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