Search

jamesgray2

A discussion of interesting books from my current stock A WordPress.com site

A survey of the cities of London and Westminster

“Because I know that time is always time

And place is always place and only place

And what is actual is actual only for one time

And only for one place”

Ash Wednesday T.S. Eliot. 1930

 

Before giving a description of such a momentous book, I feel a bit of framing is due. Much has been written about this wonderful huge book, yet I feel it is necessary to state that this book is indispensable for anyone doing research on any subject relating to Early Modern London. Stow’s initial foray into the subject set the bar high for detailed description of the physical and social environment of London. This edition, by far the best is the work of three generations of Antiquaries, the catalogues of books, records and manuscripts excerpted is impressive in its own right and would be an irreplaceable library on its own. But this work is manifest of cultural shifts and maintains differing scholars approaches to understanding of the recording and preserving of cultural heritage, the list of subscribers depicts the capital invested in this undertaking.

 

947G      John Stow   1525-1605

DSC_0217

A survey of the cities of London and Westminster: containing the original, antiquity, increase, modern estate and government of those cities. Written at first in the year MDXCVIII. By John Stow, citizen and native of London. Since reprinted and augmented by A.M. H.D. and other. Now lastly, corrected, improved, and very much enlarged: and the survey and history brought down from the year 1633, (being near fourscore years since it was last printed) to the present time; by John Strype, M.A. a native also of the said city. Illustrated with exact maps of the city and suburbs, and of all the wards; and likewise of the out-parishes of London and Westminster: together with many other fair draughts of the more eminent and publick edifices and monuments. In six books. To which is prefixed, the life of the author, writ by the editor. At the end is added, an appendiz of certain tracts, discourses and remarks, concerning the state of the city of London. Together with a perambulation, or circuit-walk four or five miles round about London, to the parish churches: describing the monuments of the dead there interred: with other antiquities observable in those places. And concluding with a second appendix, as a supply and review: and a large index of the whole work.

 

London: printed for A. Churchill, J. Knapton, R. Knaplock, J. Walthoe, E. Horne, B. Tooke, D. Midwinter, B. Cowse, R. Robinson, and T. Ward, 1720                  $18,000  

 

Two Folio volumes 15 1/4 X 9 inches.

vol I :Map of London, π2, (B)-(D)2,(a)-(d)4,(e)-(f)2 Q2, A-Z4, Aa-Pp4,Qq2,[end of first book]  B-Z4, Aa-Dd4,[end of second book] A-Z4, Aa-mm4,Nn3 [end of 3rd book]

vol II : π1,A-P4, A-Z4, Aa-Zz4, Aaa- Lll4, Mmm2 [end of book V] A-Z4, Aa-KK4, Ll-Rr2.  Each of the 6 ’books’ has its own pagination, and is introduced by a drop-head title.

There are 70 full Page (and 30 of those folding) Maps and Plates .

The Fold-out of “Elizabethan London ” is lacking as in many copies,  otherwise these two volumes are complete and almost in perfect condition, The Large foldout map of the city of London  DSC_0245has been reinforced on the back and there are a few pages with margin repairs not touching the text. All the pages are crisp and clean. It is truly a stunning copy.

This copy is beautifully and expertly bound in modern quarter calf, over marbled boards, quite a Stately set of volumes indeed! . The binding is in fine working order.

“In the century following Stow’s death, however, the Tudor capital so lovingly depicted and recorded in Stow’s Survey was dramatically transformed. The huge growth of the metropolis, the devastation wrought by the Great Fire of 1666 and the subsequent rebuilding of the City made an updating of the Survey highly desirable. It was to answer this need that John Strype (1643-1737), the ecclesiastical historian and biographer, published a new, hugely expanded version of Stow’s Survey of London in 1720.”

First Issue with “1698” for 1598 on the title page (?) John Stow’s Survey of London, first published in 1598, brims with amusing descriptions and anecdotes as well as highly detailed accounts of the buildings, social conditions and customs of the time, based on a wide range of classical and medieval historical literature, public and civic records, and Stow’s own intimate knowledge of the city where he spent his life. “The reader of A Survey travels with Stow through each of the city’s wards and the adjoining city of Westminster, learns about the wall, bridges, gates, and parish churches . . . DSC_0232 2[Stow] also records the negative aspects of urban growth, in the shape of unsightly sprawl, filth, the destruction of ancient monuments, and above all poverty. His book approaches the thoroughness of an encyclopaedia . . . It is noteworthy that while Camden’s Britannia was written in Latin for the educated élite, Stow’s Survey was composed in the language of his fellow countrymen.” This edition, of 1720, greatly expanded with interpolated amendments by John Strype, is considered the best and most desirable.

DSC_0235 “Throughout his life at Low Leyton, Strype crossed the River Lea into London each week to meet and converse with his antiquarian friends and to call on his contacts in the book trade. . . . The Survey had been repeatedly revised and enlarged in order to keep up with the changing aspect of the post-fire city, now much expanded and altered in its religion and other ways. . . . Although Strype had arranged most of the work by 1707, and the engravings had been prepared, it was set aside after the publication of Edward Hatton’s New View of London in 1708, which seemed to cover much the same ground and was considerably smaller and cheaper. . . . Finally, once the defects of Hatton’s book were acknowledged another agreement in November 1716 led to the Survey’s publication at the end of 1720. . . . The print run was probably more than 500 copies . . . To quote Merritt, ‘By this stage the Survey has a multiple personality, switching with little warning from nostalgic Elizabethan antiquary [Stow] . . . to diligent post-Restoration recorder of events [Strype] and back again’ (Merritt, 87).” (ODNB).

DSC_0237

Richard Grafton] had the audacity to enter into historical controversy (impar congressus) with the great John Stow. This ‘merry old man,’ footing it over England in search of Antiquities because he could never learn to ride, sometimes suspected by Government of being insufficiently Protestant, now begging with a basin in the street, now spending £200 a year on his library, holds a very high place in the history of learning. Even those who, like Camden, distrusted his judgment, allowed his industry. His Chaucer (1561) was his first but by no means his best work: he helped to swell the Chaucerian apocrypha. His Summary of English Chronicles (1565) looks at first like a retrogression from Hall; we are back at the annalistic form and the London tradition with its lists of bailiffs and mayors. But the important thing is that Stow is not a mere compiler but (as we call it) a ‘researcher.’ He uses the literary sources but he adds ‘paynfull searche’ into records, and ‘diligent experience.’ He collected not only books but charters and legal documents. He bought up the collections of others, and his own assisted both Speght and Parker. In 1580 came the Chronicle of English from Brute unto this present year, re-issued in 1592 as the Annals. The Survey of London (1598) was re-issued in 1603 and afterwards enlarged by other hands.

DSC_0238Its modern editor finds this work ‘instinct with’ a ‘life’ which the Annals lack. It is a treasure–house of old customs, old splendors, old gaieties and hospitalities, already vanished or vanishing when the author wrote. Stow had no stylistic ambitions; his works were, as he said ‘written homely.’ His prose varies between mere note–making (see the account of printing under year 1458 in the Summary) and tolerably vivid narrative. In general it is just such an unobtrusive medium as keeps our attention on the facts, and therefore good for its purpose; recte olet ubi nihil olet.” (page 298-299, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, C.S. Lewis)
DSC_0236.jpg
 Maslen & Lancaster. Bowyer ledgers, 584; Lowndes V, 2526. Gibson’s Library, p. 258. ESTC Citation No. T48975.

DSC_0250

DSC_0245

DSC_0242

Strype’s Survey of London

J.F.Merritt

University of Nottingham

The creation of the 1720 edition

If John Stow’s Survey of London is probably the most famous single work ever written about England’s capital, then the enlarged and updated edition of the same book published some 120 years later by the famous ecclesiastical historian John Strype surely stands as one of the most remarkable works of scholarship ever produced about the city, and is regarded even today as a standard and invaluable work of reference for historians of the capital. Just as London’s boundaries and population had vastly expanded in the years between Stow and Strype’s works, so Strype’s edition dwarfs Stow’s original work. In two stout folio volumes, Strype’s monumental composition provides not just an updated account of the City that brings it down to the early eighteenth century, but also vastly extends the work’s range both geographically (to take in the sprawling suburbs of the metropolis) and thematically (to discuss a panoply of new subjects, from the Great Fire and the provision of water and public health to workhouses and the Bank of England). This is combined with a famous collection of ward and parish maps, and a fine set of plates of prominent buildings. The whole is appropriately preceded by the first detailed life of John Stow, with a full-page reproduction of his funeral monument. 1

The Survey of London is a work which has attracted many different editors in its history, and Strype’s own remarkable edition cannot be used effectively without an understanding of its relationship to the original and subsequent texts of this remarkable work.

