Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:46:05.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protestant Rivalry — Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590–1620

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Kristian Jensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most remarkable changes to take place at German Protestant universities during the last decade of the sixteenth century and the first twenty years of the seventeenth century was the return of metaphysics after more than halfa century of absence. University metaphysics has acquired a reputation for sterile aridity which was strengthened rather than diminished by its survival in early modern times, when such disciplines are supposed deservedly to have vanished with the end of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, this survival has attracted some attention this century. For a long urne it was assumed that German Protestants needed a metaphysical defence against the intellectual vigour of the Jesuits. Lewalter has shown, however, that this was not the case.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 24 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The most important contributions being: Weber, Hans Emil, Die philosophische Scholastik des deutschem Protestantismus im Zeitalter der Orthodoxie, Leipzig 1907Google Scholar; idem Der Einfluβ der protestantischen Schulphilosophie auf die orthodoxe lutherische Dogmatik, Leipzig 1908. Petersen, Peter, Geschichte der Aristotclismus im protestantischen Deutschland, Leipzig 1921Google Scholar; Lewalter, Ernst, Spanisch-jesuitische und deutsch-lutherische Metaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ibensch-deuischen Kulturbeziehungen und zur Vorgeschichte des deutschen Idealismus (= Ibero-ainerikanischen Studien, iv, 1935).Google Scholar repr. Darmstadt 1967; Wundt, Max, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1939Google ScholarEschweiler, Karl, ‘Die miosophie der spanischen Spätscholastik auf den deutschen Universitäten des 17 Jahrhunderts’, Spanische Forschungen der Görresgescllschaft i (1928), 251–325Google Scholar; Sparn, Walter, Wiederkehr der Metaphysik. Die ontologische Frage in der lutherischen Theologie des frühen 17. Methode. Methodische Konstitution und Gengenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik, 2 vols, Augsburg 1985, which on pp. 4–6Google Scholar contain a useful overview of the most important literature in the field. The theme is also discussed by Lohr, Charles, “Metaphysics’ in Charles B., Schemitt and Echard, Keβler (eds), Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, Cambridge 1988, 537–638.Google Scholar

2 This view was put forth by Elswick, J. H. in the eighteenth century. De uaria Aristotelis in scholis protestantium fortuna schedisma, Wittenberg 1720, and was accepted for long time for the simple reason that it seemed plausible. The production of works on metaphysics coincides roughly not only with the major Jesuit work on metaphysics form this period, Suarez's, FranciscusMetaphysicarum disputationum in quibus et uniuersa naturalis theologia ordinate traditr, et questiones omnes ad duodecimos Aristotelis pertinentes accurate disputantur, tomi duo, Salamanca 1597Google Scholar and Mainz 1600. It also coincides with the successful establishment of Jesuit schools in many parts of Germany. See Paulsen, Friederich, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten, 3rd edn, Leipzig 1919-1921, i. 399–400.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Fletcher, John M., ‘Change and resistance to change: a consideration of the development of English and German universities during the sixteenth century’, in History of Universities i (1981), 1–36.Google Scholar

4 ‘Quocirca non scripta Aristotele nobis sünt regula ucræ philosophiæ sed ipsa natura ut a Deo conditore suo creata et formata est. Ideoque Aristotelici non Aristoteli credimus, quia Aristoteles dixit, sed quia quod Aristoteles dixit, dicit ipsa natura, in quam illud dicendo ipse Deus impressit. Alias ubi Aristoteles a natura discedit ac deficit, ibi nos etiam ab Aristotele secessionem facimus et Aristotelicos esse negamus’: Martini, Jacob, Exercitationum metaphysicarum libri, [Wittenberg] 1608Google Scholar, sig. a5r.

5 ‘Ac licet negari non possit illam a compluribus partim barbarici cæno esse inquinatam, partim subtilium et manium disputationum spinis intricatam, partim, falsorum aut saltem incertorum dogmatum tenebris obscuratam, partim denique ab usu turpi et nefando conculcatam. Tamen quæ uitio hominum fiunt, i;;a non æquum esse duxi ut ipsi philosophiæ imputentur’: Metaphysics systema methodicum libris quinque concinnatum, Steinfurt 1604, 2nd edn, sig. (**)2r. On Timplcr in general see Freedman, Joseph S., European Academic Philosophy in the Ule Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. The life, significance and philosophy of Clemens Timplerbt (1563/4–1624), 2 vols, Hildeshcim 1988.Google Scholar

6 ‘Qui igitur optimarum disciplinaram studio flagrant, quos iuuant res acute inuentæ, cum iudicio æstimatæ, prudenter dispositæ, perspicue explicate, proprie non barbarie spurceque sed emendate (caueant inprimis qui sunt in ea hæresi quæ nullam requiritur puritatem ac mundiciem quæ nouum genus sermonis condit) enunciatæ [the text reads ualcant; I suggest caueant]’: sig. (****).

