Religious Confessions and the Sciences in the Sixteenth Century (Studies in European Judaism, Volume 1)

RELIGIOUS CONFESSIONS AND THE SCIENCES IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

STUDIES IN EUROPEAN JUDAISM Editor GIUSEPPE VELTRI University of Halle-Wittenberg

Advisory Board Rachel Elior (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Bruno Chiesa (University of Turin) Alessandro Guetta (INALCO, Paris) Eleazar Gutwirth (Tel Aviv University) Moshe Idel (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Hanna Liss (Hochschule fur Jiidische Studien, Heidelberg) Paul Mendes-Flohr (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Reinier Munk (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam) David Ruderman (Pennsylvania University) Peter Schafer (Free University, Berlin) Stefan Schreiner (University of Tubingen) Israel Yuval (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Jonathan Webber (University of Oxford) Moshe Zuckermann (Tel Aviv University)

VOLUME 1

RELIGIOUS CONFESSIONS AND THE SCIENCES IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY EDITED BY

JURGEN HELM &

ANNETTE WINKELMANN

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KOLN 2001

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme Religious confessions and the sciences in the sixteenth century / ed. by Jurgen Helm & Annette Winkelmann. - Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill, 2001 (Studies in European Judaism ; 1) ISBN 90-04-12045-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 1568-5004 ISBN 9004 120459

© Copyright 2001 by Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden, The Netherlands Cover design: Cedilles / Studio Cursief, Amsterdam 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 permissionfrom the publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that Hie appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Foreword to the Series Preface Contributors and Editors Introduction

VII VIII IX XI SECTION ONE

CHRISTIAN CONFESSIONS AND THE SCIENCES GUNTER FRANK Melanchthon and the Tradition of Neoplatonism PAUL RICHARD BLUM The Jesuits and the Janus-Faced History of Natural Sciences

3 19

MICHAEL G. MULLER Science and Religion in Royal Prussia around 1600

35

ANDREW CUNNINGHAM Protestant Anatomy

44

JURGEN HELM Religion and Medicine: Anatomical Education at Wittenberg and Ingolstadt

51

SECTION TWO WAYS OF TRANSMISSION MAURO ZONTA The Influence of Hasdai Crescas's Philosophy on Some Aspects of Sixteenth-Century Philosophy and Science

71

ELEAZAR GUTWIRTH Language and Medicine in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire

79

SECTION THREE JUDAISM BETWEEN TRADITION AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES GlANFRANCO MlLETTO

Tradition and Innovation: Religion, Science and Jewish Culture Between the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

99

VI

CONTENTS

SAMUEL S. KOTTEK Jews between Profane and Sacred Science in Renaissance Italy: The Case of Abraham Portaleone

108

GIUSEPPE VELTRI Science and Religious Hermeneutics: The 'Philosophy' of Rabbi Loew of Prague

119

JOHANN MAIER The Relevance of Geography for the Jewish Religion

136

Index of Names

159

FOREWORD TO THE SERIES Studies in European Judaism Judaism played an important role in the making of Europe. In the period extending from the Arabic conquest until the expulsion from Spain, Judaism became the vector of adab, the Arabic paideia, which made possible the translation, adaptation, and interpretation of Greek sciences (medicine, astrology-astronomy, philosophy), thus mediating them anew to European cultures. In the humanist and early modern period almost forced migrations of Jews from country to country, from Mediterranean regions to northern and eastern lands, contributed to a living communication of ideas and traditions in the whole of Europe. A further factor was the direct influence of mystical (Kabbalah) traditions on Christian thought and literature, from the Renaissance until the German romanticism. In the age of emancipation and enlightenment Jews were called to take part in the respublica. However, their contribution to society was not always welcome and their exact place in society not always clear or established; it was also often obstructed by anti-Jewish and antisemitic tendencies and propaganda. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were marked by the attempt to become citizens with equal rights and the hope for full membership in the respective wider societies. This hope was ended by the Nazis' rise to power and the tragic consequences of their racist policies for the Jews of Europe. The Editor of Studies in European Judaism aims to present a wide spectrum of Jewish life (history, thought and everyday life) across Europe, Judaism in interaction with those cultures that form the background of European culture. The series therefore intends to publish studies concerned with the contribution of Jewish culture and history to the making of Europe. Studies dealing with the interaction of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the European discourse and their multifaceted encounters and often contradictory intentions will therefore be preferred. The series intends to touch the following areas: history of European Judaism, philosophy, liturgy, sciences, arts, biblical exegetic traditions, commentaries to philosophical and exegetical works, and studies in Kabbalah and in the Christian reception of it.

GIUSEPPE VELTRI

PREFACE Transliteration and Names Hebrew is transliterated according to the general transliteration rules of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem), with exception of the letters n (rendered as h) and X (rendered as ts). The letters s and y are not transliterated. A separator (') between vowels indicates that they do not form a diphthong and are to be pronounced separately. Biblical names and biblical place names are rendered according to the Bible translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America. Post-biblical names are transliterated. Contemporary Hebrew names are transliterated or rendered as used by the bearer. Place names are transliterated or rendered by the accepted spelling. Names and some words with an accepted English form are usually not transliterated. With the exception of Hebrew first names (for which the above rules apply), first names are rendered as preferred by the author (i.e., Jean, Johann, Johannes, John, etc.). However, a particular person will always bear the same first name throughout the volume. A cknowledgements The editors wish to thank Professor Giuseppe Veltri for kindly accepting this book for publication in his new series, Studies in European Judaism. It was typeset by Marco Torini (Berlin). Johanna Hoomweg (Berlin) translated the essay by Giuseppe Veltri and assisted in the English-language editing of the other texts.

CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS

PAUL RICHARD BLUM

JURGEN HELM

Professor of Philosophy, Peter Pazmany University Budapest/Piliscsaba. Publications: ed., Philosophen der Renaissance (Darmstadt, 1999); Philosophenphilosophie und Schulphilosophie — Typen des Philosophierens in der Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1998).