John Stow’s own Survey of London was first published in 1598. But he did not intend this to be his last word on the subject. In 1603 he published a new edition with many important corrections and additions, and he clearly intended to embark on further elaborations and refinements, prevented only by his death in 1605. Work on a new edition of the Survey began not long after Stow’s death. His first posthumous editor was the incorrigible Anthony Munday — playwright, pageant-writer, polemicist, and (apparently) a spy reporting against both puritans and Catholics. Munday claimed of Stow that, while still alive, ‘much of his good mind he had formerly imparted to me, and some of his best collections lovingly delivered me, prevailing with mee ? to proceed in the perfecting of a Worke so worthy’. 2 Munday’s new edition of the Survey, published in 1618, sought to update Stow’s text in a number of ways. Another edition, published in 1633 after Munday’s death, took things further, including a substantial new section entitled ‘A Returne to London’, which sets out to document a resurgence in London church repair, rebuilding and beautification, undertaking a parish-by-parish survey of the capital’s churches. A further bizarre appendix presents an accumulation of miscellaneous, almost random, material, under the title ‘The Remaines or Remnants of Divers Worthy Things which should have had their Due Place and Honour in this Worke, if Promising Friends had Kept their Words’. 3

The unwieldy sprawl of Munday’s 1633 edition showed that Stow’s work clearly required a more effective editor. Nevertheless, no further editions of Stow were attempted. Instead, the text of the Survey (usually the 1633 edition) was raided by later authors for material that they could insert into their own works on London. This was the case in James Howell’s Londinopolis (1657) and Thomas de Laune’s The Present State of London (1681; 2nd ed 1690). In 1694 a concerted attempt was made by Richard Blome (who had produced a new edition of William Camden’s Britannia in 1673) to complete a new edition of Stow’s Survey ‘with large additions and improvements’. While new maps and much new text were generated, however, the edition itself was never published. 4

In 1702, two of the publishers involved in the abortive 1694 edition of the Survey drew up an agreement to edit the Survey with one of those writers who had initially been approached to provide materials for the 1694 edition. This was John Strype. Strype is best known to us as an ecclesiastical historian, but also enjoyed fame as an accomplished editor of texts and historical documents, including an immensely popular account of Ceylon (and indeed, his ecclesiastical annals and biographies were often essentially compendia of extracts of transcribed documents). His edition of the Survey was apparently completed by November 1707, but Strype and his publishers then found that booksellers would not accept the work because of the simultaneous publication of a much slimmer and cheaper rival — Edward Hatton’s New View of London — which used significant amount of materials from Stow (although self-consciously abandoning Stow’s structure and methodology). Like Blome’s edition, Strype’s 1708 Survey was therefore aborted. Nevertheless, the deficiencies of Hatton’s work meant that the demand for a scholarly updating of Stow’s Survey were undiminished, and by the second half of 1716 the edition was back on track, and Strype’s edition of the Survey was finally published in December 1720. The work, in two folio volumes, was priced at a princely six guineas, and somewhere between 500 and 700 copies were published, with 271 subscribers listed in the work itself. 5

The drawn-out process by which Strype’s edition emerged can help to explain some of the peculiarities of the text as it was finally published. Strype clearly had access to the text and other materials of Blome’s abortive 1694 edition. He scrupulously indicates all Blome’s additions to the original Survey with the marginal note ‘R.B.’ —but this means that some of these sections stop abruptly in 1694. The maps in Strype’s edition are also essentially taken from Blome’s 1694 edition, although with some minor alterations made in 1707 (although, unlike the text, Blome’s name is unceremoniously removed from the maps). Strype also does not seem to have altered the main body of the text that he completed for the 1708 edition, so that changes occurring between 1708 and 1720 are often missed. The written account of the city therefore essentially describes London as it was in 1708. 6 Even the list of stage coaches and carriers is dated 1707. Strype did, however, add a number of new and supplementary sections to the work.

The earlier history of the Survey under the editorship of Stow and Munday can also explain some other gaps and anomalies in the coverage of Strype’s edition. For example, the entries for different London parishes provide plentiful information on Jacobean church-building, because Strype has taken the separate, consolidated account of early Stuart church-building–which Munday appended to the 1633 edition–and redistributed this material within the overall entries on each individual parish. But Strype’s edition contains virtually no reference to any church-building or decoration in London parishes during the Laudian campaign of the 1630s and surprisingly little on the later seventeenth century. There had, of course, been no shortage of such building, but there had been no Munday around to record it, and Strype made no use of parochial documents to investigate these matters further. 7

Other anomalies of the edition’s coverage can be explained by the practicalities of the gathering of material. The chance enthusiasm of certain clergy and parish officials, for example, seems to explain why some parishes, such as St James Clerkenwell and St Botolph Aldgate, are far more fully documented than others, especially for the later seventeenth century. 8 It is also not surprising to find that Strype’s own parish of Low Leyton receives more attention than its suburban location might otherwise have afforded it, as does the parish of Hackney, where he held a lectureship. While Strype does not seem to have consulted parish records such as churchwardens’ accounts (so that his accounts of parochial donors are dependent on the tables and monuments visible in churches when he and his assistant ‘I.W.’ visited them), nevertheless the support of Bishop Compton of London meant that Strype had access to diocesan materials of a type which neither Stow nor Munday had available. Strype relied heavily on the recent 1693 episcopal visitation returns to update the perambulation portion of the Survey, while information from an earlier visitation of 1636 helped to fill in gaps about the pre-Fire character of certain parishes.

Some omissions in the edition also reflect simple time constraints. As late as October 1719, it was noted that information on nine livery companies was still missing, and in the final version three livery companies are bereft of a brief history, with only their coat of arms provided (II.v.247). Yet by July 1720 Strype was still supplying new material for the appendices, much to the consternation of the booksellers who begged him to ‘put a stop to the great Enlargements which we perceive are like to be made in the second Appendix for We have Exceeded by 80 sheets of Our first Computation already’. 9

While we may note its many omissions, however, it is just as important to emphasize the enormous amounts of new material which Strype introduced to the Survey. It should also be recognized that Strype did not merely add new material by describing recent events and institutions, but also drew on medieval and Tudor sources to expand significantly the coverage of the period before Stow wrote his first edition. For example, Strype’s account of the parish of St Martin in the Fields, Westminster is enriched by his use of Burghley’s papers for an account of an enclosure riot in 1592 (II.vi.79-80). 10

 

Strype and the 1720 Survey

If it is important for the reader of Strype’s edition to understand how the work stands within the series of continuations of Stow’s original work, it is equally important to appreciate how John Strype’s own preoccupations played a vital role in shaping the 1720 edition.

Strype’s experience as an editor clearly led him to take a keen interest in identifying Stow’s original text. He explains in his preface that he wished to return to the uncorrupted Stow because ‘since the Author’s Death there having crept in a great number of Errors, as it happens in After-Editions’. Contemporaries had increasingly tended to conflate the versions of the Survey produced by Stow and Munday. Strype therefore made it a priority to disentangle the publishing history of the Survey by introducing a system of marginal annotations, so that Stow’s original text could be identified. This partly reflected Strype’s conviction that Munday was greatly inferior to Stow as a scholar, but also his esteem for Stow himself. Not the least notable addition to the Survey that Strype introduced was the ‘Life of Stow’ which prefaces the whole work, along with a full-page reproduction of Stow’s funeral monument. Strype’s ‘Life of Stow’ marks a significant moment in the rehabilitation of Stow’s reputation. Strype presents him as a paragon of honest and intuitive scholarship, compassionate to the poor, and specifically refutes charges that he was overly credulous or unscholarly in his working methods. He makes no attempt to hide Stow’s Catholic sympathies, but explains them in terms of a response to the sacrilege of the early Reformation, and offers a rounded, realistic and above all sympathetic account of his trials and tribulations.

Strype clearly admired Stow as a fellow scholar and editor. But for all his editorial scruples, his concern to follow Stow’s method, and the practical pressures that significantly shaped the content of the book, Strype’s edition of the Survey is not entirely lacking in evidence of Strype’s own religious and intellectual preoccupations. 11

The son of a Dutch immigrant silk merchant, John Strype grew up in a family with strong non-conformist links. This was particularly true of the family of his mother, Hester van Strype, who is known to have sheltered non-conformist ministers in her London house during the 1665 plague. After the death of his father, the young Strype also came under the influence of his brother-in-law John Johnson, a dedicated Presbyterian minister. It was Johnson who in 1663 arranged for Strype to transfer from Jesus College, Cambridge to the more amenable Catherine Hall, where John Lightfoot (who had earlier supported Presbyterianism at the Westminster Assembly) was master. Despite this background, however, Strype ultimately decided to position himself firmly within the ranks of the established church — a decision which alienated him from most of his close-knit family for many years. 12 The influence of some of this background may be glimpsed in his treatment of the stranger communities in the pages of the Survey. While condemning the naturalization of alien merchants, Strype still does his best to defend the rights of the stranger communities to be exempted from the requirements of religious conformity. In part, he does this by emphasizing, not their shared membership of an international Protestant community (as puritans had traditionally done) but rather the degree to which their behaviour echoes that of the established church. Thus he notes how French Protestants at St Anne Soho use the English liturgy in French translation, with episcopally-ordained ministers officiating and sometimes wearing Anglican garb (II.v.294-305; II.vi.85).

