is actually true.8
Some authors, particularly those who lacked authority or protection, hesitated to criticise others in their own name and hid behind a pseudonym or published anonymously. Sarah Lang will present the example of Michael Maier attacking the more powerful Sir William Paddy only under his pseudonym Hermes Malavici. The anonymous satirical Dialogus Mercurii, Alchymistae et Naturae (1607) constitutes another example from the same discipline. It was probably written by Michał Se̜dziwój and makes fun of profit-oriented but unlearned alchemists as opposed to true philosophers. It is not directed against alchemy and the search for the philosopher’s stone per se, but against those who seek it for mere profit. The anonymous author claims to have produced one of his own in the letter to the reader.
Michael Kirsten even went a step further when he ridiculed alchemists and their wondrous substances in his Non-entia chymica (1645).9 This is basically a mock lexicon, in which the author, who hides under the pseudonym Utis,10 lists alchemical non-entities together with short, often exaggerated explanations. In the preface, alchemists are compared to poets because both groups are good at inventing things. In a short Excusatio at the end of the lexicon (pp. 34–35), the author stresses that he did not mean to attack anyone in person. If someone feels hurt, it is his or her own fault.
Incidentally, such controversies were not only conducted for the noble reason of scientific honesty and the search for truth. Many scholars also pursued economic interests when polemicising against their opponents. Sarah Lang will show an instructive example of how Michael Maier used polemics to market his own product, potable gold. Jacob Balde’s mockery of Copernicus was not driven by a deep interest in the astronomical debate about the shape of the universe, but rather by a theological motivation, as Irina Tautschnig will highlight in her contribution.
Regarding the rhetorical strategies, polemics often served to single out persons or groups.11 The criticised person or group is separated from a larger group, such as humankind, Christianity, the res publica litteraria, or sensible men. This separation can also serve as justification for attacks because the verbal aggression is seemingly directed against an external enemy, so to say. Military metaphors are not uncommon in such discourses, as Dániel Margócsy will show in his article.
An important rhetorical strategy relevant in scientific debates consists in portraying opponents as untrustworthy and unreliable from the outset. If this characterisation of the opponents is established, the ideas and contents themselves do not need a detailed treatment anymore.
Early modern authors framed their critics as “detractores” (“disparagers”), referred to opponents as “nebulones” (“idlers”) and “scioli” (“smatters”),12 for example, and used verba dicendi such as “garrire”, “hallucinari”, or “mentiri” when quoting their opponents’ words. Furthermore, they often pointed to shortcomings in Latin. This charge proved powerful because it served to exclude someone from the res publica litteraria whose “citizens” required a good command of Latin, that is, they had to follow Cicero’s style as closely as possible.13
While writing in a strict Ciceronian manner and exclusively using words found in his texts soon proved unfeasible in general, the ideal was even harder to reach in the natural sciences. Most of the ancient medical and scientific texts had been written in Greek, and a specific Latin – let alone an exclusively Ciceronian – terminology was often lacking in these areas of knowledge at the beginning of the sixteenth century. In addition, new findings required new denominations. For these reasons, early modern scientists and physicians soon had to resort to unclassical words, but often justified their choice of neologisms either in a preface or right next to the respective terms. Such justifications served to anticipate possible attacks on the style and could be brought forth either in an apologetic tone or in a more aggressive way. A good example of the latter option is Johann Winter’s Epistola dedicatoria to his commentary on Galen’s anatomy (1531, fol.
Vix enim tuti erimus a rabiosulis quibusdam et male feriatis15 hominibus, qui ingenuos cuiusque conatus elevare, non meliora facere didicerunt. Quippe hi omnem orationem ut putidam respuunt et quodcumque verbum allatrant, lautioris eloquentiae institores, opinanturque ceteros quasi in Tullianorum officina non perpolitos nequiquam ad palmae speciem aspirare aut secundae aut tertiae.
‘For we will hardly be safe from certain half-mad and untimely celebrating people who have learned to belittle everyone’s decent attempts, but not to accomplish anything better. They despise every speech as if it were abominable. As guardians of a purer eloquence, scolding every word they choose, believing that the rest of the world seek in vain to reach the splendour of the first prize, or even just that of the second or third, because they have not been smoothed out and refined in the workshop of the Ciceronians.’