Assistant Professor, Institute for the History of Medicine, University HalleWittenberg. Publications: Tradition und Wandel der arztlichen Selbstverpflichtung: der Gottinger Promotionseid 1737-1889 (Gottingen, 1992).

ANDREW CUNNINGHAM

SAMUEL S. KOTTEK

Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow in History of Medicine, Cambridge University. Publications: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe (with O. P. Grell) (Cambridge, 2000); The Anatomical Renaissance. The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients (Aldershot, 1997).

Emeritus, Harry Friedenwald Chair of History of Medicine, The Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem. Publications: ed. (with M. Horstmanshoff et al.), From Athens to Jerusalem: Medicine in Hellenized Jewish Lore and in Early Christian Literature (Rotterdam, 2000); Medicine and Hygiene in the Works ofFlavius Jostphus (Leiden, 1994).

GUNTER FRANK

JOHANN MAIER

Director, Melanchthonhaus (Bretten); Lectureship in Philosophy, Free University of Berlin. Publications: ed. (with S. Rhein), Melanchthon und die Naturwissenschaften seiner Zeit (Sigmaringen, 1998); Die theologische Philosophic Philipp Melanchthons (1497-1560) (Leipzig, 1995).

Emeritus, Professor of Judaic Studies, University of Cologne. Publications: Kriegsrecht und Friedensordnung in judischer Tradition (Stuttgart, 2000); Die Qumran Essener: die Texte vom To ten Meer, 3 vols. (Munchen, 1995-1996).

ELEAZAR GUTWIRTH

Habilitation project, University HalleWittenberg. Publications: L'Antico Testamento Ebraico nella tradizione babilonese. Iframmenti della Genizah (Torino, 1992).

Professor of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University. Publications: ed., Ten Centuries of Hispano-Jewish Culture (Cambridge, 1992); Social Tensions Within FifteenthCentury Hispano-Jewish Communities (London, 1978).

GlANFRANCO MlLETTO

X

CONTRIBUTORS AND EDITORS

MICHAEL G. MULLER

ANNETTE WINKELMANN

Professor of East European History, University Halle-Wittenberg. Publications: Zweite Reformation und stddtische Autonomie im Koniglichen Preufien. Danzig, Elbing und Thorn in der Epoche der Konfessionalisierung, 1557-1660 (Berlin, 1997); Die TeilungenPolens, 1772-1793-1795 (Munchen, 1984).

Project Manager, Leopold Zunz Centre for the Study of European Judaism, Wittenberg. Publications: ed., Directory of Jewish Studies in Europe (Oxford, 1998).

GIUSEPPE VELTRI Professor of Jewish Studies, University Halle-Wittenberg; Director, Leopold Zunz Centre for the Study of European Judaism, Wittenberg. Publications: ed. (with R. Markner), Friedrich August Wolf. Studien, Dokumente, Bibliographic (Stuttgart, 1999); Magie und Halakha (Tubingen, 1997).

MAURO ZONTA Professor, History of Jewish Philosophy, University of Rome 'La Sapienza'. Publications: Lafilosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraico (Brescia, 1996); La "Classificazione delle scienze " di al-Farabi nella tradizione ebraica (Torino, 1995).

INTRODUCTION This first volume of Studies in European Judaism presents the results of an international and interdisciplinary conference held at the Wittenberg LEUCOREA Foundation in December 1998, home of the Leopold Zunz Centre for the Study of European Judaism. The Centre was founded in 1998 with the explicit goal of researching the interdependence of religious, social, political and cultural aspects in Jewish history and the importance of Jews and Judaism in the making of Europe. The conference was generously supported by the Ministry of Culture of Sachsen-Anhalt, the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and the LEUCOREA Foundation. Scholars from Israel, Italy, Great Britain, the U.S.A. and Germany discussed how religious confessions and the development of natural sciences and medicine in the sixteenth century influenced each other. Contrary to the still widespread opinion that the relations between religion and sciences at the beginning of the 'scientific revolution' can only be described as intense fights on several battlefields (which the sciences finally won by breaking off their ties with religious dogmas), the contributions to this book give a more refined picture. It is true, there was no lack of conflicts in the process leading from the traditional view of philosophia ancillafidei to autonomous sciences, and it is also true that traditions and dogmas held by religious leaders occasionally gave grounds for suppressing scientific facts and persecuting their authors. But overemphasizing these conflicts may result in the misleading idea that religion and sciences were located on the opposite extremes of the spectrum of sixteenth-century thought. Instead, the papers in this volume show that scientists in the sixteenth century were pious men well aware of religious traditions and teachings. And not one of them, no matter whether Jewish, Catholic or Protestant, abjured his faith to attain supposed intellectual freedom. Taking for granted that scientists in the sixteenth century adhered to a certain religious confession, the conference asked two main questions: (1) To what extent was scientific thought influenced by religious traditions and beliefs, and (2) did the achievements of sixteenth-century natural sciences and medicine have an effect on religious ideas? Considering these questions, the contributions to the present volume deal - some of them in great detail with Jewish, Protestant and Catholic scientists and their specific ways of pursuing their studies on nature and medicine. The first section (Christian Confessions and the Sciences) aims at painting a picture of Protestant, Catholic and Calvinist views of the sciences and their influence and importance in academic life. Giinter Frank (Bretten) and