Strype was closely involved in the religious politics of his day. He served as minister at Low Leyton, just outside London, from 1668 until his death, and it was from here that he supported Henry Compton, bishop of London, even when the latter was suspended by James II in 1686. Strype was also involved in clandestine publications criticizing James’ religious policies. Thereafter, Strype’s strong support for the Glorious Revolution led to his formal institution as rural dean of Barking by the grateful Bishop Compton, and he was additionally rewarded with a lectureship at the nearby parish of Hackney. In the years that followed, Strype’s position as dean of Barking extended beyond a merely pastoral one, as he also participated in electioneering for the Essex Church-Tory party. 13

Strype’s religious sentiments — fiercely anti-Jacobite and anti-Catholic, disapproving of Dissenters, and passionately committed to the established church — can also be seen to have found outlets in sections of the Survey. Thus, while Strype follows Stow in including Fitzstephen’s encomium of Thomas Becket at the end of the medieval account of London, he adds a stinging editorial addition that this was written by ‘a Monk, the Pope’s sworn Creature ? in the very Depth of Popery’ (II.Appendix, p.15). It is also notable that, while later eighteenth-century editors of the Survey felt obliged to denounce the anti-Catholic inscriptions on the Great Fire Monument, Strype was comfortable merely to report these additions to the Monument without comment. 14

The Survey also bears witness to Strype’s profound concern with the moral life of the City, encapsulated in his enthusiasm for such contemporary organizations as the Society for the Reformation of Manners. He introduces a new section to the Survey that is specifically concerned with ‘the late Endeavours used in the City for the restraining of Vice’, which describes ‘in what State Religion and Good Manners stand here at present’, partly by an approving overview of the various Societies (II.v.30-52). Like Munday and Stow, Strype gives an account of charities and almshouses, but this is no mere catalogue of good works — this is clearly a topic that excites Strype’s particular interest. He gives a meticulous account of the workhouse in Bishopgate Street, with case studies of its successes (I.i.197-202). This concern with the instruments of social control and moral reform is very much of its time, and conspicuously different from the world of Stow and Munday, where the very fact of the founder’s charity claimed most attention.

Needless to say, this preoccupation with the need to maintain social order means that Strype makes little space in his edition of the Survey for the discussion of sports and pastimes. As a diligent editor he reproduces Stow’s account of ‘the customary Sports used in the City’, but rather than supplementing this with an updated account of such pursuits, Strype rather oddly chooses to append a bloodcurdling account of ‘some of their customary Punishments in former Times, of Shame or Pain, or both, for divers Sorts of Crimes and Misdemeanours: Such were Pillorizing, Carting, Riding, Whipping.’ (I.i.257-8). The association of the two topics in Strype’s mind seems clear. It is hardly surprising that virtually the only allusion that Strype makes to theatrical drama in the capital focuses on the City’s attempts under Elizabeth to regulate potentially dissolute players and the ‘lewd Matters of plays’ (II.v.244-6).

Strype’s edition also breathes the spirit of its age in its provision of statistical information. Strype’s modish fascination with political arithmetic shines through in page upon page of statistics and tables charting matters such as the volume of livery company charity, amounts spent yearly on the diet of the poor, numbers received into and discharged from the capital’s workhouses, and a lengthy account of fire insurance rates, complete with charts to calculate premiums. Similarly, the state of contemporary London’s wealth and income, and its role at the centre of overseas trade, are celebrated, along with lengthy discussions of trading companies and the Bank of England (e.g. II.v.256-73, 404-8, 445-7).

Strype’s edition of the Survey of London is, then, a remarkable compendium of information about the capital. For all of its omissions, the anomalous chronological range of some sections, and the idiosyncrasy of others, its editor still manages to muster a huge amount of material gathered from an extraordinary range of sources. The two hefty volumes may lack the immediate personal touch and focus of Stow’s own Survey, but this is not because Strype himself was simply a dispassionate observer of events. As we have seen, he had his own agenda and beliefs as well. The unwieldiness of the Survey partly reflects the task that Strype set himself — to preserve Stow’s original text and the essential structure of Stow’s work, but also to integrate the additions of Munday, Blome and Strype himself within the same framework. What it gains in comprehensiveness, it loses in coherence. Not the least bewildering aspects of the book is the cacophony of editorial voices. The authorial ‘I’ can be found reporting events witnessed in the 1540s, conversations in the 1620s, or visiting Westminster Hall in the 1650s in order to see the standards seized at the Battle of Worcester (I.ii.66; I.iii.16; II.vi.49). The Survey of Strype’s edition has a multiple personality, switching with little warning from nostalgic Elizabethan antiquary to triumphalist Jacobean pageant-writer to diligent post-Restoration recorder of events and back again. Instead of a perambulation where Stow takes the reader by the hand through London’s streets, it is now a huge boisterous party — with Munday, Blome, Strype and others all coming along, interrupting one another, hailing the new and the old using the same authorial ‘I’ — an ‘I’ that is sometimes nostalgic and regretful, sometimes enthusiastic and forward-looking.

It emphatically does not conform to our modern sense of a scholarly edition of a celebrated work. Nevertheless, Strype’s sprawling edition creates an altogether richer melange of materials. Rather than being frozen in the past, the Survey of London lives in Strype’s present, speaking of new developments as well as recording old ones. Moreover, as a repository of the knowledge, ideas and manuscript discoveries of this most indefatigable of antiquaries, Strype’s Survey of London still represents a treasure trove for the historian of London.

END

Footnotes

  1. Much of the following text is adapted from J.F. Merritt, ‘The reshaping of Stow’s Survey’, in J.F. Merritt (ed.), Imagining Early Modern London. Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stow to Strype, 1598-1720 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 52-88.
  2. Munday, Survey (1618), ‘The Epistle Dedicatory’, sig. 2.
  3. For a fuller discussion see Merritt, ‘Reshaping’, pp. 54-67.
  4. Ibid., pp. 67-73.
  5. John J. Morrison, ‘Strype’s Stow: the 1720 Edition of ‘A Survey of London’’, London Journal 3 (1977), pp. 42-7, 54 n.68.
  6. Ibid., pp. 41, 47.
  7. Merritt, ‘Reshaping’, p. 86.
  8. Ibid., p. 84 n.114.
  9. Ibid., pp. 85-6; Morrison, ‘Strype’s Stow’, p. 47.
  10. See also J.F. Merritt, The Social World of Early Modern Westminster (Manchester, 2005), pp. 202-5.
  11. For a fuller discussion see Merritt, ‘Reshaping’, pp. 76-84.
  12. John J. Morrison, ‘John Strype: historian of the English Reformation’, PhD thesis, University of Syracuse (1976), pp. 21-8, 37.
  13. Ibid., pp. 33, 67, 70-3, 284, 287-97.
  14. I.ii.181; Survey (1754), I.ii.501-2.

And to bring us no now, one of my favorite things to do in London is to follow the Old wall, much of which s marked on the sidewalk roads and Walls themselves, Of course Stow did this and there is an Appendix to this edition giving you as guided tour

 

 

 

 

Featured post

“Truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing”

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274. editor Theodoricus de Susteren.

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

DSC_0123

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

Cologne : Heinrich Quentell, 7 Mar. 1499                                        $11,500

Folio 10 1/2 X 8 inches 2°: A-Z6,Aa-Gg6; {signature Dd signed De)   Third Edition/The final 15th century edition.

Blind-tooled front and back covers (including some blind-tooled letters), full calf on DSC_0122thick boards. Clasps missing, catchplates present. Foxing throughout, with some red and green ink dots along edges. Front pastedown shows slight signs of water damage. Occasional small red stains on text block (e.g. E3v and Q5), likely from the books’ rubricator, but otherwise a clean text block. “Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris sancti Thome Aquinatis…”First written around 1256, Thomas Aquinas’ “Disputed Questions on Truth” defends “the view that truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing… Most importantly, he develops a notion of truth of being (what might be called “ontological truth”) along with truth of the intellect (what might be called “logical truth”)” (Wippel, 295)

DSC_0126Sections include: Truth; God’s Knowledge; Ideas; The Divine Word; Providence; Predestination; The Book of Life; The Knowledge of Angels; The Communication of Angelic Knowledge; The Mind; The Teacher; Prophecy; Rapture; Faith; Higher and Lower Reason; Synderesis; Conscience; The Knowledge of the First Man in the State of Innocence; Knowledge of the Soul After Death; The Knowledge of Christ; Good; The Tendency to Good and the Will; God’s Will; Free Choice; Sensuality; The Passions of the Soul; Grace; The Justification of Sinners; and The Grace of Christ.

For each topic, Aquinas reviews the topic’s Difficulties, and then responses with ‘To the Contrary’ and ‘Reply’. Aquinas concludes each topic with an “Answers to Difficulties” section, demonstrating his typical insightful worldview and readable literary style.“Everything is a being essentially. But a creature is good not essentially but by participation. Good, therefore, really adds something to being (“Good” [U1v]

translation from   http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer21.htm).

DSC_0125

Goff T181;(Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary;HEHL; LC ;Massachusetts Historical Society;YUL)  ;  BMC I, 289/90; Only one Copy in The British Isles (BL)

DSC_0127

Impressa Agrippine. opera atq[ue] impe[n]sis p[ro]uidi viri Henrici Quentell. ciuis eiusdem. Anno salutis humane nonagesimonono supra millesimumquadringentesimu[m] Ipso die celebritatis autoris cursu felici ad finem vsq[ue] perducta.

 

Featured post

“Truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing”

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274. editor Theodoricus de Susteren.

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

DSC_0123

930G Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris s[an]cti Thome Aquinatis. que olim … me[n]dis scatebat. Nouissime iam per … magistru[m] nostru[m] Theodericum de Susteren co[n]uentus Coloniens[is] fratru[m] predicatoru[m] regentem … laboriose reuisa … feliciter incipit.

Cologne : Heinrich Quentell, 7 Mar. 1499                                        $11,500

Folio 10 1/2 X 8 inches 2°: A-Z6,Aa-Gg6; {signature Dd signed De)   Third Edition/The final 15th century edition.