Winter chose to lead a counterattack against possible critics from the camp of the strong adherents to Ciceronianism. Winter dismisses criticism of his language as invalid, because he characterises potential attackers as pedants who find a reason for criticism in everyone, anyway, but are unable to do it any better themselves. Possible attacks on his work would be nothing special and could, hence, hardly affect him.16
One of the strongest polemical strategies is to make fun of an opponent, as several contributions to this issue will argue. Examples of mocking and satire can be found in the literary dispute between Lorenzo Valla and Poggio Bracciolini, as presented in Ludovica Sasso’s article. Johanna Luggin’s contribution will discuss a satirical didactic poem mocking Cartesian cosmology. Irina Tautschnig’s article will demonstrate how Jacob Balde ridiculed the astronomer Copernicus by turning him into a bad student who misunderstood a basic rule of Latin grammar.
2 Literary Forms
The importance of polemics in early modern scholarship can already be deduced from the forms of publications. In contrast to modern science, extensive books were published that were primarily directed against adherents of a certain discipline or theory.
Ludovica Sasso will portray one of the most famous examples of a literary dispute in the Italian Quattrocento, the quarrel between Poggio Bracciolini and Lorenzo Valla on the right understanding of latinitas and the way of teaching it. This debate, in which other scholars also became involved, resulted in a substantial number of polemical texts from each side.17 Such literary disputes involving several authors writing book-length objections against the other party are attested throughout the early modern period in all disciplines.
Leonhart Fuchs’ Errata recentiorum medicorum (1530) make for another famous example. In this work of some 160 quarto pages, the German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs criticised common mistakes of his colleagues. Fuchs was one of the fiercest opponents of Arabic medicine and regarded many of these “errata” as the result of misconceptions in the Arabic tradition.18 Since Arabic medicine still had its followers in the sixteenth century, Fuchs’s polemical treatment of those concepts evoked reactions in turn. For instance, Sébastien de Monteux answered Fuchs’s Errata with Annotatiunculae on his part in 1533, in which he briefly pointed out Fuchs’s own misunderstandings. De Monteux’s small book also included two further letters arguing in favour of Arabic medicine. De Monteux’s answer provoked Fuchs to write yet another text, the Paradoxorum medicinae libri III, published in 1535.
Another instructive example is Pierre Brissot and Jérémie de Dryvère’s debate on the correct side of bloodletting. Soon, other people joined this debate with their own writings, among them again Leonhart Fuchs. He defended Brissot in his Apologia Leonardi Fuchsii (1534). Fuchs attacked (fol. A2v) inter alia de Dryvère’s use of “revulsio” and “derivatio”, words with a special meaning in the contexts of bloodletting. According to Fuchs, de Dryvère could not have used them in a wrong sense – except on purpose – if he knew proper Latin (“Accedit quod turpiter admodum in revulsionis et derivationis vocabulis hallucinetur, quorum certe genuinam vim, cum linguae Latinae probe peritus sit, ignorare non facile, nisi dedita opera, potuit”). Denying someone else’s command of Latin and using a derogatory verb such as “hallucinari” to express a rejected view was a topical form of abuse, as has already been said.
In the field of astrology, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola wrote his famous Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem (1496) that were published by his nephew Gianfrancesco after the author’s death. Pico’s arguments against astrology sparked a debate, which resulted in numerous responses from both sides.19
Such book-length polemical works could come in many literary forms ranging from treatises or letters to more poetic forms like dialogues (e.g., the already mentioned Dialogus Mercurii, Alchymistae et Naturae)20 or poems (see the articles by Luggin and Lang). Another typical place for academic dispute was early modern dissertations, which will be the topic of Robert Seidel’s article.21
Attacks on single persons or groups could also be mentioned en passant, meaning that the polemical part is not the main content of a scientific work. Still, these verbal assaults could be highlighted by placing them prominently, for example, in prefaces and liminary poetry or in the marginalia. A good example of the latter can be found in Pietro Andrea Mattioli’s work on Dioscorides, the Commentarii in sex libros Dioscoridis (1554).22 Mattioli can be described as quarrelsome, just like Leonhart Fuchs, from whom we have already heard. Fuchs and Mattioli particularly disliked each other. The latter hardly missed a chance at pointing out Fuchs’s and other botanists’ real or alleged errors in the identification of plants mentioned in ancient text. Mattioli “used his marginalia as a means of highlighting their errors, depicting them as perpetually untrustworthy”,23 as Paula Findlen has put it. More than 70 notes in the margins referring to detailed discussions of “Fuchsii errores/deceptus” reveal his contempt for Fuchs.