XII

INTRODUCTION

Paul Richard Blum (Budapest) draw attention to both Protestant and Catholic views of the sciences. Frank's contribution deals with Philipp Melanchthon, whose influential synthesis of religion and science was made possible by the Lutheran distinction between Gospel and Law. According to Frank, Melanchthon's theological philosophy, including also his natural philosophy, was not purely Aristotelian, but obviously influenced by Neoplatonic thought, made possible by the Greek edition of Plato's writing by Simon Grynaeus. Blum's paper presents Jesuit scientists, for whom the opposition of science and faith - carefully avoided by Melanchthon - was inevitable. The Jesuit strategy implied that secular philosophy and the sciences were pursued not for intrinsic values, but exclusively for the sake of supporting theology and evangelization. As a consequence, Jesuit scientists were in more than one quandary when scientific discovery and religious dogma contradicted each other. Under these circumstances it is hardly astonishing that only infrequently could Jesuits gain importance in the recent 'progressist' history of the sciences. Michael G. Midler (Halle-Wittenberg) deals with the impact of Protestantism and especially of Calvinism on Royal Prussia around 1600. Miiller argues that the confessional re-orientation at the beginning of the seventeenth century and the decline of Protestant sciences were coinciding processes. While academic life benefited from 'Calvinist hegemony' in the Prussian Protestant Church, the Lutheran reconquista cut the confessional links between Prussia and most of Protestant Central Europe, and it brought about an anti-academic turn in urban culture. An important and peculiar part of the evaluation of science in the sixteenth century is the 'confessional' attitude to medical science (the present volume deals mainly with anatomy). Andrew Cunningham (Cambridge) argues that there were three ways in which anatomy became 'Protestant' in the first half of the sixteenth century. The first dimension was that Melanchthon and his book De anima made anatomy fundamental to philosophical study in Protestant universities. The second aspect concerns Andreas Vesal's approach to anatomizing, which was Protestant in its structure: just like Martin Luther, who rejected all authorities other than the word of the Bible, Vesal rejected all ancient authors and based his anatomy on the sole authority of the body. The third dimension of 'Protestant anatomy' was Paracelsus's total rejection of the tradition of anatomizing a dead body in favour of a spiritual and intuitive anatomy of inner revelation. Some of Cunningham's assertions induced Jtirgen Helm (HalleWittenberg) to compare anatomical education at Wittenberg and Ingolstadt universities. His paper comes to the conclusion that in substance there was at least in the second half of the sixteenth century - no difference between

INTRODUCTION

XIII

anatomy at the Protestant University of Wittenberg and the Catholic University of Ingolstadt. But, nevertheless, anatomical education played different roles in the curricula of these universities. While at Ingolstadt anatomy was regarded as belonging only to medical education, it was taught at the Wittenberg Arts Faculty and was therefore part of the basic training of future Protestant theologians, lawyers and scientists. The papers of the second section (Ways of Transmission) deal with the transmission of Jewish texts to Christianity and within Judaism itself. The article by Mauro Zonta (Rome) on the influence of Hasdai Crescas's philosophy is a link to the first section. Much has been written on the Jewish transmission of sciences and philosophy in the Middle Ages. However, very little is known about the direct or indirect knowledge of medieval Hebrew philosophical (non-cabbalistic) texts by Latin Renaissance authors. Zonta gives examples of the influence of Crescas's physical theories on Giordano Bruno, mediated probably by Leone Ebreo. The importance of Iberian Jews in the transmission of the medical tradition in the Ottoman Empire is the main topic of Eleazar Gutwirth's (Tel Aviv) contribution. He discusses medical texts and manuscripts, almost all of which come from the so-called Cairo Genizah (a famous storeroom for discarded Hebrew manuscripts going back more than 1000 years) and reconstructs the historical context for the reading culture of Iberian Jews. The third section (Judaism Between Tradition and Scientific Discoveries) is devoted to the Jewish approach to science. Gianfranco Miletto (HalleWittenberg) outlines the attitudes of Jewish intellectuals to the sciences against their religious and historical background. Studying works by Abraham Portaleone and Azariah Figo, Miletto shows the oscillation between acceptance and rejection of science (often seen as 'gentile wisdom') and concludes that what these Jewish authors object to is not the study of the sciences as such, but the study of the sciences without the enlightenment of the Torah. Two specific Jewish positions to the sciences are presented by Samuel S. Kottek (Jerusalem) and Giuseppe Veltri (Halle-Wittenberg). Kottek paints a portrait of the Jewish physician Abraham Portaleone, who in his Shiltei hagibborim, an 'encyclopaedia of science', combines descriptions of sacred and profane sciences. This work, written in Hebrew and addressed to an educated Jewish readership, blends knowledge about contemporary science and technology (e.g., zoology, botany, mineralogy, warfare, chemistry, music) with detailed scholarship in Jewish antiquities. For Portaleone, there was no doubt that 'modern' natural sciences could be freely used in explaining religious truth. According to Velrri's contribution, Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague is a typical example of how the achievements of the sciences were accepted and

XIV

INTRODUCTION

at same time relativized by Jewish authors. For Judah Loew the sciences — as ancillae theologiae - were dangerous because of the autonomy they claim. He was aware that scientific discoveries cannot be questioned, and thus tried to interpret them in such a way that they could be integrated into traditional Jewish thought without denying rabbinical hermeneutics. Medieval as well as humanist scholars followed the same path in their interpretation of geographical data. The contribution ofJohann Maier (Weilheim) gives a detailed picture of different approaches to geography in Jewish scholarship. Although in certain Jewish circles of the late sixteenth and beginning seventeenth centuries new attitudes to secular learning were beginning to emerge, these did not determine the worldviews and historical outlooks of the majority of contemporary Jews. New discoveries were interpreted according to old schemata. And when information about the (re-)discovery of America spread among Jews, many of them assumed that the socalled "Indians" might be descendants of some of the mythical "ten lost tribes". In summing up the results of the conference, it is evident that the questions posed above still yield no definitive answers. What has become clear, however, is that no serious study of the history of sixteenth-century sciences and medicine can ignore the role of contemporary religion or simply presume its general oppositional stance to the sciences. The convenors of the conference, members of the Leopold Zunz Centre for the Study of European Judaism (Wittenberg), the Department of Jewish Studies (Halle) and the Institute for the History of Medicine (Halle), express their hope that the papers presented will stimulate future research on this complicated aspect of the history of sciences and medicine. JURGEN HELM and ANNETTE WINKELMANN Halle and Wittenberg, April 2001