Blind-tooled front and back covers (including some blind-tooled letters), full calf on DSC_0122thick boards. Clasps missing, catchplates present. Foxing throughout, with some red and green ink dots along edges. Front pastedown shows slight signs of water damage. Occasional small red stains on text block (e.g. E3v and Q5), likely from the books’ rubricator, but otherwise a clean text block. “Summa de veritate celeberrimi doctoris sancti Thome Aquinatis…”First written around 1256, Thomas Aquinas’ “Disputed Questions on Truth” defends “the view that truth consists of an adequation between the intellect and a thing… Most importantly, he develops a notion of truth of being (what might be called “ontological truth”) along with truth of the intellect (what might be called “logical truth”)” (Wippel, 295)

DSC_0126Sections include: Truth; God’s Knowledge; Ideas; The Divine Word; Providence; Predestination; The Book of Life; The Knowledge of Angels; The Communication of Angelic Knowledge; The Mind; The Teacher; Prophecy; Rapture; Faith; Higher and Lower Reason; Synderesis; Conscience; The Knowledge of the First Man in the State of Innocence; Knowledge of the Soul After Death; The Knowledge of Christ; Good; The Tendency to Good and the Will; God’s Will; Free Choice; Sensuality; The Passions of the Soul; Grace; The Justification of Sinners; and The Grace of Christ.

For each topic, Aquinas reviews the topic’s Difficulties, and then responses with ‘To the Contrary’ and ‘Reply’. Aquinas concludes each topic with an “Answers to Difficulties” section, demonstrating his typical insightful worldview and readable literary style.“Everything is a being essentially. But a creature is good not essentially but by participation. Good, therefore, really adds something to being (“Good” [U1v]

translation from   http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer21.htm).

DSC_0125

Goff T181;(Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary;HEHL; LC ;Massachusetts Historical Society;YUL)  ;  BMC I, 289/90; Only one Copy in The British Isles (BL)

DSC_0127

Impressa Agrippine. opera atq[ue] impe[n]sis p[ro]uidi viri Henrici Quentell. ciuis eiusdem. Anno salutis humane nonagesimonono supra millesimumquadringentesimu[m] Ipso die celebritatis autoris cursu felici ad finem vsq[ue] perducta.

 

Yet another Witchcraft Demonology book!

122J Franciscus Glogovaz (Verf. Franciscus Glogovaz, Pindarensis Istrianus Theologus)

Fasciculus Benedictionum Exorcismorum, & s-l500validissimarum Conjurationum ad effugandas aereas tempestates. Ex approbatis Libris à S. R. E.collectus. Litaniae quoque, & duodecim Evangelia cum suis orationibus pro benedicendis agris, & fructibus terrae. Praetereà Benedictiones super Cruces, quae in triviis collocantur, ac contra vermes, locustas, et alia animalia fruges vastantia est. Dedicatus reverendissimus domini domino Ioanni Fattori.

Venetiis  : J.A. Remmdinus 1703        $2,800

DuodecimoA-C12, [72 Pp] 6 X 3 inches First edition Bound in contemporary rippled and s-l1600-3soiled vellum covered boards. Plain endpapers, the rear pastedown lifted to reveal an early piece of color wallpapering.  There is portion excised from head of pp29/30 with loss of thirteen lines of text on each side, otherwise complete, meeting collation: 72pp, with woodcut device to title page, decorative initials, head and tailpieces. This copy also has an interesting 14pp of period old manuscript notes in two different hands, bound at rear- surely worth the time to translate and almost certainly with additional occult content. A well used copy; externally rubbed scuffed and bumped, corners abraded, vellum browned and marked but intact . Text block is quite firm, some browning / finger soiling consummate with age and use: recent notes in blue ink to lower margin at pp53, earlier notes in red ink to same point on following page: a few other ink or pencil markings, else unmarked.

s-l1600-6

Rare( no copy in the US according to OCLC) First (and only)  edition of this uncommon collection of prayers, ritualistic exorcisms and demonic possession/prevention, many of which are aimed at protecting crops and fruits against the ravages of storms, plagues, and other evils from below. From a time when the exorcisms were not prohibited and were accepted as an important part of the work of Christian priests, and penetrated all aspects of ones life, even the harvests. bound in period rippled and smoked vellum covered boards. Period plain endpapers, the rear pastedown lifted to reveal an early piece of decorated paper.. s-l1600-4s-l1600-2

Yet another Witchcraft Demonology book!

122J Franciscus Glogovaz (Verf. Franciscus Glogovaz, Pindarensis Istrianus Theologus)

 

 

 

 

 

Fasciculus Benedictionum Exorcismorum, & s-l500validissimarum Conjurationum ad effugandas aereas tempestates. Ex approbatis Libris à S. R. E.collectus. Litaniae quoque, & duodecim Evangelia cum suis orationibus pro benedicendis agris, & fructibus terrae. Praetereà Benedictiones super Cruces, quae in triviis collocantur, ac contra vermes, locustas, et alia animalia fruges vastantia est. Dedicatus reverendissimus domini domino Ioanni Fattori.

Venetiis  : J.A. Remmdinus 1703        $2,800

DuodecimoA-C12, [72 Pp] 6 X 3 inches First edition Bound in contemporary rippled and s-l1600-3soiled vellum covered boards. Plain endpapers, the rear pastedown lifted to reveal an early piece of color wallpapering.  There is portion excised from head of pp29/30 with loss of thirteen lines of text on each side, otherwise complete, meeting collation: 72pp, with woodcut device to title page, decorative initials, head and tailpieces. This copy also has an interesting 14pp of period old manuscript notes in two different hands, bound at rear- surely worth the time to translate and almost certainly with additional occult content. A well used copy; externally rubbed scuffed and bumped, corners abraded, vellum browned and marked but intact . Text block is quite firm, some browning / finger soiling consummate with age and use: recent notes in blue ink to lower margin at pp53, earlier notes in red ink to same point on following page: a few other ink or pencil markings, else unmarked.

s-l1600-6

Rare( no copy in the US according to OCLC) First (and only)  edition of this uncommon collection of prayers, ritualistic exorcisms and demonic possession/prevention, many of which are aimed at protecting crops and fruits against the ravages of storms, plagues, and other evils from below. From a time when the exorcisms were not prohibited and were accepted as an important part of the work of Christian priests, and penetrated all aspects of ones life, even the harvests. bound in period rippled and smoked vellum covered boards. Period plain endpapers, the rear pastedown lifted to reveal an early piece of decorated paper.. s-l1600-4s-l1600-2

Mummies, Burning Mirrors, & Snake Stones – An Embattled Kircher Ghost-writes a Defense of His Work

3463_2

123J [KIRCHER, ATHANASIUS] Petrucci, Gioseffo

Prodomo apologetico alli studi Chircheriani. Opera di Gioseffo Petrucci Romano ; nella quale con un’ apparato di saggi diversi, si dà prova dell’ esquisito studio ha tenuto il celebratissimo padre Atanasio Chircher, circa il credere all’ opinioni degli scrittori, sì de’ tempi andati, come de’ presenti, e particolarmente intorno a quelle cose naturali dell’ India, che gli furon portate, ò referte da’ quei, che abitarano quelle parti.

Amsterdam: Presso li Janssonio-Waesbergj, 1677                    $13,500

Quarto: 22.3 x 16.8 cm. Engraved t.p., [16], 200 p., [9] leaves of plates (5 folding, 4 full-page)

SOLE EDITION of this extremely rare book.

3463_7

Bound in 19th cent. quarter calf with gold fillets and a red morocco label on the spine. A very good copy with occasional light spotting. Illustrated with 22 engraved and woodcut figures, mostly full-page, and 5 folding engraved plates: at pp. 48 (Vesuvius), 109 (an Egyptian funeral chamber with mummies), 111 (map of southern Africa), 128 (Archimedes’ fabled burning mirror), p. 195 (pyramids). The 4 full-page engravings illustrate the Rosa Sinensis. The frontispiece and some plates a bit shaved in the outer margin. Bound at the end there is an unrelated religious work printed at Venice in 1744.

3463_4“An Apologetic Forerunner to Kircherian Studies” is a remarkable defense of Athanasius Kircher’s writings, written at Kircher’s behest (and undoubtedly with his input) by Gioseffo Petruccio, one of his last disciples and devotees.

The book was prompted by the naturalist Francesco Redi’s critique of some of Kircher’s (many) pseudo-scientific writings. Redi had challenged Kircher’s claims about the curative qualities of so-called “snake stones”, small stones discovered in the heads of certain snakes in Asia. Kircher initiated the exchange by writing to Redi that he had used a snake stone to heal both a dog and a farmer, both of whom had been bitten by vipers. (The farmer had been bitten by accident; Kircher had exposed to the dog to the viper on purpose, as an experiment.) Redi responded to Kircher’s letter with one of his own, detailing his own experiments with the stones, performed in the presence of “many of the wisest and most reliable philosophers” in Pisa. Redi, unsurprisingly, found the stones to be useless.

3463_8Kircher wrote a response to Redi’s letter, criticizing Redi’s method and defending his own, but was dissuaded from publishing it by other scholars at the Collegio Romano who feared embarrassment, given the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of Redi’s conclusions. So Kircher turned instead to Petrucci to pen the “Prodromo” on his behalf.