7 ‘Nihil uos moucant minus Latini elegantesque termini alicubi, quanquam parce et ex usu, ab authore adhibiti. In singulis enim artibus quædam propria sunt artificibus uocabula.’

8 Quœstionum illustrium philosophicarum disputatio prima, Wittenberg 1607, sig. Civ, ‘An philosophia Dei donum sit’.

9 ‘Nullos unquam acriorcs ecclesia Iesu Christi hosles experta est quam philosophos humanæ sapientiæ opinione turgentes, ut testantur omnium temporum historiæ ecclesiasticæ’: Philosophia sobria, hoc est: Pia consideratio quastionum philosophicarum in controutrsiis theologicis, quas Caluiniani mouerunt orthodoxis, subinde occurrentium, Giessen 1611, sig.):(8v.

10 Leinsle, Das Ding und die Methode, 2–3.

11 Cf. Lohr, , ‘Metaphysics’, 625.Google Scholar

12 Sparn, , Wiederkehr, 37–40.Google Scholar

13 Scaliger, J. C., Exotericarum exercitationum liber quintus decimus de subtilitale ad Hieronymum Cardanum, Paris 1557.Google Scholar

14 Cramer, Daniel, Isagoge in metaphysicam Aristotelis, Hagenau 1594Google Scholar; Goclenius, , Aduersaria ad exotericas aliquot Julii Casaris…exercilationes, 3rd edn, Marburg 1606Google Scholar [the letter of dedication is dated 1594], 52, ‘Anathema neganti Deum natura superius principium et ponenti terminum et limitem omnipotentiæ; Dei a regulis physicis’. The introduction to the discussion indicates that the specific topic is derived from Scaliger: ‘Præfatio in primam quæstionem logico-physicam tractata a Scaligeri excrcitatione 5, scctione 6. An essentialia caque propria et rei abiuncta seu re separati possint a subiecto salva essentia’.

15 I have been able to trace only five works pertaining to this debate, although it is clear that there must have been more publications. Buscher, Heizo, Exercitationum theologicarum et logicarum responsioni I. Piscatoris oppositarum pars 1(-2), Lemgo 1594Google Scholar; Exercitationum theologicarum et logicarum partes tres…opposite responsioni Piscatoris, J., quibus accessit appendix…ad Rudolphi Goelenii spongiam errorum, Frankfurt 1600Google Scholar; Rod, H. J.. Goeleni discipulus, Spongia errorum quibus illeuit charlas suas H. Buscherus, [Frankfurt] 1597Google Scholar; Piscator, Johannes, Responsio ad dictala Danielis Hofmanni quibus questiones illius rhetoricas de tropo in uerbis sacrœcoenœ oppugnauit, Herborn 1591Google Scholar; Responsio…ad elenchos Heizonis Buscheri, quibus doctrinam illius de tropo in uerbis sacrœ coenœ…refellere conatur, Herborn 1593. For Goclenius' psychologism on a purely logical level, see Ashworth, E.J., ‘Joachim Jungius (1587–1657) and the logic of relations’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie xlix (1967), 72–85Google Scholar, at p. 83.

16 Questiones in primam Aristotelis philosophiam…edite a M. Zacharia Sommero. Cum prefatione…Salomonis Gesneri, Wittenberg [1597].

17 Institutionum dialecticarum libri ocio, Lisbon 1564; Commentariorum in libros metaphysicorum Aristotelis tomus primus (-secundus), Rome 1577–89.

18 Zabarella, Giacomo, De rebus naturalibus libri XXX, Cologne 1590Google Scholar; Opera logica, Cologne 1594; Commentaria in…Aristotelis libros physicorum, Frankfurt 1602; In tres Aristotelis libros de anima commentartii, Frankfurt 1606. The two Cologne imprints appeared in several editions.