SECTION ONE CHRISTIAN CONFESSIONS AND THE SCIENCES

This page intentionally left blank

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

GUNTER FRANK

/ It may come as a surprise to consider Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), the great German humanist, not only as a Reformer alongside Martin Luther and as the first Aristotelian philosopher among Protestants, but also and - when it comes to metaphysics - above all, as a Neoplatonist.' Any scholar who examines Melanchthon's numerous commentaries on disciplines like natural philosophy, anthropology, moral philosophy and dialectics has to deal with this prevailing and general interpretation. Indeed, since he proclaimed himself a "homo peripateticus"2 and since Johann Jacob Brucker,3 the first historian of philosophy in Germany in the eighteenth century, celebrated him as the greatest Aristotelian at the time of the Reformation, Melanchthon has been considered as nothing other than an Aristotelian philosopher. Finally, basic studies around the turn of the century, such as those by Wilhelm Dilthey4 and Ernst Troeltsch,5 and most major contributions of the twentieth century6 seem to have conclusively confirmed this general interpretation. 1 This paper was also presented at the international conference of the American Academy of Religion in Orlando, Fl. in November 1998. 2 Thus he confessed in a letter in 1537: "Mihi tamen concedant homini Peripatetico, et amanti mediocritatem, minus Stoice alicubi loqui", in Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, vols. 1-28 [= Corpus Reformatorum = CR], eds. K. G. Bretschneider, H. E. Bindseil (Halae Saxonum, Brunswigae, 1834-1860), vol. 3, col. 383. 3 J. J. Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae 4 (Lipsiae, 1743), pp. 102-116. 4 W. Dilthey, 'Das natiirliche System der Geisteswissenschaften im 17. Jahrhundert', in W. Di\they,Aufsatzezur Philosophic, ed. M. Marquardt (Berlin, 1986). 5 E. Troeltsch, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Johann Gerhard und Philipp Melanchthon (Gottingen, 1891). 6 To name only few: P. Petersen, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophic improtestantischen Deutschland (Leipzig, 1921); H. E. Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 1/1: Von der Reformation zur Orthodoxie (Giltersloh, 1937); J. Pelikan, From Luther to Kierkegaard (St Louis, Mo., 1950); A. Agnoletto, 'La Filosofia di Melantone', in Grande Antologia Filosofica 8 (Milano, 1959), pp. 1149-1234; E. Rudolph, Zeit und Gott bei Aristoteles aus der Perspektive der protestantischen Wirkungsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1986). For a discussion of this Aristotelian tradition and its problematic approach see G. Frank, Die theologische

4

GUNTER FRANK

However, there are important indications in the way Melanchthon discussed significant theological questions such as the notion of God, the creation of the world and the worldview itself and the idea of the immortality of the human soul which belong without any doubt to the Neoplatonic legacy. By emphasizing this Neoplatonic legacy in addition to some elements of Neopythagoreanism Wilhelm Maurer7 opposed the basic assumption of Melanchthon's so-called Aristotelianism. Maurer's approach has not been recognized by the scholarly community. His arguments turned out to be too artificial. Maurer argued that Melanchthon's Platonism derives from Marsilio Ficino's Neoplatonism as mediated by his relative Johannes Reuchlin. But in the complete works of Melanchthon, there are only few references to Ficino's Neoplatonism or Hermeticism, and thus the former director of the Melanchthon-Forschungsstelle in Heidelberg, Heinz Scheible, concluded: there are no Neoplatonic influences or inclinations in Melanchthon.8 And even the previous director of the Melanchthon-Haus in Bretten came to the same conclusion, although he at least knew about the commentary of Plato's Timaios, an important item in Melanchthon's private library.

Philosophic Philipp Melanchthons (1497-1560) [Erfurter theologische Studien 67] (Leipzig, 1995), pp. 16-23. 7 W. Maurer, Melanchthon-Studien (Giitersloh, 1964), pp. 22-25; W. Maurer, Derjunge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation 1 (Gottingen, 1967), pp. 84-98. For a discussion of this Platonic background see Frank, Philosophic, pp. 25-30. 8 H. Scheible, 'Reuchlins EinfluB auf Melanchthon', in Melanchthon und die Reformation, eds. G. May, R. Decot (Mainz, 1996), pp. 71-97, on p. 92. - There is no doubt that Melanchthon knew the tradition of Hermeticism and its great figure Hermes Trismegistos; see his Ennaratio Metamorphoseon Ovidii (CR 199, cols. 497-654, in col. 504). For a further discussion of Melanchthon's commentary see K. Meerhoff, 'Philippe Melanchthon aux Pays-Bas et en France: quelques sondages', and J.-C. Moisan, M.-C. Malenfant, 'Une lecture melanchthonienne des Metamorphoses d'Ovid: le commentaire de Barthelemy Aneau'; both papers will be published in Melanchthon und Europa, 2nd sub-volume: Westeuropa, eds. G. Frank, K. Meerhoff (Stuttgart, 2001). It is worth noting that Melanchthon also knew Johannes Annius of Viterbo's publication of the famous five books of Berosus, a Chaldean astronomer, DeAntiquitatibus totius orbis (CR 12, cols. 779, 795; CR 13, cols. 885 f., 889; Melanchthons Briefwechsel, ed. H. Scheible, vols. 1-8 [Stuttgart 1977-1995] [= MBW], here: vol. 5, col. 506; CR 17, col. 622). For a further examination see S. Rhein, '"Italia magistra orbis terrarum". Melanchthon und der italienische Humanismus', in Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation. Festgabe anlafllich des 500. Geburtstages des Praeceptor Germaniae Philipp Melanchthon am 16. Februar 1997, eds. M. Beyer, G. Wartenberg (Leipzig, 1996), pp. 367-388, on p. 378. Viterbo's main thesis was his attempt to prove that the origin of all wisdom is to be found not in Christian but in pagan sources. It is known that Viterbo's commentaries became the starting point of one of the most influential intellectual traditions in early modernity, the philosophia perennis. For this see W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia perennis. Historische Umrisse abendlandischer Spiritualitat in Antike, Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Frankfurt a. M., 1998), pp. 665-667; G. Frank, Philosophic am Anfang der Moderne. Die Ursprunge der neuzeitlichen Religionsphilosophie (unpubl. habilitation thesis, 2000), pp. 244-247. However, Melanchthon's systematic approach to this Platonic tradition has not yet been examined seriously.

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

5

In any case, there is no known announcement, copy of notes or other reference to this or any other lecture by Melanchthon on Plato [...]. Plato is a literary model, but not a philosophical author for the classroom.9

As I have shown elsewhere10 it does not make any sense to compare Aristotle and Plato (Cicero) with each other in the writings of Melanchthon or to count how often the humanist argues within an Aristotelian or Platonic framework. In order to understand his concept of philosophy and natural philosophy one has to broaden the focus by looking at the history of theology and natural science in early modern times and at the same time by realising the significant role Plato played in establishing the early modern worldview. Last but not least, one has to take into account the theology of the Reformation in its ramifications for philosophy an natural sciences; to name just one, but the most important consequence: the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and its theology, i.e., the genuine twelve books of Metaphysics, which Melanchthon" like Luther excluded from all of the scientific curriculum. In this rejection of Aristotle's metaphysics or - to be precise in refusing Aristotle's doctrine of the "prime mover" and the world of substances presented in the twelve books of Metaphysics, Melanchthon completely agreed with Luther. However, there is a significant difference between them: While Luther in his effort to renew a genuine theology of revelation seems to have excluded all philosophy from the scientific curriculum, Melanchthon adopted Luther's distinction of "gospel" and "law"12 in order to describe the relation between theology and philosophy and to make all fields of philosophy and natural science possible - i.e., whatever the human mind knows of God, of the world and of it - and according to Melanchthon, the human mind is able to know more of God's existence and essence than any scholastic author ever could have taught; all knowledge has nothing to do with men's salvation and is in principle incomplete so that it must be complemented by revelation.

9

S. Rhein, 'Melanchthon and Greek Literature', in Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) and the Commentary, eds. T. J. Wengert, M. P. Graham (Sheffield, 1997), pp. 149-170, on pp. 165f. 10 For a discussion of all these interpretations see Frank, Philosophie (cited above, n. 6), pp. 15-30. 11 For Melanchthon's rejection of Aristotle's Metaphysics which remained constitutive in all his commentaries on Philosophy see Frank, Philosophie, pp. 52-60. 12 For Melanchthon's adaption of Luther's distinction between "gospel" and "law" in its consequences for the concept of Philosophy see H. Scheible, 'Melanchthon zwischen Luther und Erasmus', in Renaissance - Reformation. Gegensatze und Gemeinsamkeiten [Wolfenbutteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung 5], ed. A. Buck (Wiesbaden, 1984), pp. 155180, on pp. 172 f.; Frank, Philosophie (cited above, n. 6), pp. 64-71.

6

GUNTER FRANK

//

Before coming back to the question of whether and to what extent Melanchthon is influenced by the Neoplatonic legacy, I shall examine three metaphysical doctrines which are constitutive for any kind of metaphysics or those which transcend ex definitione human experience: the concept of the creation of the world and the worldview, the idea of God, and the idea of the immortality of the human soul. As I mentioned before, Melanchthon never commented in writing on Aristotle's twelve books of Metaphysics except for his general rejection of this type of Metaphysics at the beginning of his career in Wittenberg. On the other hand he wrote commentaries on all other Aristotelian disciplines: natural science, anthropology, ethics, dialectics. His commentary on Aristotle's book De physica (Initia doctrinae physicae), 1549, contains his philosophical doctrine of the creation and the worldview. Aspects of this concept are also to be found in some prefaces to Luther's commentaries on books of the Old Testament. The Philosophical Doctrine of Creation and the Worldview13 Melanchthon himself claims his natural philosophy14 is Aristotelian. Occasionally he calls it in short "Aristotelica" or "Initia Aristotelica".15 In Aristotle we can find the "true doctrine" because he sees that all "generationes" cannot be caused by matter but is brought about by a first "causa efficiens".16 As with Aristotle motion is the basic phenomenon of the nature: "Ignorance of motion fails to recognize nature".17 However, for Aristotle's understanding of nature, it is crucial that his doctrine is not - strictly speaking - a doctrine of motion but rather a doctrine of rest. What must be explained, therefore, is the cause of motion. Here Aristotle's ontological doctrine of causes, "causa efficiens, fmalis, materialis, formalis", unfolds its real function. There is no motion without cause; if motion is no longer caused by any of those four causes motion comes to rest. Melanchthon does not show any interest in this ontological concept of Aristotle. Particularly Melanchthon's argument of motion shows that he replaces the ontological 13

For a detailed discussion of Melanchthon's commentary "Initia doctrinae physicae" see G. Frank, 'Gott und Natur - Zur Transformation der Naturphilosophie in Melanchthons humanistischer Philosophic', in Melanchthon und die Naturwissenschaften seiner Zeit. Schriften zur Melanchthonpreisverleihung 1994 [Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten 4], eds. G. Frank, S. Rhein (Sigmaringen, 1998), pp. 43-58. 14 CR 13, cols. 181-412. 15 CR 7, col. 475; CR 13, cols. 183f. 16 CR 13, cols. 183 f.: "Loquor autem non de Democriti atomis, sed de vera doctrina, qualis est Aristotelica [...]. Nam Aristoteles videt materiam non odiri generationes, sine aliqua agente sen efficiente causa, quae turn cieat, turn vero cohibeat, ne in infmitum dissipetur." 17 CR 13, col. 355: "Ignorato motu ignorari naturam."

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

7

dimension of this Aristotelian argument by a theological interpretation. It is •true that at first he follows Aristotle by arguing: "there exists a prime and eternal mover, infinite of power and immobile."18 So already the natural reason recognizes that the whole world depends on and is created by a prime cause, an architectural mind, but reason cannot find out in what way and when the world came into being.19 This argumentation makes clear that Melanchthon reinterprets Aristotle's understanding of motion. The Aristotelian concept was in no way concerned with the idea of creation and, therefore, it rather tended within the Aristotelian tradition towards the idea of the eternity of the world. For Melanchthon, the question of the prime mover is actually the question of the beginning of the world. In his view, motion is not the basic ontological phenomenon of nature which is brought about by causality according to Aristotle; motion is a quality which is inherent in what is moved. Motion does not come to its natural rest; it goes on as long as it is caused by its inherent quality. And Melanchthon illustrates this idea of motion through an argument of Averroes: Motion as an "accidens" has to be understood like a seaman getting a vessel to move by means of the vessel's inherent quality - i.e., "per accidens".20 The connection of all motion is caused by God as the "prime cause" but in the way of being the first architectural mind - by the way "mens architectatrix" is the Latin translation of the Greek ^T^/otigyo?. There is much more evidence that Melanchthon shows no interest in ontology which is fundamental for Aristotle's understanding of nature. To name only a few:21 Causality in the view of Aristotle means a reflection on being as finite, contingent being insofar as any being must be caused in order to exist; causality is not a revealing or description of causal connection of all motion in nature. According to Aristotle the prime cause (causa prima efficiens) must transcend the order of all causes and must found it as a whole. Particularly Melanchthon's argumentation of causality, which was one of the main arguments for the existence of God in the Greek-Latin tradition, shows again that he is not interested in the ontological dimension of causality.22 He simply identifies the existence of the prime cause with the 18

CR 13, col. 372: "[...] unicum esse primum motorem aeternum, infinitae potentiae, et immobilem." 19 CR 13, col. 373: "Ratio naturalis deducit mentes ad hoc, ut agnoscant hunc mundum visibilem ab aliqua causa, et quidem a mente architectatrice pendere, et formatum esse, sed quomodo, aut quando ab ilia prima causa ortus sit, non potest ratio statuere." 20 CR 13, col. 360. For the scholastic discussion of this argument see A. Maier, Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spiitscholastik \ (Rom, 1949), pp. 9-25 and pp. 53-78; A. Maier, 'Ergebnisse der spatscholastischen Naturphilosophie', in Scholastik 35 (1960), pp. 161-187. 21 For details see Frank, 'Gott und Natur' (cited above, n. 13). 22 To present just one argumentation from his commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans (Commentarii in epistolam Pauli ad Romanes, 1540): "Causae sunt in natura ordinatae, ita ut necesse sit perveniri ad unam primam, quae non aliunde movetur, sed movet caeteras. Si est

8

GUNTER FRANK

Christian idea of God.23 To give another significant example for Melanchthon's theological approach which everywhere overlaps what was crucial for Aristotle's ontological understanding: his use of teleology. In the view of Melanchthon, teleology is not inherent in nature as the immanent causality of determination. After having made the traditional distinction between "finis", the destination of something that is not yet real, like a house which an architect is about to build,24 and "causa finalis", the intention or cogitation of an intellect25 which moves the architect to build the house, he declares: Thus the architectural mind cogitates the intentions of destinations and the things themselves strive for certain destinations.26

All these theological reinterpretations show that Aristotle's ontological concept of nature does not play a role in the worldview of Melanchthon. This does not mean that his worldview is less intelligible than the Aristotelian understanding of nature. This is the place where Melanchthon, like Augustine, interprets the generation of the world in a Christianized version of the Platonic myth of creation as presented in Plato's Timaios. Augustine27 - and before him already Philo of Alexandria - had identified the Platonic ideas with God's inner cogitations when he created the world in six days. So they were able to transform Plato's natural philosophy into a Christian natural theology. This is what Melanchthon has in mind at the beginning of his commentary on natural philosophy: "It is known that in the beginning Aristotle speaks about the matter of elements. But we should begin with the prime cause and the celestial bodies as did Plato in the Timaios.,"28 prima, necesse est earn ex sese habere vim movendi. Ergo est infinitae potentiae. Et esse aliquam primam necesse est: alioqui enim nullus esset ordo causarum, si sparsae essent infinitum."(CR15,col. 568). 23 CR 13, col. 682: "Ex hac regula Physici erudite ratiocinantur, unum esse Deum, mentem aetemam, immensae potentiae, causam universae naturae, ac boni in natura [...]." This argumentation is different from the Argument of Thomas Aquinas. For Thomas it was clear that the existence of an immaterial being cannot be proved in the Natural Philosophy but only regarding its impacts. His argument came only to the proof of being-a-principle in the way of being present as impact. For a detailed discussion see W. Kluxen, 'Der Obergang von der Physik zur Metaphysik im thomistischen Gottesbeweis', in At the Heart of the Real: Philosophical Essays in Honour of Dr Desmond Connell, Archbishop of Dublin, ed. F. O'Rourke (Dublin, 1992), pp. 113-121. 24 CR 13, col. 308: "Finis est propter quod efficiens agit, seu a quo movetur efficiens ad agendum, ut habitatio est finis aedificanti." 25 CR 13, col. 308: "Nam causa finalis proprie est cogitatio de fine in efficiente, movens ad agendurn, ut cogitatio de futura habitatione movet aedificantem." 26 CR 13, col. 346: "Ergo mens ordinans cogitavit fines, et res ipsae appetunt certos fines." 27 Augustine, De diversis Quaestionibits octoginta tribus liber unus, 46, 2, in Patrologiae cursus completus. series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Lutetia Parisiorum, 1841-1842) [= MPL], vol. 40, p. 30. 28 CR 13, col. 195: "Notum est, Aristotelem initio dicere de materia elementorum. Sed nos ordiemur a prima causa efficiente, et a corporibus coelestibus, ut Plato in Timaeo".