Many translators of and commentators on ancient Greek texts harshly criticised predecessors in prefaces and letters to the readers claiming that their colleagues’ poor command of Latin and Greek as well as lack of knowledge in the respective field resulted in incomprehensible, misleading, and distorted translations. Such polemics could be a means to justify and advertise a new translation or commentary.24
Some authors revised their own works after harsh criticism from their peers. David Origanus, professor of Greek, mathematics, and astronomy at the Brandenburg University of Frankfurt, issued a massive Almanac of the Movements in the Sky from Brandenburg, the Novae motuum caelestium ephemerides Brandenburgicae, in 1609. The Novae ephemerides describe and predict celestial movements for the years 1595 to 1654 and superseded his previous work titled Ephemerides from 1599. Giovanni Antonio Magini and Georg Rollenhagen had criticised or rather “barked at” (“allatrarunt”) the earlier version, as Origanus points out on the title page of the Novae ephemerides. Origanus also took the chance for revenge in the form of an extended polemic directed at Magini and Rollenhagen in the letter to the reader of the first volume.
3 Strategies of Avoidance
Early modern scientists not only attacked opponents but also employed strategies to avoid such attacks. It might sound like an oversimplification, but accurately writing down one’s new findings and theories to let them circulate widely already constituted an important step in saving oneself from mal-intent distortions of one’s new ideas. William Harvey’s motivation for the publication of his Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus (1628) makes for a famous example (p. 21):
Quae cum aliis (uti sit) placebat, aliis minus: hi convellere, calumniari et vitio vertere, quod a praeceptis et fide omnium anatomicorum discesserim. Illi rem novam cum inquisitu dignam tum maxime utilem fore confirmantes, plenius sibi explicatam poscere. Tandem amicorum precibus, ut omnes meorum laborum participes fierent, partim et iam aliorum permotus invidia qui dicta mea iniquo animo accipientes et minus intelligentes me publice traducere conabantur, ut omnes de me et de re ipsa iudicium ferant, haec typis mandare publice coactus fui.
‘As happens, this view was acceptable to some, to others less so. The latter tore it to pieces, misrepresented it, and found cause of offence in my departure from the rules and belief of anatomists as a whole. The former asked for a fuller explanation of the novelty, asserting that it would be worth investigating and would prove of extreme practical importance. At length I reacted to the entreaties of friends that they should all share in my labours, and also in part to the ill-will of the others who, receiving my statements with biased minds and imperfectly understanding them, kept trying to make a public laughing-stock of me. In consequence, I have been forced to publish these things in print so that all may pass judgment upon me and upon the matter in question.’25
Harvey was right in assuming that his revolutionary description of the blood circulation was not only received in praise. Even decades after its publication, the book sparked debates that led Harvey (and some of his supporters) to defend the theory in forthcoming works.26
The choice of a suitable literary genre could be a means to propagate an unpopular or even forbidden theory. Dialogues, for instance, offer the possibility to discuss two conflicting opinions without necessarily opting for one of them. Still, the famous example of Galileo Galilei’s Dialogo (1632) proves that this could be a risky strategy. Poetic genres such as didactic poems or dream narratives were another way to praise new theories or inventions without identifying with them too closely. These genres could serve as a “protective cover for the author”.27 The French Jesuit Pierre Brumoy, for example, included a mythical scene into the second book of his De arte vitraria (1712), in which he had the Muse Urania inform the other ancient gods about the Copernican system. He fared better than Galileo 80 years before him.28
As we have already seen, polemics targeted not only the content but also other aspects, an author’s style and choice of words in particular. To avoid this criticism, many authors resorted to apologies for their style, such as the one from Johann Winter quoted above.