19 See Billanowich, Myriam, ‘Benedetto Bordon e Giulio Cesare Scaligero’, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica xi (1968), 187–256.Google Scholar

20 Spara, Wiederkehr, 11. See ako Weber, , Die philosophische Scholastik, 39Google Scholar, where he lists the number of times Martini, Jacobus in his Exercitationes theorematum metaphysicorum, Wittenberg 1608Google Scholar, quotes Suarez, Averroes (both 67 times), Scaliger (44 times) and Zabarella (40 times).

21 Three of his works were occasioned by polemical situations. Two were orations against Erasmus' De recta Latini Grecique sermonis pronunciation…dialogus…Dialogus cui litulus Ciceronianus, Basic 1528; namely: Scaliger, J. C., Oratio pro M. Tullio Cicerone contra Des. Erasmum Rotcrodamum, [Paris] 1531Google Scholar; Aduersus Des. Erasmi Roleroda. Dialogum Ciceronianum oratio secunda, Paris 1537. His Exoterice exercitationes was occasioned by Cardanus', HieronymusDe sublimate, Nuremberg 1550.Google Scholar

22 Frankfurt 1576; 1582; 1592; 1601; 1607; 1612; 1665; Hagenau 1620; 1634; Lyons 1615. Cf. Magnien, Michel, ‘Bibliographie Scaligérienne’, Acta Scaligeriana, ed. Cubelier de Beynac, J. and Magnien, M., Agen 1986, 293–321.Google Scholar The fact that a book was printed often in the western provinces of Germany does not mean that its public was specifically German. Frankfurt in particular retained its pre-eminent position in the book trade up till around 1620, so it can safely be assumed that some of the market for the many re-editions of the Exoterice exercitationes was an export market, and there is evidence that the most up-to-date physics students in Cambridge and Oxford did read this work. See Schmitt, Charles B., John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England, Kingston 1983, 49Google Scholar, 55 and 59; Leedham-Green, Elizabeth, Books in Cambridge Inventories, 2 vols, Cambridge 1986Google Scholar, ii. s.v. J. C. Scaliger, lists four sixteenth-century owners in Cambridge of the Exoterice exercitationes. This being said, however, there can be no doubt that his work found its most interested audience in German Protestant universities.

23 Fabricius, Johannes, questions philosophice de causis. Sub presidio M. Hieronymi Pretorii, Jena 1623Google Scholar; Lang, Daniel, Disputano physica de anima in genere et in specie de nobilissima hominis parte nimirum de anima rationali…sub presidio M. Johannis Scharfii, Wittenberg 1628Google Scholar; Wegnerus, Joachimus, Theorematum psychologicorum de anima rationali. Preside M. Petro Philippo, Jena 1623.Google Scholar

24 Aspern, Abrahamus, Dispulatio e J. C. Scaligeri exercitatione VI sceltone 5 de generatione, Wittenberg 1646Google Scholar; Frederici Pomeranus, Andreas, Pianta philosophorum XXIII de anima rationali, Wittenberg 1635Google Scholar; Bremer, Christophorus, Disputatio e Jul. Ces. Scaligeri exercitatione II et IIII de ordine unitale et efficiente mundi, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; Güthenerus, Esaias, Dispulatio physica de generatione et corruptione rerum naturalium, Wittenberg 1644Google Scholar; Janus, J., Dispulatio e Julii Cesaris Scaligeri exercilatione IV de raritate et densitate, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; Kronbigell, Gottfried, Disputatio e Jul. Ces. Scaligeri exercilatione exoterica, I, sectione 2 el 3 de subtililate, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; Kühn, J., Disputatie e J. C. Scaligeri exercilatione exoterica 1, 2, 3 de subtilitate, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; Lange, Georgius, Disputatio e J. C. Scaligeri exercitatione VI, sectione 2, de anima mundi platonica, Wittenberg 1646Google Scholar; Meier, Ernestus, Dispulalio e J.C. Scaligeri exercitatione exoterica 1, sectione 1 de subtilitate, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; Newenfeldt, Georgius, Disputatio e J. C. Scaligeri exercitatione IV, Wittenberg 1646Google Scholar; Peck, Christian, Dispulalio Jut. Ces. Scaligeri exercitatione V, sectione 2 et 3, de uacuo et loco, Wittenberg 1646Google Scholar; Pomarius, Samuel, De anima rationali, Wittenberg 1648Google Scholar; Prehn, Wilhelmus, Disputatio e Jul. Ces. Scaligeri exercitatione VI sectione 6 et 7 de hominis generatione, Wittenberg 1647Google Scholar; Wolff, Christianus, Disputano physica de anima rationale, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar; several of these reappear in Sperling, Johan, Medilationes in J. C. Scaligeri exotericas exercitaliones de subtilitate, Wittenberg 1656.Google Scholar

25 I have used: Physicorum Aristolelico-Scaligereorum pars pnma-poslenor, Jena 1625, and Metaphysicorum Arislolelico-Scaligereorum libri II, Jena 1622.