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

9

Melanchthon criticizes Aristotle's doctrine of principles because he conceives "form" as being a principle only inherent in matter, whereas Plato realizes the idea as the image of the world machine in the divine mind; to illustrate this motive he continues: like an architect who first imagines what he wants to design, thus God first imagines in his mind the whole world machine and the bodies and living beings of the universe and then creates the world machine, the bodies, the motions of the stars and the living beings according to these images.29 This more Neoplatonic concept of nature - to be precise: the Neoplatonic overlapping with an Aristotelian natural philosophy - is not only obvious in his commentary on Aristotle's Dephysica, published in 1549. There is more evidence in some introductions and prefaces to Luther's biblical commentaries. In 1544 Melanchthon wrote the preface to his commentary on the book Genesis.30 He started by praising God for the creation: Created are these wonderful bodies of the world, heaven, constellation, elements, plants, living beings and they are organized in an admirable art in order that we recognize God as eternal architect and realize that he gave us the law of life and who wants that we take care of this creation.31

Melanchthon continues by quoting Plato: Plato says: the souls are convinced by the laws of motions of celestial and other testimonies, so that they are urged to confess that this world is created by an eternal architectural mind. 32

Of course, after the fall, mankind has lost this complete knowledge, and philosophers like Epicurus, Aristotle and the Stoics came to doubt and erred about God, his providence and will of salvation. Against these philosophical traditions, Melanchthon favours Plato in a fictitious dialogue, asking his op29

CR 13, col. 294: "Addit autem Plato ideam, quod est adfine Aristotelis sententiae, qui addit formam materiae. Sed Aristoteles tantum intelligit formam, quam induit materia. Plato vero ideam intelligit imaginem operis in mente divina, iuxta quam, ut ita dicam, exculpitur forma, quae in corporibus conspicitur, ac sicut architectus imaginem aedificii prius in mente pingit, ita Deum cogitat imaginem totius opificii mundi, et ordinis corporum et animantium in sua mente prima quasi delineasse, ad quod exemplum deinde universam machinam et corpora, motusque stellarum et animantia fabricavit." See also CR 13, col. 376: "Aristotelis opinio restringitur ad formationem mundi. Hanc formationem mundi ex idea mentis divinae esse, et cum non sit alia idea, necessario talem esse mundi formam dixit, nee posse aliam esse." 30 Epistola nuncupatoria a Melanthone Vito Theodoro praescripta et praemissa Tomo I commentarii Lutheri in primum librum Mosis, a Vito Theodoro 1544, ineunte anno editum (CR 5, cols. 258-268). 31 CR 5, col. 259: "Condita sunt haec pulcherrima mundi corpora, coelum, sydera, elementa, plantae, animantia, et mira arte distributa, ut Deum aetemum opificem agnosceremus, et intelligeremus, ab ipso nobis vitae legem insitam esse, cuius officiis coli velit." 32 CR 5, col. 259: "[...] vere et sapienter Plato inquit: convinci animos legibus motuum coelestium et aliis testimoniis, ut, hunc mundum ab aeterna mente opifice conditum esse, fateri cogamur; [...]."

10

GUNTERFRANK

ponent whether even Plato misunderstood God although he leads the mind away from general opinions and defines God as the eternal mind, cause of the good in Nature, which is obviously the idea of God as presented in Plato's Timaios.*3 What Plato like Muhammad did not know is whether God accepts and hears the unworthy and why he accepts them. And as Melanchthon continues: Platonists were not only searching in what way God reveals himself in the creation of things, which he impressed as traces in nature, but also whether (God's) voice in other testimonies is known and in what way it is propagated.34

Beside this appreciation of Plato and the Platonists owing to their idea of God, Melanchthon compares the Christian idea of creation as presented in the Book of Genesis and the Platonic myth of creation of Plato's Timaios. He points out that there are people who believe there is no difference between the Book of Genesis and Plato's Timaios in which is also to be found a description of the construction of the world.35 Of course as a theologian, he refuses to equate both traditions of creation. What is more important for Melanchthon is to introduce the reader into the Christian doctrine of creation and the Theology of revelation as Luther presents in his commentary on the book Genesis. However, on the other side it is clear: when it comes to a philosophical understanding of creation alongside the Theology of revelation he refers to Plato's Timaios and not to Aristotle's Natural Philosophy. This preface is not the only one where Melanchthon presents Neoplatonic statements about the creation and the idea of God. One year after his commentary on Aristotle's book Dephysica and four years after the death of Luther, he edited his commentary De novissimis verbis Davidi again and gave it its own preface.36 Melanchthon considers Luther's commentary as the true doctrine of the church containing all main aspects of his theology of revelation. In order to emphasize the superiority over and independence of the revelation from all human attempts to take possession of God by believing to have a true knowledge of him he first points out the fundamental distinction between Gospel and reason. He argues that the true doctrine of the church contains the "true knowledge and invocation of God, the father, the 33

Plato, Timaios, 29d-30b. CR 5, cols. 260 f.: "Nee Plato nee Mahometes novit, an recipiat ac exaudiat Deus indignos, et cur recipiat. Sed Platoni quaerendum erat, non solum quomodo Deus in creatione rerum se patefecerit, quae vestigia naturae impresserit, sed etiam utrum vox aliqua certis testimoniis edita et quomodo propagata fuerit." 35 CR 5, col. 261: "Fons est autem primus liber Moisi, cuius titulus est Genesis, quem fortassis derident homines prophani, nee differe putant a Timeo Platonis, in quo etiam extructio mundi describitur. Sed pius lector scit, ingens esse discrimen prophanarum descriptionum et huius, traditae divinitus." 36 CR 7, cols. 581-585. 34

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

11

son and the holy spirit, the benefactions of the mediator and the true invocation."37 And as he adds this revelation - at its core it is the doctrine of the trinity, christology and soteriology - is completely different from any sophisticated philosophy or what he calls the doctrine of law. Melanchthon continues in the manner of a fictitious dialogue asking what recognizes a (Christian) mind by realizing that God exists more than Plato's mind who by contemplating this most wonderful architecture of the world, the light and figure of heaven, the motions of the stars, this earth, the residence of living beings which is distributed in a great variety, human beings and in them the intellectual part and all other parts which are distributed in such an admirable universe, what does the (Christian) mind recognize more than does Plato's mind, who firmly realizes that there exists a divine being, wise, good, just who is the fountain of the universe and goodness and who created this most wonderful architecture in an admirable art? [...]. Could it not even be that the approval in Plato and Xenophon is more firm and stable than among students of the church?38 Melanchthon confesses that this is not an easy question, but one has to consider what the human mind is able to perceive even after the darkening of the human mind following Adam's fall. In order to distinguish between a philosophical idea of God and the idea of God of Christian revelation, Melanchthon discusses two main differences. The first difference is that pagans cannot grasp the true essence of God. With regard to Melanchthon's remarks about God's essence, it is necessary at least to mention that he uses two different concepts to describe God's essence.39 All attributes of God's essence which are the subject matter of a philosophical idea of God - and Melanchthon knows a full catalogue of divine attributes, as we shall see - he discusses under the concept "qualis sit Deus". To describe the divine essence according to revelation he uses the concept "essentia Dei". At this point of his preface Melanchthon speaks about the divine essence of the revelation.

37

CR 7, col. 581: "Continet enim haec enarratio perpetuam et praecipuam in Ecclesia doctrinam, de vera agnitione atque invocatione Dei, de Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto, de beneficiis Mediatoris, de vera invocatione." 38 CR 7, col. 583: "Sed quid, inquies, plus cernit mea mens, cogitans, quid sit Deus, quam mens Platonis, qui, adspiciens hoc pulcherrimum mundi opificium, lucem et figuram coeli, siderum motus, et hanc sedem animantium, terram magna varietate ornatam, et homines, et in hominibus partem intelligentem, et caeteras huic miro ordine adtributas, agnoscit certe, numen quoddam esse sapiens, bonum, iustum, quod et fons est ordinis et bonitatis, et haec pulcherrima opera miranda arte condidit [...]. An non fieri potest, ut firmior et stabilior sit adsensio in Platone et Xenophonte, quam in auditoribus Ecclesiae?" 39 For a detailed discussion of Melanchthon's twofold concept of a description of God's essence and further references see Frank, Philosophic (cited above, n. 6), pp. 204 f.

12

GUNTERFRANK Pagans like Muslims and others are wrong about the essence of God because they ignore the doctrine of the eternal father, the son and the holy spirit although they realize in a natural consideration that God exists.40

The first difference marks the doctrine of the trinity which cannot be realized except through the Christian revelation. The second difference consists in the cognition of the divine will, meaning always his will for the salvation of his people. Plato, Xenophon and Muhammad know (God's) will, as can be seen in the law which is as notion born with us. They know there exists a divine being, wise, honest, charitable, just, pure who punishes the sacrilegious: they see testimonies to his will in daily examples.41

And as Melanchthon stresses, this notion of God illuminates in the confession of all human minds of all sane people. However, "Plato, Xenophon and Muhammad do not know the merciful promise of reconciliation and the son (of God) as mediator".42 In contrast to the philosophical idea of God, the subject matter of church doctrine is what revelation consists of: forgiveness of sins, the consolation of the Gospel, the notion of Jesus as mediator. There is no question that Melanchthon wants to show in his preface the need for realizing the true idea of God as presented in his revelation through his son as mediator. On the other hand there can be no doubt that he also recognizes a philosophical idea of God, which is common to Plato's, Muhammad's and the pagan's idea of God even if this concept is incomplete. According to Melanchthon the only adequate philosophical concept of God is Plato's idea of God. Melanchthon's Neoplatonic Concept of the Notion of God For a philosophical understanding of the notion of God, Melanchthon usually refers to Plato. In all Melanchthon's writings there are only two exceptions where he seems to prefer Aristotle's theology by discussing his concept of substances: His commentary on dialectics of 154743 and his interpretation of the theological declarations of the council of Nicaea,44 published in 1550. These two statements became the reason for scholars at the 40 CR.7, cols. 583 f.: "Errant Ethnici, Mohametistae, et similes de Dei essentia, quia, etsi ilia naturali consideratione agnoscunt aliquid esse Deiim, tamen illam doctrinam de aeterno Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto ignorant." 41 CR 7, col. 584: "Alterum discrimen de voluntate Dei illustrius est. Norunt utcunque Plato, Xenophon, Mahomet, voluntatem, quam lex, cuius notitia nobiscum nascitur, ostendit. Sciunt esse numen sapiens, verax, beneficum, iustum, castum, puniens scelera: vident huius voluntatis testimonia in quotidianis exemplis." 42 CR 7, col. 584: "Sed nequaquam norunt Plato, Xenophon, Mahomet promissionem gratuitam reconciliationis et Mediatorem filium." 43 Ph. Melanchthon, Erotemata dialectices, 1547 (CR 13, cols. 526-531). 44 Ph. Melanchthon, Ennaratio symboli Niceni, 1550 (CR 23, cols. 495-498).

MELANCHTHON AND THE TRADITION OF NEOPLATONISM

13

turn of the century, such as E. Troeltsch,45 F. Hiibner,46 P. Petersen47 and of later contributions H.-G. Geyer48 and E. Rudolph,49 to examine his idea of God in an Aristotelian framework and to look at Melanchthon as an Aristotelian philosopher. As I showed elsewhere, these two statements have nothing to do with Aristotle's theology.50 In his interpretation of the council of Nicaea, Melanchthon refers to Aristotelian terminology in order to explain to students in what way the church fathers used concepts like "substantia", U7ro