But the “Prodromo” was to be more than a defense against Redi. As his works had multiplied and his fame grew, Kircher’s fantastic claims and methods met with an ever-increasing number of challenges from respected members of the international republic of letters. Moreover, enthusiasm for Kircher’s work had waned and his reputation suffered even at Rome. In order to restore his image and shore up his legacy, Kircher needed a comprehensive defense of his methods and the many astounding claims that he had made in his thirty-six (!) published works. In the “Prodromo”, Petrucci champions Kircher’s pronouncements on mummies, volcanoes, optical tricks, parabolic mirrors; mermaids, pyramids, Chinese philosophy and religion, flying cats, hieroglyphics, sea serpents, etc.

3463_6Petrucci’s work was an effort to push back at Kircher’s critics, who are symbolized on the engraved title page by a crocodile, whose mouth is being held shut by a putto, who holds aloft a long scroll with Petrucci’s defense written upon it.

“Petrucci painted a portrait of Kircher as he wanted to be remembered: a judicious experimenter who carefully weighed all the evidence before coming to any conclusions. Emphasizing Kircher’s skepticism about natural phenomena, Petrucci countered the image of his master as a gullible consumer of tall tales about strange things by presenting him as the logical heir to Galileo.” (Findlen, The Last Man who Knew Everything, p. 39).

“As portrayed by Petrucci, Kircher was not a credulous fool but rather like a modern skeptic. In the case of the snake stones, even though various priests in India ‘constantly insisted on the marvelous virtues of these stones, and each one of them had their own sensory experience with them,’ Kircher did not simply believe them. ‘He did not go according to the testimonials he collected, blindly ceding his will to odd stories,’ Petrucci wrote. ‘but kept his mind uncontaminated in the quest for truth until he would be able to learn from experiment and see for himself.’3463_5

“It was in the face of evidence, Petrucci argued, that Kircher distinguished himself from Redi, who Petrucci claimed was too narrow-minded to accept anything but his own preconceived notions about the natural world. For Kircher’s willingness to be open to new and surprising discoveries, Petrucci went so far as to compare him to Galileo. Or, since Kircher was behind Petrucci’s argument, it was Kircher himself who made the case for the comparison, and who probably believed it. The book quoted many passages from ‘Il Saggiatore’ (1623), in which Galileo described the experience of coming under constant criticism, an experience Kircher must have recognized as his own.

When the time came to publish Petrucci’s “Prodromo”, Jansson, Kircher’s publisher at Amsterdam, hesitated to publish it. When the book went on sale in Rome at the Collegio Romano, only two copies were sold, one to the dedicatee’s emissary, another at Kircher’s request.

Cicognara 3306

 

 

3463_1

Eusebius: the fifteen books of the “Praeparatio evangelica,” before 1473

Eusebius uses  Aristocles, Plato Numenius,the Pythagorean and  Amelius to (re)shape a Christian ethics.

He begins this enormous project with the first book containing:

I. What the treatise on the Gospel promises
II. The charges usually brought against us by those who try to slander our doctrines
III. That we did not adopt the sentiments of the word of salvation without inquiry
IV. Our adoption of belief in the greatest blessings is not uncritical as to time
V. We did not forsake the superstitious errors of our fathers without sound reason
VI. Primitive theology of Phoenicians and Egyptians
VII. Character of the cosmogony of the Greeks
VIII. Philosophers’ opinions concerning
IX. The ancients worshipped no other gods than the celestial luminaries, knowing nothing of the God of the universe, nor even of the erection of carved images, nor of daemons
The stories about the gods among other nations are of later introduction
X. Theology of the Phoenicians

 

 

1)   945G           Eusebius of Caesarea                  c. 260-c. 340

            Eusebius Pa[m]phili de eua[n]gelica preparac[i]o[n]e ex greco in latinu[m] translatus Incipit feliciter.         

DSC_0263

[ Cologne, Ulrich Zel, not after 1473]                          $18,000

 

Folio  11 ¾ x 8 inches.  152leaves of 152 : Unsigned/Unfoliated. A- 10 P11 Title and imprint from ISTC. Translated by George of Trebizond.  “The copy at the Vienna Schottenstift has the acquisition date 1473”–Bodleian Lib. 15th centColophon: Eusebius Pa[m]phili de eua[n]gelica preparac[i]o[n]e ex Greco in Latinu[m] translatus explicit feliciter.

DSC_0266 2

In double columns, 37 lines. Type: 115. Three- and four-line spaces left for capitals, some with guide-lettersIn this copy capitals are  supplied in red and blue.    This is one of the earliest editions most likely the Second, (editio princeps : Venice 1470) This copy is bound in a modern binding of half vellum with corners, flat spine (spine renewed, boards slightly rubbed, inside joints split).

 

This copy contains the fifteen books of the “Praeparatio evangelica,” whose purpose is “to justify the Christian in rejecting the religion and philosphy of the Greeks in favor of that of the Hebrews, and then to justify him in not observing the Jewish manner of life […] The following summary of its contents is taken from Mr. Gifford’s introduction to his translation of the “Praeparitio:

 

DSC_0271 2“The first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology: Mythical, Allegorical, and Political. The next three, IV-VI, give an account of the chief oracles, of the worship of demons, and of the various opinions of Greek Philosophers on the doctrines of Fate and Free Will. Books VII-IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history. In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosphy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses. In the the last three books, the comparson of Moses with Plato is continued, and the mutual contradictions of other Greek Philosphers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, are exposed and criticized.”

 

 

CHAPTER IX

[DIODORUS] ‘It is said then that the men who dwelled of old in Egypt when they looked up to the cosmos, and were struck with astonishment and admiration at the nature of the universe, supposed that the sun and moon were two eternal and primal gods, one of whom they named Osiris, and the other Isis, each name being applied from some true etymology.

‘For when they are translated into the Greek form of speech, Osiris is “many eyed”; with reason, for casting his beams in every direction he beholds, as it were with many eyes, the whole earth and sea: and with this the poet’s words agree:

“Thou Sun, who all things seest, and nearest all.”

‘But some of the ancient mythologists among the Greeks give to Osiris the additional name Dionysus, and, by a slight change in the name, Sirius. One of these, Eumolpus, speaks in his Bacchic poems thus:

                                                “Dionysus named,
“Bright as a star, his face aflame with rays.”  

And Orpheus says:

“For that same cause Phanes and Dionysus him they call.”

Some say also that the fawn-skin cloak is hung about him as a representation of the spangling of the stars.

‘”Isis” too, being interpreted, means “ancient,” the name having been given to the Moon from her ancient and eternal origin. And they put horns upon her, both from the aspect with which she appears whenever she is crescent-shaped, and also from the cow which is consecrated to her among the Egyptians. And these deities they suppose to regulate the whole world.’ 15

Such then are the statements on this subject. You find, too, in the Phoenician theology, that their first ‘physical philosophers knew no other gods than the sun, the moon, and besides these the planets, the elements also, and the things connected with them’; and that to these the earliest of mankind ‘consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as the sources of sustenance to themselves and to following generations, and to all that went before them, and offered to them drink-offerings and libations.’ But pity and lamentation and weeping they consecrated to the produce of the earth when perishing, and to the generation of living creatures at first from the earth, and then to their production one from another, and to their end, when they departed from life. These their notions of worship were in accordance with their own weakness, and the want as yet of any enterprise of mind.’

Such are the statements of the Phoenician writings, as will be proved in due course. Moreover, one of our own time, that very man who gains celebrity by his abuse of us, in the treatise which he entitled Of Abstinence from Animal Food, makes mention of the old customs of the ancients as follows in his own words, on the testimony of Theophrastus:16

[PORPHYRY] ‘It is probably an incalculable time since, as Theophrastus says, the most learned race of mankind, inhabiting that most sacred land which Nilus founded, were the first to begin to offer upon the hearth to the heavenly deities not the first-fruits of myrrh nor of cassia and frankincense mingled with saffron; for these were adopted many generations later, when man becoming a wanderer in search of his necessary livelihood with many toils and tears offered drops of these tinctures as first-fruits to the gods.

‘”Of these then they made no offerings formerly, but of herbage, which they lifted up in their hands as the bloom of the productive power of nature. For the earth gave forth trees before animals, and long before trees the herbage which is produced year by year; and of this they culled leaves and roots and the whole shoots of their growth, and burned them, greeting thus the visible deities of heaven with their offering, and dedicating to them the honours of perpetual fire.

‘For these they also kept in their temples an undying fire, as being most especially like them. And from the fume (θυμιασις) of the produce of the earth they formed the words θυμιατηρια (altars of incense), and θυειν (to offer), and θυσιας (offerings),—words which we misunderstand as signifying the erroneous practice of later times, when we apply the term θυσια to the so-called worship which consists of animal sacrifice.

‘And so anxious were the men of old not to transgress their custom, that they cursed (αρωμαι) those who neglected the old fashion and introduced another, calling their own incense-offerings αρωματα.’