26 I have used Axiomata philasophica uenerabilis Bede…Quibus accesserunt Encyclia philosophica M. Davidis Wasii, Cologne 1618.

27 ‘Deadminiculis studii theologiæ…Ex intepretibus ZabarelIa propter perspicuitatem, Scaliger propter subtilitatem legendus’: Gerhard, Johann, Methodus studii theologici, Jena 1620Google Scholar [the letter of dedication is dated 1617], 135–6. Gerhard may well have had Sagittarius in mind when he said this, for he continued with a recommendation that one should study metaphysics and logic as a set of axioms, ordered by subject, as Sagittarius had done it.

28 Initially Godenius had the most solidly Lutheran academic career imaginable; he studied at Marburg as a young man, but graduated as magister from Wittenberg in 1568. From 1575 he was in charge of the pedagogicum in Kassel, from 1581 profesor of physics at Marburg, from 1589 professor of logic, and from 1603 of logic and ethic. However, when the university of Marburg became Calvinist in 1605 Godenius stayed where he was, unlike the profesora of theology, who refused to sign the three so-called Verbesserungspunkte, becoming cornerstones of the new University of Giessen. Godenius' behaviour is not entirely inexplicable, for he had had Calvinist sympathies before 1605. They appear from the support he lent Piscator in the 1590s in his polemic with Buscherus about the tropical mode of speech employed at the institution of the eucharist, and also from his refutation of Daniel Cramer on the issue of the separate existence of properties in the introduction to his Aduersaria ad exotericas aliquot Julii Cesaris Scaligeri acutissimi philosophi exercitaliones, Marburg 1606, written in 1594. The Aduersaria is dedicated to Nicolaus Theophilus (1541–1604), rector of the University of Copenhagen, who, although no Calvinist, was strongly Philippist; cf. Glebe-Moller, Jens, ‘Det teologiske fakultet 1597–1732’, Kobenhavns Universitet 1479–1979. Binds. 5. Det teologiske fakultet, Copenhagen 1980, 93–208Google Scholar, at p. 101. It is therefore quite safe to assume that Goclenius was friendly towards Calvinist teachings before the takeover of Marburg, even if perhaps he still only saw himself as a Philippist. Later he became explicitly Calvinist and even took part, as a moderate, in the Calvinist synod in Dordrecht in 1618–19, where the doctrine of predestination was finally determined; cf. Hermclink, Henrik, Kahler, Siegfried A., Die Philipps-Universitäl zu Marburg 1527–1927, Marburg 1927, 217.Google Scholar There is no reason to assume with Leinsle, , Das Ding und die Methode, 176Google Scholar, that Goclenius was allowed to stay on in Marburg because of his academic importance, despite his religion.

29 Analyses in exercitationes aliquot J. C. Scaligeri de subtilitate quas e diclantis ore exceptas philosophie studiosu exhibel et communical J. Schroederus, Marburg 1599.

30 Goclenius, Aduersaria, above.

31 Goclenius, , Aduersaria, 207.Google Scholar

32

33 Sealiger, , Exoterica txercitationes, no. 307, 2Google Scholar, ‘De animo, anima, mente, intellectu, ratione, ratiocinatione, dianoea’: section 9, ‘Intellectus ac uoluntatis cum oculo comparatio’; section 13, ‘Anima an seipsam moueat et quomodo corpus moucat’; section 21, ‘Intellectio et species intelligibilis. Primum cognitum’.