4 Overview of the Contributions
This panorama of polemics and strategies to avoid them aimed at giving an idea of the rich literary tradition. Throughout the early modern period, polemical speech was an integral part of the scholarly discourse and could take on various forms, as the examples presented above clearly demonstrate. Early modern science was surely no terrain for the timid and anxious, but a battlefield of letters. The six articles in this issue will provide further evidence and in-depth studies on the topic.
The first contribution by Dániel Margócsy will challenge the common notion of the Res publica litteraria as a peaceful commonwealth overcoming religious and national boundaries. Drawing on sources from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, Margócsy argues that the “citizens” conceptualised their Republic of Letters like an army at war, instead. Robert Seidel will treat an equally overarching topic: envy amongst scholars. After giving an overview of the topic, he will focus on the dissertation De licita eruditorum invidentia (Aepin [Praes.]/Burgmann [Resp.], 1718), which sparked a debate over whether envy could be allowed in some circumstances.
The remaining contributions will present case studies spanning several centuries and academic disciplines. Ludovica Sasso will study one of the earliest and most famous scholarly debates: the dispute about the right way of learning and speaking Latin between Poggio Bracciolini and Lorenzo Valla in fifteenth-century Italy. Sarah Lang will focus on the German chymist Michael Maier. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, he published a number of invectives to fashion himself as an expert of alchemy and to propagate his business of potable gold.
The two final articles will deal with Jesuit poetry from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Irina Tautschnig will interpret a sophisticated poem contained in Jacob Balde’s Poema de vanitate mundi (1638), in which the author mocks Nicolaus Copernicus’s theory of the moving earth. Finally, Johanna Luggin will discuss Pierre le Coëdic’s Mundus Cartesii, a satirical hexametric poem that describes a subterranean world based on René Descartes’s theories.
Acknowledgments
It is my pleasure to thank all those involved in the production of this special issue. First and foremost, I am grateful to all contributors for their interesting articles. Most of them resulted from a pleasant workshop in Innsbruck in July 2022. Johanna Luggin kindly agreed to add another one.
I would also like to thank all participants of the workshop for their talks and the fruitful discussion resulting from them. My colleague Stefan Zathammer was so kind to take care of the technical equipment before and during the workshop. As always, Stefanie Lechner, the former administrative assistant of the Institute for Classical Philology and Neo-Latin Studies, took excellent care of the organisation of the conference and provided the coffee breaks. I am very grateful to her.
The workshop was part of the ERC project NOSCEMUS “Nova scientia: Early modern scientific literature and Latin” hosted by the University of Innsbruck from 2017 to 2023. The grant awarded to Martin Korenjak allowed for the generous funding of this conference. My colleagues in the project thankfully discussed the workshop topic with me beforehand. Martin Korenjak, Irina Tautschnig, Stefan Zathammer, and William Barton kindly agreed to chair sessions.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the editors of Daphnis for accepting the articles in the form of a special issue, and Professor Tobias Bulang and Lucia Jurkovičová for their support throughout the publishing process. Robert Seidel was so kind to propose the journal as a venue for the acta of the conference.
References
Aepin, Franz Albert (Praes.), and Johann Christian Burgmann (Resp.). Exercitium academicum de licita eruditorum invidentia (Rostock: Schwiegerow, 1718).
Akopyan, Ovanes. Debating the Stars in the Italian Renaissance. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem and Its Reception (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2021).
Balde, Jacob. Poema de vanitate mundi (Munich: Leysser, 1638).
Barozzi, Francesco. Procli Diadochi Lycii, philosophi Platonici ac mathematici probatissimi, in primum Euclidis Elementorum librum Commentariorum ad universam mathematicam disciplinam principium eruditionis tradentium libri IIII (Padua: Perchacino, 1560).
Baumann, Uwe, Arnold Becker, and Marc Laureys, eds. Polemik im Dialog des Renaissance-Humanismus. Formen, Entwicklungen und Funktionen (Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2015).
Berrens, Dominik. Naming New Things and Concepts in Early Modern Science. The Case of Natural History, Habilitation (Klassische Philologie und Neulateinische Studien, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 2022).