After these and other statements he adds:

‘But when these beginnings of sacrifices were carried by men to a great pitch of disorder, the adoption of the most dreadful offerings, full of cruelty, was introduced; so that the curses formerly pronounced against us seemed now to have received fulfilment, when men slaughtered victims and defiled the altars with blood.’ 17

So far writes Porphyry, or rather Theophrastus: and we may find a seal and confirmation of the statement in what Plato in the Cratylus, before his remarks concerning the Greeks, says word for word as follows:

[PLATO] ‘It appears to me that the first inhabitants of Hellas had only the same gods as many of the barbarians have now, namely the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven: as therefore they saw them always moving on in their course and running (θεοντα), from this their natural tendency to run they called them θεουσ (gods).’ 18

But I think it must be evident to every one on consideration that the first and most ancient of mankind did not apply themselves either to building temples or to setting up statues, since at that time no art of painting, or modelling, [or carving], or statuary had yet been discovered, nor, indeed, were building or architecture as yet established.

Nor was there any mention among the men of that age of those who have since been denominated gods and heroes, nor had they any Zeus, nor Kronos, Poseidon, Apollo, Hera, Athena, Dionysus, nor any other deity, either male or female, such as there were afterwards in multitudes among both barbarians and Greeks; nor was there any daemon good or bad reverenced among men, but only the visible stars of heaven because of their running (θεειν) received, as they themselves say, the title of gods (θεων), and even these were not worshipped with animal sacrifices and the honours afterwards superstitiously invented.

This statement is not ours, but the testimony comes from within, and from the Greeks themselves, and supplies its proof by the words which have been already quoted and by those which will hereafter be set forth in due order.

This is what our holy Scriptures also teach, in which it is contained, that in the beginning the worship of the visible luminaries had been assigned to all the nations, and that to the Hebrew race alone had been entrusted the full initiation into the knowledge of God the Maker and Artificer of the universe, and of true piety towards Him. So then among the oldest of mankind there was no mention of a Theogony, either Greek or barbarian, nor any erection of lifeless statues, nor all the silly talk that there is now about the naming of the gods both male and female.

In fact the titles and names which men have since invented were not as yet known among mankind: no, nor yet invocations of invisible daemons and spirits, nor absurd mythologies about gods and heroes, nor mysteries of secret initiations, nor anything at all of the excessive and frivolous superstition of later generations.

These then were men’s inventions, and representations of our mortal nature, or rather new devices of base and licentious dispositions, according to our divine oracle which says, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication.19

In fact the polytheistic error of all the nations is only seen long ages afterwards, having taken its beginning from the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and passed over from them to the other nations, and even to the Greeks themselves. For this again is affirmed by the history of the earliest ages; which history itself it is now time for us to review, beginning from the Phoenician records.

Now the historian of this subject is Sanchuniathon, an author of great antiquity, and older, as they say, than the Trojan times, one whom they testify to have been approved for the accuracy and truth of his Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos, not the Hebrew, translated his whole work from the Phoenician language into the Greek, and published it. The author in our own day of the compilation against us mentions these things in the fourth book of his treatise Against the Christians, where he bears the following testimony to Sanchuniathon, word for word:

[PORPHYRY] ‘Of the affairs of the Jews the truest history, because the most in accordance with their places and names, is that of Sanchuniathon of Berytus, who received the records from Hierombalus the priest of the god Ieuo; he dedicated his history to Abibalus king of Berytus, and was approved by him and by the investigators of truth in his time. Now the times of these men fall even before the date of the Trojan war, and approach nearly to the times of Moses, as is shown by the successions of the kings of Phoenicia. And Sanchuniathon, who made a complete collection of ancient history from the records in the various cities and from the registers in the temples, and wrote in the Phoenician language with a love of truth, lived in the reign of Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians, who is recorded to have lived before the Trojan war or in those very times. And the works of Sanchuniathon were translated into the Greek tongue by Philo of Byblos.’ 20

So wrote the author before mentioned, bearing witness at once to the truthfulness and antiquity of the so-called theologian. But he, as he goes forward, treats as divine not the God who is over all, nor yet the gods in the heaven, but mortal men and women, not even refined in character, such as it would be right to approve for their virtue, or emulate for their love of wisdom, but involved in the dishonour of every kind of vileness and wickedness.

He testifies also that these are the very same who are still regarded as gods by all both in the cities and in country districts. But let me give you the proofs of this out of his writings.

Philo then, having divided the whole work of Sanchuniathon into nine books, in the introduction to the first book makes this preface concerning Sanchuniathon, word for word: 21

[PHILO] ‘These things being so, Sanchuniathon, who was a man of much learning and great curiosity, and desirous of knowing the earliest history of all nations from the creation of the world, searched out with great care the history of Taautus, knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records: and he laid the foundation, as it were, of his history, by beginning with him, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, and the Alexandrians Thoth, translated by the Greeks into Hermes.’

After these statements he finds fault with the more recent authors as violently and untruly reducing the legends concerning the gods to allegories and physical explanations and theories; and so he goes on to say:

‘But the most recent of the writers on religion rejected the real events from the beginning, and having invented allegories and myths, and formed a fictitious affinity to the cosmical phenomena, established mysteries, and overlaid them with a cloud of absurdity, so that one cannot easily discern what really occurred: but he having lighted upon the collections of secret writings of the Ammoneans which were discovered in the shrines and of course were not known to all men, applied himself diligently to the study of them all; and when he had completed the investigation, he put aside the original myth and the allegories, and so completed his proposed work; until the priests who followed in later times wished to hide this away again, and to restore the mythical character; from which time mysticism began to rise up, not having previously reached the Greeks.’

Next to this he says:

‘These things I have discovered in my anxious desire to know the history of the Phoenicians, and after a thorough investigation of much matter, not that which is found among the Greeks, for that is contradictory, and compiled by some in a contentious spirit rather than with a view to truth.’

And after other statements:

‘And the conviction that the facts were as he has described them came to me, on seeing the disagreement among the Greeks: concerning which I have carefully composed three books bearing the title Paradoxical History.’

And again after other statements he adds:

‘But with a view to clearness hereafter, and the determination of particulars, it is necessary to state distinctly beforehand that the most ancient of the barbarians, and especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind received their traditions, regarded as the greatest gods those who had discovered the necessaries of life, or in some way done good to the nations. Esteeming these as benefactors and authors of many blessings, they worshipped them also as gods after their death, and built shrines, and consecrated pillars and staves after their names: these the Phoenicians held in great reverence, and assigned to them their greatest festivals. Especially they applied the names of their kings to the elements of the cosmos, and to some of those who were regarded as gods. But they knew no other gods than those of nature, sun, and moon, and the rest of the wandering stars, and the elements and things connected with them, so that some of their gods were mortal and some immortal.’

Philo having explained these points in his preface, next begins his interpretation of Sanchuniathon by setting forth the theology of the Phoenicians as follows:

DSC_0268                                                                           The “Praeparitio” is a gigantic feat of erudition, and, according to Harnack (Chronologie, II, p. 120), was, like many of Eusebius’ other works, actually composed during the stress of the persecution. It ranks, with the Chronicle, second only to the Church History in importance, because of its copious extracts from ancient authors, whose works have perished.” (CE)

It is also very interesting because of its numerous lively fragments from historians and philosophers which are nowhere else preserved, e.g. a summary of the writings of the Phoenician priest Sanchuniathon, or the account from Diodorus Siculus’ sixth book of Euhemerus’ wondrous voyage to the island of Panchaea, and writings of the neo-Platonist philosopher Atticus.

DSC_0274

Eusebius (c. 263-339), Greek historian and exegete, Christian polemicist and scholar Biblical canon, became bishop of Cesarea in 314 and is considered as the father of Church History as his writings are very important for the first three centuries of the Christianity.

 

 

 

Goff E119; BMC I 194        (United States , Boston Public Library, Indiana Univ.,  (- 2 ff.)
and Yale );

 HC(Add)R 6698; GfT 122; Voull(K) 402; Pell 4641 & 4641A (var); Hillard 780; Fernillot 229; IGI 3755; IBP 2096; Madsen 1525, 1526; Hübl 183; Ernst(Hildesheim) II,III 58; Finger 368, 369; Borm 981; Voull(B) 670; Voull(Trier) 325; Günt(L) 914; Döring-Fuchs E-36, E-37; Bod-inc E-048; Sheppard 678, 679; Rhodes(Oxford Colleges) 745; Pr 891; BMC I 194; BSB-Ink E-116.050; GW 9441

The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea

Hazel Johannessen
Oxford Early Christian Studies
  • London, England:
    Oxford University Press
    , December
     2016.
     272 pages.
     $95.00.
     Hardcover.

    ISBN

    9780198787242.
     For other formats: Link to Publisher’s Website.

Review

The recent renaissance of scholarship on Eusebius of Caesarea has led scholars to re-evaluate many consensus positions. As the scholarly gaze moves beyond Eusebius’s historical and “Constantinian” writings to the relatively-neglected exegetical, pedagogical, and apologetic works, the commonplace caricature of Eusebius as Constantine’s “court theologian” now appears inadequate and misleading. Recent re-appraisals, however, still tend to see Eusebius as a naïve political optimist, “complacently triumphalist in his vision of history” in the aftermath of Constantine’s conversion (204).

In The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea, Hazel Johannessen examines the role of the demonic in Eusebius’s oeuvre in order to challenge this view. She depicts a Eusebius quite different from the triumphal optimist so familiar from previous portraits. This Eusebius inhabits a moral universe of stark polarities. Ever-wary of the ongoing demonic threat, he saw “the struggle against the demons was real and continuing. There was thus no room for complacency in [Eusebius’s] understanding of history and little space for triumphalism, which, from his perspective, would have been premature” (170). Eusebius’s view of the demonic offers a new lens through which to view contested issues, such as his understanding of kingship and his evaluation of the Roman Empire.