34 De anima, B7 417b 22.

35 ‘Vniuersalia secundum perfectionem esscntiœ existunt et consistunt tantum in communione rerum singularium, non tanquam in alio, ut in subiecto, accidentium more, sed tanquam in se ipsis, id est ut ca quæ rerum singularium essentiam constituunt ut continent. In intellectu uero esse dicuntur quodammodo per aliud, hoc ipso scilicet quod eorum essentia in communione rerum singularium uere existens intellectui repræsentatur per notionem tanquam per imaginem’: Goclenius, , Disquisitiones philosophice, Marburg 1599, 147–50Google Scholar, ‘An uniuersale nihil sit nisi opus intellectus?’, here esp. p. 150.

36 Meisner, Balthasar, Philosophia sobria, hoc est: Pia considerano questionum philosophicarum in controuersiis theologicis, quas Caluiniani mouerunt orthodoxis, subinde occurrentium, Giessen 1611, 297.Google Scholar Here he refers to Scaliger's, De causis lingue Latine, Lyons 1540Google Scholar, bk iv, ch. ix, ‘Nil difiert abstractum a concreto, nisi modo significationis, non significatione’.

37 Goclenius, , Lexicon philosophicum, quo tanquam claue philosophie fores aperiuntur, Frankfurt 1613, 19Google Scholar, s.v. abstractum: ‘Scotistarum dc abstractis accidentium explicate. Scoti, qucm uidetur mihi hic sequi Scaliger, etsi barbaris Scoti uocibus non utatur, uir lautissimœ linguæ, distinctio est abstractorum in abstracta abstractione ultimata et non ultimata. Mallem dicere præcisa et minus præcisa. Vltimata quæ in alia abstractiora non resoluuntur, ut coloreitas, albedinitas, luciditas, id est ipsa præcisa coloris communis natura seu essentia. Non ultimata, quæ in abstractiora alia resolui possunt, ut color, albedo, lux. Ego sic dicerem: abstractum abstractione prima est color (a colorato corpore). Abstractione secunda est coloreitas (a colore). Ita igitur gradus abstractionis fuerint. Sed Fonseca Scoti distinctionem non probat. Sicut enim animalitas non resoluitur in aliquid abstractius, ita nec color, aut ullum abstractum accidens. Voce sane dicatur coloreitas abstractius quid quam color, at significatione dici nequit. Idem enim prorsus est color, atque natura, qua color est color. Sicut idem est humanitas, qua ipsa est humanitas. Hoc iudicium est Fonsecæ.’

38 Sparn, . Wiederkehr, 61–4.Google Scholar

39 ‘De principiis naturæ indiuiduæ, de quibus cum sint tam uariæ et uacillantes doctorum sentcntiæ, argumento id est quam parum nostri constet acics ingenii ad naturæ arcana cernenda’: Isagoge in peripateticorum et scholaslieorum primem philosophiam que dici consueuit metaphysica, [Frankfurt] 1608 edn, 118. See Scaliger, , Exoterice exeratationes, fo. 402rGoogle Scholar, exereitatio 307, 17.

40 Goclenius, , Lexicon, 231–2Google Scholar, s.v. indiuiduatio.

41 Liber sentenliarum in quo axiomata siue sententie philosophice uulgatiores explicantur limitantur et illustrantur, Giessen 1615, exercitatio 20, axioma vii, 203–4.

42 Born in 1570, Martini studied at Helmstedt. He became professor of logic at Wittenberg in 1602 and professor of theology there from 1623 till he died in 1649. He was one of the best-known Lutheran philosophers of his day.

43 ‘Dubitatur enim siue ut scholastici loquuntur, de principio indiuiduationis’: Martini, , Exercitationes metaphysice, 305.Google Scholar

44 Ibid. 306: ‘Recte enim Scaliger: Indiuiduæ naturæ principia scrutari primi uidetur interesse philosophi’.

45 ‘Plus pænitet me temporis quod impendi/In grammatistas et leues locutores/Vanas poetarum atque perditas nugas,/Quam barbarorum quæ leguntur in libris./Hæc est mearum tota summa summarum:/Stultum ac supinum plumbeiquc delirii/Rebus relictis consenescere in uerbis./Exercitari nos opportet in rixis,/Vt his omissis ucritas prehendatur.’ See Scaliger, J. C., Poemata in duas partes diuisa, [Heidelberg] 1574, 431Google Scholar, in the collection called Hipponax. Scaliger plays several games here. Hipponax was known as a distinguished , hence the metre, but, because he was also known for his bluntness of speech (see, e.g. Cicero, Fam. vii. 42.1), he was not in a position to be accused of excessive linguistic subtlety and therefore, with a bit of literary imagination, was an ideal apologist for scholastic language.

46 See Suarez, Francisco, Metaphysicarum disputationum tomi duo, Mainz 1600, 214Google Scholar: Disputano v, sectio vi, De unitate indiuiduali: ‘Quid tandem sit principium indiuiduationis in omnibus substantiis creatis’.

47 Scaliger, , Exoterice exercitalionts, fo. 192r, exercitatio 138Google Scholar: ‘Ignis non potest non calcfacere’.

48 ‘Præcepta metaphysica ex optimis autoribus imprimis Aristotele, Scaligero, Fonscca, Zabarclla, Contareno, Piccolomineo, Simonio et cetera excerpta…inque duos libros coniecta proponemus…’: Sagittarius, Metaphysica Aristotelico-Scaligerta, sig. b4v.

49 ‘Unde et hæc orta: Nullum reale qua tale, intellectui subiicitur. Scaliger, Excrcitatione 307, secttonc 21. … 15. Sic uniuersalia sunt ernia realia, quamuis hæc tantum mentis esse existiment non pauci. Pro horum realitate acute et accurate disputat Scaliger’: ibid. 73.

50 ‘Deus est æternus. Scaliger in sccundum Theophrasti De causis plantarum, fol. 108’: ibid. 459.

51 ‘Possemus nunc ad alia progredi, nisi Scaliger nobis aliqua obiiceret…Sed prefecto summus uir, cuius tam diuinum et excellens fuit ingenium, hic aliquid humani passus est et cespitauit…Sed examinemus potissimam Scaligeri rationem quæ forte talis est…’: Stahl, Daniel, Compendium metaphysicum in xxiv tabellas redactum, Frankfurt 1686 edn, 39.Google Scholar

52 ‘Non sunt cuiusuis intellectui obuia uerba Scaligeri’: Goelenius, , Aduersaria, 211.Google Scholar

53 Scaliger, , Exoterice exercitaliones, fo. 103VGoogle Scholar, exercitatio 64, 4. See Wasius, , Encyclia philosophica, section 49.Google Scholar

54 ‘Scaliger irridet hanc nonnullorum conclusiunculam: Planta non gignit plantam, sed semen plantæ. Quæ hæc, ait, argutatio? Non interficiet uiatorcm latro, sed ensis, quem latro tenet. Lib. I de plantis, pag. 139. Similis est sophisticatio Caluinistica: Christus nos saluat, et non sacramenta’: Meisner, , Philosophia sobria, 180.Google Scholar

55 Goclenius, , Lexicon, 19Google Scholar, s.v. abstractum.

56 ‘Entis est esse.’ In the margin is added: ‘Sealiger exemplo’ Barbarorum id uocat quidditatem’: idem, Isagoge, 4.

57 ‘Sic uidemus ciusdem rei diuersas esse notiones quas barbare quidem barbaris sed non inscite apud doctos formalitates appellabamus’: Scaliger, , Exoterice exercitationes, 307Google Scholar, 14, fo. 400r.

58 ‘…quodque nostri Barbari (ut utar uerbis Scaligeri loco allegato) scitissima uoce indiuiduationem appellarunt’: Martini, , Exercitationes, 308.Google Scholar Later in the century it would seem that Scaliger's style met with a cooler reception. In Meier's, ErnestusDispulatio e J. C. Scaligeri exercitationt exoterica 1, sectione 1, de subtilitate, Wittenberg 1645Google Scholar, held in Wittenberg with Johann Sperling as preses, Scaliger b attacked for his use of the word improportionalitas; see ‘Nomen improportionalitatis attulerat Scaliger. Minus id uidebatur Latinum, minus concinnum. Nunc excusat factum, se non in Foro non in Romano comitio, sed theatro sapientum sub oculis ueritatis uersari’: sig. b3r. Also ‘…Est ratio quod penes barbarum non sit ius et norma loquendi’: sig. b4v.

59 See also Leinsle, , Das Ding und die Methode, 85.Google Scholar

60 Here I must disagree with Leinsle, ibid. 84, who singles Scaliger out as having a particularly lucid conception of metaphysics.

61 Mirandola, Giovanni Francesco Pico della, Examen uanitatis doctrina gentium, Mirandola 1523.Google Scholar

62 Lewalter, , Spanisch-jesuitische und deutsch-lutherische Metaphysik, 29.Google Scholar