Berrens, Dominik. “Joachim Camerarius d. Ä. und die medizinische Terminologie des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Camerarius im Kontext. Konstellationen und Diskurslandschaften des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. Marion Gindhart (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2024), 203–224.
Brahe, Tycho. Epistolarum astronomicarum libri, quorum primus hic illustrissimi et laudatissimi principis Gulielmi Hassiae Landtgravii ac ipsius mathematici litteras unaque responsa ad singulas complectitur (Uraniborg: Officina typographica authoris, 1596).
Brumoy, Pierre. De arte vitraria libri duo (Caen: Cavelier, 1712).
Chang, Ku-ming (Kevin). “From Oral Disputation to Written Text. The Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe.” History of Universities 19 (2004), 129–187.
Chang, Ku-ming (Kevin). “For the Love of the Truth. The Dissertation as a Genre of Scholarly Publication in Early Modern Europe.” KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge 5 (2021), 113–166.
le Coëdic, Pierre. “Mundus Cartesii. Carmen.” In Poemata didascalica nunc primum vel edita vel collecta, ed. François Oudin (Paris: Le Mercier, 1749), 1: 43–72.
De Smet, Ingrid. Menippean Satire and the Republic of Letters. 1581–1655 (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1996).
Dreyer, John Louis Emil. Tychonis Brahe Dani opera omnia. 14 vols. (Copenhagen: Libraria Gyldendaliana, 1913–1929).
Durling, Richard J. “A Chronological Census of Renaissance Editions and Translations of Galen.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24 (1961), 230–305.
Enenkel, Karl. “Einleitung.” In Humanisten über ihre Kollegen. Eulogien, Klatsch und Rufmord, eds. Karl Enenkel, and Christian Peters (Berlin: LIT, 2018), 1–6.
Enenkel, Karl, and Christian Peters, eds. Humanisten über ihre Kollegen. Eulogien, Klatsch und Rufmord (Berlin: LIT, 2018).
Findlen, Paula. “The Formation of a Scientific Community. Natural History in Sixteenth-Century Italy.” In Natural Particulars. Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, eds. Anthony Grafton, and Nancy Siraisi (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1999), 369–400.
Friedenthal, Meelis, Hanspeter Marti, and Robert Seidel, eds. Early Modern Disputations and Dissertations in an Interdisciplinary and European Context (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020).
Fuchs, Leonhart. Errata medicorum recentiorum numero LX adiectis eorundem confutationibus in studiosorum gratiam iam primum edita Leonardo Fuchsio authore (Hagenau: Setzer, 1530).
Fuchs, Leonhart. Apologia Leonardi Fuchsii contra Hieremiam Thriverum Brachelium, Medicum Lovaniensem, qua monstratur quod in viscerum inflammationibus, pleuritide praesertim, sanguis e directo lateris affecti mitti debeat. Adiecta est Matthaei Curtii Ticinensis medici doctissimi cum Neotericis De venae in pleuritide sectione erudita disceptatio (Hagenau: Braubach, 1534).
Fuchs, Leonhart. Paradoxorum medicinae libri III, in quibus sane multa a nemine hactenus prodita Arabum aetatisque nostrae medicorum errata non tantum indicantur, sed et probatissimorum autorum scriptis, firmissimisque rationibus ac argumentis confutantur D. Leonardo Fuchsio Marchionum Brandenburgensium archiatro autore. Obiter denique hic Sebastiano Montuo medico Rivoriensi respondetur, eiusque annotatiunculae velut omnium frigidissimae prorsus exploduntur (Basel: Bebel, 1535).
Galenus. Galenou a–e [Γαληνοῦ α–ε]. Galeni librorum pars I–V, ed. Andreas Asulanus (Venice: Aldus Manutius, 1525).
Galenus. Galenou b [Γαληνοῦ β]. Galeni librorum pars secunda, ed. Leonhart Fuchs (Basel: Herwagen/Froben, 1538a).
Galenus. Galenou d [Γαληνοῦ δ]. Galeni librorum pars quarta, ed. Joachim Camerarius (Basel: Herwagen/Froben, 1538b).
Galilei, Galileo. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano; proponendo indeterminatamente le ragioni filosofiche e naturali tanto per l’una, quanto per l’altra parte (Florence: Landini, 1632).
Gindhart, Marion, Hanspeter Marti, Robert Seidel, and Karin Marti-Weissenbach, eds. Frühneuzeitliche Disputationen. Polyvalente Produktionsapparate gelehrten Wissens (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau, 2016).
Harvey, William. Exercitatio anatomica de motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus (Frankfurt am Main: Fitzer, 1628).
Harvey, William. The Circulation of Blood and Other Writings, trans. Kenneth J. Franklin (London: Tuttle, 1993).
Hasse, Dag Nikolaus. “Die humanistische Polemik gegen arabische Autoritäten. Grundsätzliches zum Forschungsstand.” Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 3 (2001), 65–79.
Helmrath, Johannes. “Streitkultur. Die ‘Invektive’ bei den italienischen Humanisten.” In Die Kunst des Streitens. Inszenierung, Formen und Funktionen öffentlichen Streits in historischer Perspektive, eds. Marc Laureys, and Roswitha Simons (Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2010), 259–293.
d’Hoine, Pieter, Geert Roskam, Stefan Schorn, and Joseph Verheyden, eds. Polemics and Networking in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021).
Holzmann, Michael, and Hans Bohatta. Deutsches Anonymen-Lexikon. 7 vols. (Weimar: Gesellschaft der Bibliophilen, 1902–1928).
Homerus. Odyssea, ed. Martin L. West (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2017).
Horatius Flaccus, Quintus. Opera, ed. David Roy Shackleton Bailey, 4th ed. (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter).
Howard, Nicole. Loath to Print. The Reluctant Scientific Author, 1500–1750 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2022).
Israel, Uwe, Marius Kraus, and Ludovica Sasso, eds. Agonale Invektivität. Konstellationen und Dynamiken der Herabsetzung im italienischen und deutschen Humanismus (Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2021a).
Israel, Uwe, Marius Kraus, and Ludovica Sasso. “Einleitung.” In Agonale Invektivität. Konstellationen und Dynamiken der Herabsetzung im italienischen und deutschen Humanismus, eds. Uwe Israel, Marius Kraus, and Ludovica Sasso (Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2021b), 1–13.
Kirsten, Michael. Non-entia chymica sive catalogus eorum operum operationumque chymicarum, quae, cum non sint in rerum natura nec esse possint, magno tamen cum strepitu a vulgo chymicorum passim circumferuntur et orbi obtruduntur (Frankfurt am Main: Götze, 1645).
Korenjak, Martin. Latin Scientific Literature, 1450–1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).
Laureys, Marc, and Roswitha Simons, eds. Die Kunst des Streitens. Inszenierung, Formen und Funktionen öffentlichen Streits in historischer Perspektive (Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2010).
van Leeuwenhoek, Antoni. Arcana naturae detecta ab Antonio van Leeuwenhoek (Delft: Krooneveld, 1695).
Marti, Hanspeter, Reimund Sdzuj, and Robert Seidel, eds. Rhetorik, Poetik und Ästhetik im Bildungssystem des Alten Reiches. Wissenschaftshistorische Erschließung ausgewählter Dissertationen von Universitäten und Gymnasien 1500–1800 (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau, 2017).
Mattioli, Pietro Andrea. Commentarii in sex libros Pedacii Dioscoridis Anazarbei de Medica materia, iam denuo ab ipso autore recogniti, et locis plus mille aucti. Adiectis magnis, ac novis plantarum, ac animalium iconibus, supra priores editiones longe pluribus, ad vivum delineatis. Accesserunt quoque ad margines Graeci contextus quam plurimi, ex antiquissimis codicibus desumpti, qui Dioscoridis ipsius depravatam lectionem restituunt. Cum locupletissimis indicibus, tum ad rem herbariam, tum medicamentarium pertinentibus. Cum privilegiis amplissimis, ut videre est statim post Praefationem ad Lectores (Venice: Valgrisi, 1554).
de Monteux, Sébastien. Annotatiunculae in errata recentiorum medicorum per Leonardum Fuchsium collecta. Apologetica epistola pro defensione Arabum composita a Bernardo Unger. Epistola responsiva pro Graecorum defensione in Arabum errata a Symphoriano Campegio composita (Lyon: Bounyn, 1533).
Mosley, Adam. “Tycho Brahe’s Epistolae Astronomicae: A Reappraisal.” In Self- Representation and Social Identification. The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, eds. Toon Van Houdt, Jan Papy, Gilbert Tournoy, and Constant Matheeussen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 449–468.
Mosley, Adam. Bearing the Heavens. Tycho Brahe and the Astronomical Community of the Late Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Origanus, David. Ephemerides Novae Annorum XXXVI, Incipientes ab Anno χριστο γονείας [christogoneias] 1595, quo Ιoannis Stadii maxime aberrare incipiunt, et desinentes in annum 1630. Quibus praemissa est Introductio seu Compendiaria Ephemeridum enarratio, qua non solum, quae ad motum primi et secundorum mobilium, usumque pleniorem Ephemeridum faciunt, sed et plurima alia chronologica et astrologica praecepta ea facilitate explicantur, ut inde quisque calendaria anniversaria et nativitatum texere possit iudicia. Autore M. Davide Origano Glacense Silesio, mathematico professore in incluta sempervirali Marchionum Brandenburgensium Academia (Frankfurt an der Oder: Eichorn, 1599).
Origanus, David. Novae motuum caelestium ephemerides Brandenburgicae annorum LX, incipientes ab anno 1595 et desinentes in annum 1655, calculo duplici luminarium, Tychonico et Copernicaeo, reliquorum planetarum posteriore elaboratae et variis diversarum nationum calendariis accomodatae. Cum introductione hac pleniore, in qua chronologia astronomica et astrologica ex fundamentis ipsis tractantur. Auctore Davide Origano Glacense Silesio, Germano, mathematico Electoralis Academiae Brandenburgicae Francofurti ad Viadrum ordinario professore. In quibus et momi duo, qui priorem eiusdem editionem allatrarunt, refutantur aliaque ad festa Christianorum et vetera Romanorum ac Graecorum pertinentia breviter explicantur. Opus medicis, mathematicis, historicis et universis fere, qui litteras et tempora tractant, utilissimum (Frankfurt an der Oder: Eichorn/Reichard, 1609).
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem (Bologna: Hectoris, 1496).
Plinius Secundus, Gaius. Naturalis historia. 6 vols., ed. Karl Mayhoff (Leipzig: Teubner, 1892–1909).
Salas, Luis Alejandro. Cutting Words. Polemical Dimensions of Galen’s Anatomical Experiments (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020).
Sasso, Ludovica. Invettive agonali nell’umanesimo italiano. Poggio Bracciolini e i suoi ‘nemici’ (Naples: Paolo Loffredo Editore, 2023).
Se̜dziwój, Michał. Dialogus Mercurii, Alchymistae et Naturae. Scriptus in gratiam amici Coroades. Auctore eo, qui Divi Leschi genus amat (Cologne: Erffens, 1607).
Spillmann, Tristan. Von intellektuellen Kriegen und Gelehrtengerichten. Zur Konventionalität der humanistischen imitatio im Streit zwischen Lorenzo Valla und Poggio Bracciolini (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023).
Tautschnig, Irina. Moving the Earth in Song. The Reception of Copernicus in Latin and Greek Poems, 1543–1873, Dissertation (Klassische Philologie und Neulateinische Studien, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 2023).
Thoren, Victor E. The Lord of Uraniborg. A Biography of Tycho Brahe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Willughby, Francis, and John Ray. Ornithologiae libri tres, in quibus aves omnes hactenus cognitae in methodum naturis suis convenientem redactae acurate describuntur, descriptiones iconibus elegantissimis et vivarum avium simillimis aeri incisis illustrantur. Totum opus recognovit, digessit, supplevit Ioannes Raius (London: Martyn, 1676).
Winter, Johann. Claudii Galeni Pergameni De anatomicis administrationibus libri novem. De constitutione artis medicae liber. De Theriaca ad Pisonem commentariolus. De pulsibus ad medicinae candidatos liber (Basel: Cratander, 1531).
Winter, Johann. Pauli Aeginetae Opus de re medica (Paris: Simon de Colines, 1532).
Wotton, Edward. De differentiis animalium libri decem ad serenissimum Angliae regem Edoardum VI. Cum amplissimis indicibus, in quibus primum authorum nomina, unde quaequae desumpta sunt, singulis capitibus sunt notata et designata; deinde omnium animalium nomenclaturae itemque singulae eorum partes recensentur, tam Graece quam Latine (Paris: Vascosan, 1552).
See, e.g., the contributions in Laureys/Simons, 2010; Baumann/Becker/Laureys, 2015; Enenkel/Peters, 2018; Israel/Kraus/Sasso, 2021a. Helmrath, 2010 and Israel/Kraus/Sasso, 2021b offer a good overview of the role of invectives in Renaissance humanism.
Salas, 2020; d’Hoine/Roskam/Schorn/Verheyden, 2021.
The variety of early modern scientific literature in Latin was the topic of the ERC project NOSCEMUS “Nova scientia: Early modern scientific literature and Latin”. This special issue resulted from a workshop of this project in 2022. The NOSCEMUS database (https://wiki.uibk.ac.at/noscemus/Main_Page) and Korenjak, 2023 give an overview of the rich variety of literary genres in which scientific ideas and information could be expressed in Neo-Latin literature. The examples presented in this introduction are taken from the database.
Johanna Luggin currently works on this specific topic as part of the NOSCEMUS project.
Modern edition: Dreyer, 1919, 6: 315–337.
Thoren, 1991: 363–364; Mosley, 2002: 465–466; Mosley, 2007: 188.
Modern edition: Dreyer, 1919, 8: 204–205.
Mosley, 2002: 453.
Holzmann/Bohatta, 1902–1928, 2: 215 for the identification of the author.
From Greek
Enenkel, 2018: 4.
Enenkel, 2018: 4–5.
Enenkel, 2018: 4–5; Israel/Kraus/Sasso, 2021b: 9–10.
See Berrens, 2022: 16–21 and Berrens, 2024: 208–209. Further examples include: Winter, 1532: fol. Aiiv; Wotton, 1552: fol. aiiiv; Willughby/Ray, 1676: fol. a2r; van Leeuwenhoek, 1695: fol. **v.
This expression is taken from Horace (Carmina 4.6.14). In Horace’s poem, it refers to the Trojans who prematurely celebrated their victory over the Greeks.
Already Pliny claims at the end of the praefatio (32) of his Naturalis historia that he does not care for “vitilitigatores” (“brawlers”, a compound of “vitium”, “fault”, and “litigator”, “litigant”, coined by Cato the Elder) because they are only looking for a quarrel. However, Pliny does not address language or style.
This debate has also been the focus of two recent monographs: Sasso, 2022 and Spillmann, 2023.
See Hasse, 2001: 69–72 on Fuchs’s anti-Arabic stance in this work.
Akopyan, 2020.
The contributions in Baumann/Becker/Laureys, 2015 deal with polemical notions in Renaissance dialogues.
Early modern dissertations have received increased attention in recent years. See, e.g., Chang, 2004; Gindhart/Marti/Seidel, 2016; Marti/Sdzuj/Seidel, 2017; Friedenthal/Marti/ Seidel, 2021; Chang, 2021.
This work has a particularly rich history and saw many different vernacular and Latin versions. This edition from 1554 is the first in Latin. However, the features described above are also present in the later editions.
Findlen, 1999: 388.
E.g., Leonhart Fuchs (Galenus, 1538a: fol. A2v) and Joachim Camerarius (Galenus, 1538b: fol. *2r/v) criticised the poor quality of the earlier Aldina (Galenus, 1525) in their own editions. See also Durling, 1961: 237. Similar remarks can also be found in the letter to the reader in Francesco Barozzi’s Latin translation of Proclus’ commentary on Euclid’s Elements (Barozzi, 1560: fol. **2r).
Translation: Franklin (Harvey, 1993: 18).
Howard, 2022: 148–150.
De Smet, 1996: 110 (with focus on Neo-Latin Menippean satire). See also Johanna Luggin’s article in this issue.
See Tautschnig, 2023: 169–178 for this scene.