After an introduction that situates Johannessen’s project in conversation with recent scholarship, she develops her argument in six main chapters, followed by a concise summary of results and directions for future inquiry. The first chapter undertakes necessary ground-clearing for contested issues related to Eusebius’s works, such as revisions of the Church History and the authorship of Against Hierocles. Johannessen does not advance any novel positions here, but offers a fair summary of the current state of the field. This chapter also includes a methodological discussion of the problems of systematizing an ancient figure’s thought.

Johannessen then discusses Eusebius’s concept of the demonic (chap. 2) and his cosmology (chap. 3). In her discussion of cosmology, Johannessen construes Eusebius’s view of the world in a way that approaches dualism, a cosmos locked in an ongoing struggle between divine and demonic power. A considerable strength of this book is the way in which it juxtaposes Eusebius’s view of the demonic with the perspectives of contemporary “pagan” authors such as Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry. This is particularly insightful in the case of Porphyry, whose demonology resembles that of Eusebius in unexpected ways. Johannessen also contextualizes Eusebius’s demonology and cosmology with judicious reference to Philo, as well as a number of early Christian authors—especially Justin, Origen, and Lactantius. As Johannessen demonstrates, Eusebius located himself within a late antique world suffused by spiritual beings. Yet, this world was not inhabited exclusively by élite authors, whether Christian, Jewish, or “pagan.” If the landscape of late antiquity teemed with demons, technologies for negotiating the demonic also flourished. Eusebius himself, moreover, was well aware of such practices; see, for example, the Life of Constantine 1.36.1 (187). Johannessen’s monograph would have been greatly enriched by engagement with amulets, the so-called “magical” papyri, and other material and literary evidence on how individuals in late antiquity attempted to manipulate the demonic.

The remaining three chapters develop aspects of Eusebius’s thought related to the political order, including Eusebius’s view of history and his understanding of human agency. The fourth chapter focuses on the intersection of demonic influence with human agency. For Johannessen’s Eusebius, demons cannot override human προαίρεςις, but ensnare and manipulate humans both through deception and by taking advantage of moral weakness. Eusebius’s moral theology thus emphasizes the cultivation of virtue as the only secure defense against demonic attack. The fifth chapter, the heart of Johannessen’s argument, argues that Eusebius saw demonic power as an ongoing danger. The Empire’s turn toward Christianity had not established a stable eschatological era; rather, whatever gains had been made could just as easily be lost by a lack of vigilance against the continuing demonic threat. The sixth chapter reconsiders the role of the emperor, focusing on Eusebius’s treatment of Constantine. Johannessen argues that Eusebius saw the emperor as a “bishop” and a “teacher in virtue” (163–164), with correspondingly high requirements for conduct and “orthodox” belief—anything else was only tyranny.

There is much to commend in this study. Johannessen’s argument is articulate, well-organized, and in productive conversation with earlier scholarship. Her choice of the demonic provides a valuable lens through which to survey a wide range of Eusebius’s works. Most importantly, Johannessen’s re-appraisal offers a clear contribution to the ongoing discussions about Eusebius’s political thought, and is largely persuasive in problematizing views of Eusebius as a triumphal optimist.

Nevertheless, this reviewer found that the focus on the demonic sometimes distorts rather than clarifies. Johannessen exaggerates the role of the demonic in Eusebius’s political thought and perception of the world. For example, although she persuasively shows that Eusebius regarded envy (φθόνος) as a characteristic motivation of demonic activity, it is problematic then to read all references to envy in Eusebius’s corpus as masked references to demonic powers. Similarly, although Eusebius portrays tyrannical rulers as susceptible to, or enslaved by, demonic influence, Johannessen over-reaches by interpreting all vices and passions as the result of demonic influence (181).

Johannessen describes the demonic as the key to understanding all of Eusebius’s thought—political and theological. Yet other perspectives would also have been valuable. A more robust treatment of Eusebius’s views of salvation would have nuanced the discussion of human responsibility (chap. 4). A more expansive discussion of Eusebius’s ecclesiology would have illuminated the relationship between church and Empire (chaps. 5–6). At the end of the day, although the demonic provides a valuable lens through which to examine Eusebius’s political thought, its focal range is limited.

About the Reviewer(s): 

Jeremiah Coogan is a doctoral candidate in New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.

Date of Review: 

July 13, 2017

About the Author(s)/Editor(s)/Translator(s): 

Hazel Johannessen completed her PhD in Classics at King’s College London, in 2014. Her research interests lie in the area of late antique history, with a particular focus on intellectual history and demonology.

The tremendous and frightful success of justice in Monace, the city of Bavaria.

 

 

A Very rare pamphlet on  witchcraft and the “justice” which followed! Nearly 1000 Peopled killed !

 

 

113J Anonmyous

 

Il tremendo e spaventevole successo di giustitia fatta in Monace, citta di Baviera, l’anno presente, di sei scelerati strigoni, li quali hanno fatto morire con sue fatture e incanti più di 600 persone, tra quali circa quattrocento fanciulli, che gli hanno succhiato il sangue e in altri varii modi condotti à morte.

 

DSC_0264

 

In Verona,Vicenza,& in Genoua Per Gioseppe Pauoni. Con licenza de’ Superiori. [1641]

$3,000        Octavo 6 X 4 inches, four leaves A4.

 

One of three editions published around 1641 Bound in Modern boards carta rustic.

This is an unknown edition of a popullar pamphlet published in two recorded editions .

DSC_0265

In this little pamphlet, there is the telling of hundreds of children drinking blood and many more atrocites then their tortous demise. (The tremendous and frightful success of justice in Monace, the city of Bavaria, the present year, of six chosen strigoni, which have made them die with his bills and incant more than 600 people, including about four hundred children, who sucked the blood and in other various ways led to death.)

DSC_0267

 

DSC_0266

Magic skills and magical spells. 1491

998G Bernardus: Basinus 1445-1510

De magicis artibus et magorum maleficiis

DSC_0197( Tractatus exquisitissimus de magicis artibus et ma//gorum maleficiis, per sacre scientie Parisiensem doctorem ma//gistrum Bernardum Basim, canonicum Cesaraugusta//nensem, in suis vesperis compilatus. )

DSC_0194

Paris : Antoine Caillaut,1491-1492? (Dated by  CIBN: Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue des incunables. T. I (Xylographes, A-G); . Paris, 1981-2014. B-182)          $ 28,000

DSC_0195 2

Quarto7 3/4 X 5 1/4 inches  a8 b6.   Second Edition. First Published in 1483, (Goff B-279 listing four copies)

This treatise on magical practices was based on a speech Basin delivered in Paris before an assembly of cardinals in 1482. Basin was born 1445 in Zaragoza and he received his doctors degree in Paris, having study there theology and canon law.  In nine  propositions he explains how people enlist the help of demons and if the practise of such diabolic magic makes a person a heretic.

Basin states that magic arts, such as involving the invocation of demons and pacts must be been prohibited by all laws, civil and canon alike. Hain 2703. The editio princeps was published in 1483 and is extant in 12 copies worldwide. This second edition is more rare and exists in 6 copies worldwide. A corner stone text in the study of witchcraft and inquisition. B

 

Only one copy in the United States of America: (not in Goff) Southern Methodist Univ., Bridwell Library

 

Not in Goff: Dated by CIBN; Pell(Lyon) 40; Bod-inc B-132; Sheppard 6190; Pr 7967; BSB-Ink B-233; GW 3720 ;  CIBN B-182; Aquilon 89; Parguez 146.

Kircher and The first published illustration of a magic lantern.

This part one of a group of blogs on Kircher’s  Ars magna lucis et umbrae this books covers such a broad scope I’ve picked a few subjects to focus on and today Will be the Macic Latern  “De Lucerna[e] Magicae”

720G Athanasius Kircher 1602-1680

dsc_0081

Athanasi Kircheri Fuldensis Buchonii è Soc. Jesu presbyteri ars magna lucis et umbræ, in X. libros digesta. Quibus admirandæ lucis & umbræ in mundo, atque adeò universa natura, vires effectusque uti nova, ita varia novorum reconditiorumque speciminum exhibitione, ad varios mortalium usus, panduntur. Editio altera priori multò auctior.

dsc_0082

Amstelodami,  Joannem Janssonium à Waesberge, & hæredes Elizæi Weyerstraet. 1671 .

$15,000

Folio *4, **4, ***6, (*)2, A-Xxxx4 Second Enlarged edition. This copy is bound in contemporary calf with nicely gilt spine.

 

DSC_0001Kircher’s Major Scientific Work and his Principal Contribution to Optics”In Ars magna lucis et umbrae Kircher discusses the sources of light and shadow. The work deals especially with the sun, moon, stars and planets. Kircher also treats phenomena related to light, such as optical illusions, color and refraction, projection and distortion, comets, eclipses, and instruments that use light, such as sundials and mirrors. He theorizes about the type of mirror supposed to have been used by Archimedes to set Roman ships afire, drawing from notes of his own experiments performed in the harbor of Syracuse. The work includes one of the first treatises on phosphorous and fireflies. Here Kircher also published his depictions of Saturn and Jupiter as he saw them through a telescope in Bologna in 1643. On that occasion he observed that the planets were neither perfectly round nor self-luminous, contrary to the popular Aristotelian belief that they are perfect, unchanging spheres.”Kircher takes a great interest in sundials and mirrors in this book, and several interesting engravings are of fanciful sundials. He had written extensively on these subjects on his previous work, the Primitiae gnomonicae catoptricae. In Ars magna lucis et umbrae Kircher also discusses an odd ancestor of the modern projector: a device called the ‘magic lantern,’ of which he is generally, though erroneously, considered the inventor. “Before writing this work, Kircher had read Kepler’s Ad vitellionem paralipomena (1604), the first modern work on optics and was influenced to some extent by it. The Ars magna lucis et umbrae reveals Kircher’s contribution as an astute observer and cataloguer of natural phenomena” (Merrill)

Kircher and the Magic Lantern

Invented by Huygens in 1656, the magic lantern was the precursor of both the slide machine and the motion-picture projector. It was disseminated with great success to the public throughout the 1660s by the entrepreneurial Thomas Rasmussen Walgenstein who was also the one who had christened Huygens’ device the “magic lantern”. Impressed by the magical device’s growing popularity, Kircher includes the first illustrated description of the magic lantern, “De Lucerna[e] Magicae seu Thaumaturgae Constructione”, on page 768 of his second edition of Ars magna lucis et umbrae published in Amsterdam in 1671. (Devices of Wonder, p. 297).

Prominent Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, is nowadays widely accepted as the true inventor of the magic lantern. He knew Athanasius Kircher’s 1646 edition of Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae which described a primitive projection system with a focusing lens and text or pictures painted on a concave mirror reflecting sunlight. Christiaan’s father Constantijn had been acquainted with Cornelis Drebbel who used some unidentified optical techniques to transform himself and summon wonderful appearances in magical performances. Constantijn Huygens wrote very enthusiastically about a camera obscura device that he got from Drebbel in 1622.
Probably the oldest document concerning the magic lantern is a page on which Christiaan 1659_huygens_-_figure1Huygens made ten small sketches of a skeleton taking off its skull, above which he wrote “for representations by means of convex glasses with the lamp” (translated from French). As this page was found between documents dated in 1659, it is believed to also have been made in 1659.
Huygens probably only constructed the lantern to amuse young family members and soon seemed to regret it, as he thought it was too frivolous. In a 1662 letter to his brother Lodewijk he claimed he thought of it as some old “bagatelle” and seemed convinced that it would harm the family’s reputation if people found out the lantern came from him. Christiaan had reluctantly sent a lantern to their father, but when he realized that Constantijn intended to show the lantern to the court of King Louis XIV of France at the Louvre, Christiaan asked Lodewijk to sabotage the lantern.
Huygens’ 1694 laterna magica sketch, showing: “speculum cavum (hollow mirror). lucerna (lamp). lens vitrea (glass lens). pictura pellucida (transparent picture). lens altera (other lens). paries (wall).” Christiaan initially referred to the magic lantern as “la lampe” and “la lanterne”, but in the last years of his life he used the then common term “laterna magica” in some notes. In 1694 he drew the principle of a “laterna magica” with two lenses.
Walgensten’s magic lantern as illustrated in Dechales Cursus seu mundus mathematicus (1674)  Thomas Rasmussen Walgensten, a Danish mathematician, studied at the university of Leyden in 1657-58 and was acquainted with Christiaan Huygens. It is unclear if one was inspired by the other or if they even may have collaborated on the development of the magic lantern. At least from 1664 until 1670 Walgensten was giving magic lantern shows in Paris, Lyon, Rome and Copenhagen, and he “sold such lanterns to different Italian princes in such an amount that they now are almost everyday items in Rome” according to Athanasius Kircher in 1671. When Walgensten projected an image of Death at the court of King Frederick III of Denmark some courtiers were scared, but the king dismissed their cowardice and requested to repeat the figure three times. The king died a few days later.

dsc_0086

 

One of Christiaan Huygens’ contacts imagined in how Athanasius Kircher would use the magic lantern: “If he would know about the invention of the Lantern he would surely frighten the cardinals with specters.”   Athanasius Kircher would learn about the existence of the magic lantern via Thomas Walgensten and introduced it as “Lucerna Magica” in the widespread 1671 second edition of this book Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae. Kircher claimed that Thomas Walgensten reworked his ideas from the previous edition of this book into a better lantern.

Kircher described this improved lantern, but it was illustrated in a confusing manner:

dsc_0092 the pictures seem technically incorrect with both the projected image and the transparencies  shown upright (while the text states that they should be drawn in an inverted position), the hollow mirror is too high in one picture and absent in the other, and the lens (I) seems to be placed at the wrong side of the slide. Experiments with a construction as illustrated in Kircher’s book proved that it could work as a point light-source projection system. The projected image in one of the illustrations shows a person in purgatory or hellfire and the other depicts Death with a scythe and an hourglass.

dsc_0080-2According to legend Kircher secretly used the lantern at night to project the image of Death on windows of apostates to scare them back into church. Kircher did suggest in his book that an audience would be more astonished by the sudden appearance of images if the lantern would be hidden in a separate room, so the audience would be ignorant of the cause of their appearance.
The earliest reports and illustrations of lantern projections suggest that they were all intended to scare the audience. French engineer Pierre Petit, who saw a show by Walgensten, called the apparatus “lanterne de peur” (lantern of fear) in a 1664 letter to Huygens. Surviving lantern plates and descriptions from the next decades prove that the new medium was not just used for horror shows, but that all kinds of subjects were projected.

De Backer Sommervogel IV, col. 1050, no.9 ; Ferguson I.466; Vagnetti EIIIb42; this edition not in Merrill or Becker; Barbara Maria Stafford & Frances Terpak, Devices of Wonder, (Getty, 2001); Linda Hall Library, Jesuit Science, 10; Kemp, Science of Art, pp. 191 (camera obscura); Harvey, Luminescence, pp. 103ff; Wheeler 169 (1671 ed.).; Caillet 5770

Joco-seriorum naturæ et artis, sive, Magiæ naturalis centuriæ tres

679G Gaspar Schott ( Aspasius Caramuelius) ; Athanasius Kircher 1608-1666

Joco-seriorum naturæ et artis, sive, Magiæ naturalis centuriæ tres, das ist, Drey-Hundert nütz- und lustige Sätze allerhand merckwürdiger Stücke, von Schimpff und Ernst, genommen auss der Kunst und Natur, oder natürlichen Magia Athanasii Kicheri Diatribe .

DSC_0032

 

Franckfurt am Mayn : In Verlegung Johann Arnold Cholin,1672 $5,500

Quarto 8 X 5 inches [6] unsigned leaves, A-Z4, Aa-Tt4. First Edition This copy is bound in full contemporary sheep.  DSC_0035 Rare first (?) German trsl. of this esoteric work by the German Jesuit and scientist G. Schott (1608-1666) describing scientific and magical tricks to show that science can be fun and enjoyable. There are twenty two engraved plates. (some folding) depicting how these incentions work for example how to build a fireplace and prevent chimney fires, how to walk on water or how to catch fish with your hands.

DSC_0037Bound after the Schott work is a treais by Athanasius Kircher, titled “Diatribe, Oder Beweisschrifft”. Ms. ownership entry “Joannes Michaël Jenigen, jurisprudentia et (…) professor”.

DeBacker-Sommervogel vol.VII col.911 no.13 ; Faber du Faur,; no. 1011; [Caillet 10003 and cf. Caillet 10002] ;. VD-17 14:637268W

 

DSC_0033

 

Gaspar Schott, S.J. was born in Koenigshofen, Germany and died in in Augsburg. He studied in Sicily and later worked with Athanasius Kircher in Rome for three years before returning to Germany in 1655 where he was appointed professor of mathematics at Augsburg. He edited a number of books by Kircher, e.g., Pantometricum Kircherianum and Iter Extaticum Coeleste. He was asked by Otto von Guericke to describe the experiment of the exhausted hemisphere, and his dramatic sketch of this experiment at Magdeburg has been copied for centuries in physics textbooks. Schott added as an appendix to his Mechanica Hydraulio-pneumatica (1657) a detailed account of Guericke’s experiments on vacuums, the earliest published report of this work.

As a result of these publications Schott became the center of correspondence, as other scientists wrote to inform him of their inventions and discoveries. Schott exchanged several letters with von Guericke,seeking to draw him out by suggesting new problems, and then he published his later investigations. He also corresponded with Huygens and was the first to make Boyle’s investigations on the air pump widely known in Germany. Even though he personally held the Aristotelian abhorrence of a vacuum, he was open to new information from experiments and rendered great service to Germany by encouraging experimentation.

He was the author of a number of works on mathematics, physics, and magic. They are a mine of curious facts and observations and were formerly much read. His most interesting work is the “Magia universalis naturæ et artis”, 4 vols., Würtzburg, 1657-1659, which contains a collection of mathematical problems and a large number of physical experiments, notably in optics and acoustics.  He also published “Pantometricum Kircherianum” (Würtzburg, 1660); “Physica curiosa” (Würtzburg, 1662), a supplement to the “Magia universalis”; “Anatomia physico-hydrostatica fontium et fluminum” (Würtzburg, 1663), and a “Cursus mathematicus” which passed through several editions. He also edited the “Itinerarium extacticum” of Kircher and the “Amussis Ferdidindea” of Curtz. (CE)

DSC_0033DSC_0036

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: