![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article enquires into the origins of the historiographical notion of double truth, a prominent and controversial category in the modern study of medieval philosophy. I believe that these origins are to be found in a short text by Jacob Thomasius from 1663, entitled De duplici & contradictoria veritate, which stands as a very early and highly original example of a history of double truth. I propose a detailed analysis of this document in order to shed light on the mechanisms that transformed duplex veritas from a keyword in Thomasius’s Protestant milieu into a historiographical category. As I show, the De duplici & contradictoria veritate provides a historical legitimation of Thomasius’s own brand of Lutheran Aristotelianism. It does so in a highly ambiguous fashion, namely by bringing together the Lutheran theologian and proponent of double truth Daniel Hofmann with anonymous medieval “Averroists”. I venture an explanation for Thomasius’s line of action by uncovering two of his implicit sources.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Luca Bianchi, Catherine König-Pralong and Mario Meliadò for their encouragement to pursue the topic and their helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. I am also grateful to the two anonymous readers who took part in the peer-review process; their critical remarks have helped me to improve my argumentation in several crucial respects. Ryan Grabowski kindly corrected my English.
Notes on contributor
Zornitsa Radeva is a Ph.D. candidate in the philosophy department of the University of Freiburg, Germany. She works on the development of philosophical historiography in Lutheran Germany (ca. 1650–1750). More specifically, her dissertation examines how the idea of a philosophical “reform”, echoing Luther’s religious one, informed representations of the history of the Aristotelian tradition and judgments on its philosophical value.
Notes
1 Van Steenberghen, Introduction à l’étude de la philosophie médiévale, 555–70.
2 Landucci, La doppia verità; Bianchi, Pour une histoire de la “double vérité”; Brożek, The Double Truth Controversy.
3 Van Steenberghen, Introduction à l’étude de la philosophie médiévale, 558, note 5; Landucci, La doppia verità, 137, note 1; Bianchi, Pour une histoire de la “double vérité”, 8–10. The study in question is Maywald, Die Lehre von der zweifachen Wahrheit.
4 Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, 460.
5 On this see Bianchi, Pour une histoire de la “double vérité”, 57–85. The most significant case reconstructed by Bianchi is a debate on future contingents between Peter de Rivo and Henry de Zomeren that took place in Leuven at the end of the fifteenth century.
6 The earliest known occurrence stems from a work of the Altdorf philosopher and physician Nicolaus Taurellus published in 1573: “Primum enim consyderare coepi, duplex ne posset unius esse rei ueritas, ut quod Theologice falsum est, uerum possit esse Philosophis […]”; see Taurellus, Philosophiae triumphus, *4v. On Taurellus’s rejection of double truth, see Frank, Die Vernunft des Gottesgedankens, 133–35.
7 Hofmann, Pro duplici veritate Lutheri.
8 On Hofmann’s doctrine of double truth, the Hofmann controversy and its aftermath, see Sparn, “Doppelte Wahrheit?”; Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit”; Scattola, “Gelehrte Philologie vs. Theologie”; Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft; Friedrich, “Der Export des Helmstedter Hofmannstreites”; Tommasi, “Protestantische Debatten”, 73–77. On the situation at Helmstedt leading up to the controversy, see Mager, “Lutherische Theologie”.
9 The major contribution of Protestant historians of philosophy is well documented in the multi-volume reference work on the history of philosophical historiography edited by Giovanni Santinello and Gregorio Piaia; see Santinello and Piaia, Storia delle storie generali della filosofia. Here it suffices to mention Tennemann’s illustrious predecessor Jacob Brucker, whose monumental Historia critica philosophiae (1742–1744) is itself a product of developments that took place in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. On Brucker, see Longo, “Storia ‘critica’ della filosofia: Brucker”; Schmidt-Biggemann and Stammen, Brucker.
10 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”.
11 Landucci defines double truth as a stereotyped declaration of the conflict between reason and faith on the part of thinkers who advocated unorthodox philosophical theses and at the same time professed their Christian beliefs; see Landucci, “Alla ricerca della ‘doppia verità’”, 9, 13, 18–19, 21.
12 Ibid., 19–21.
13 For some reason, Landucci only seems to consider works written from the middle of the nineteenth century onward to be historiographical. This unstated assumption is even clearer from a look at his monograph on the history of double truth, wherein Thomasius’s work receives a still shorter treatment in the chapter entitled “Il lemma”; see Landucci, La doppia verità, 147–48. A separate chapter, “Le discussioni storiografiche”, deals with twentieth-century scholarship, providing a reference to Maywald’s study in a footnote; see ibid., 137–44.
14 Before Landucci, the De duplici & contradictoria veritate had been noted as a source utilized by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Pierre Bayle, see Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit”, 390–91; Brogi, “La teologia di Simonide”, 46–47. The text is also mentioned in Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”, 178, 197.
15 The most recent bio-bibliographical information on Thomasius is provided in Jaumann, “Thomasius”. For an overview of Thomasius’s works in the context of the contemporary Lutheran educational system, see Gierl, Jaumann, and Sparn, “Einleitung”. Among the studies on Thomasius’s historiographical activities, the most relevant in the present context are: Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”; Santinello, “Thomasius (1622–1684)”; Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte, 21–111.
16 Thomasius and Tölner, An causa per accidens, B2v–B3r. In refusing to regard God as an accidental cause of sin, Thomasius aligns himself with the Lutheran orthodox position. Cf. Calov, Solida discussio.
17 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 244–45.
18 Ibid., 245–46. Thomasius refers to Slevogt, Pervigilium and Kesler, Quadriga discursuum. On the first text, see Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit”, 417–18.
19 “Celebris ante haec nostra tempora viguit & ne hoc ipso qvidem, qvo vivimus, seculo plane sepulta jacuit controversia de duplici, eaqve contradictoria veritate”; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 237.
20 Still, it is interesting to note that a colleague of Thomasius in the arts faculty of the University of Leipzig, one Gottfried Schlüter (1605–1666), was the son of a follower of Hofmann, Gottfried Schlüter the Elder (1567–1637). Very little is known about either. See the respective entries in Zedler’s Lexicon (“Schlüter/Wesel” and “Schlüter/Göttingen”); Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit”, 414–15. See also the sparse references indicated in the register, s. v. Schluter of Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft.
21 On this whole constellation, see especially Sparn, Wiederkehr der Metaphysik, 9–20, 163–69; Leinsle, Einführung in die scholastische Theologie, 293–94; Sparn, “Die Schulphilosophie: Einleitung”; Sparn, “Die Schulphilosophie”, 475–79; Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft, 391–96; Salatowsky, Die Philosophie der Sozinianer, 102–24.
22 Meisner, Philosophia sobria, 9–53: “Quaestio generalis, an, & quis sit philosophiae in theologia usus?” Cf. also the programmatic Prooemium: ibid., 1–9.
23 Ibid., 984–1004: “An una vel duplex sit veritas?” Meisner’s distinction is a commonplace. Something very similar is found already in Taurellus, Philosophiae triumphus, *5r–v. We shall encounter the same topos again below (§ 4), in a work of Otto Casmann’s.
24 Calov, De natura theologiae, 67–75: “Vtrum theologia contrarietur philosophiae”.
25 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 237–38.
26 Ibid., 240–41.
27 Cf. Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”, 179–82; Santinello, “Thomasius (1622–1684)”, 449, 462–63.
28 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 243.
29 On Crell, see Lohr, “Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries”, 727–28; Kusukawa, “Mediations of Zabarella”, 208–12; Kusukawa, “Uses of Philosophy”, esp. 152–57; Sinnema, “Jungnitz on the Use of Aristotelian Logic”, esp. 136–37.
30 Crell, De eucharistia libri duo, *2r–*6v.
31 Ibid., *2v, *4r.
32 Ibid., *5r–*6r. See especially Ibid., *5v: “ergo ne, inquies, duplex veritas, alia Physica, alia Theologica? aliquidne Physice verum quod Theologice falsum sit, & contra? & hoc tibi nouum aut insolens? nonne sicut Theologice verum, ex nihilo cuncta producta esse, ita verum physice, ex nihilo nihil fieri? nonne verum Physice, nullam Virginem parere? nonne principium Theologicum, quandam virginem peperisse?” This passage is quoted also in Landucci, “Alla ricerca della ‘doppia verità’”, 20–21. Thomasius does not cite Crell directly. He discusses his position with the help of two short passages from works of Bartholomaeus Keckermann and Otto Casmann; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 243–44. However, it is quite probable that Thomasius was familiar with Crell’s dedicatory letter via the latter work, Casmann’s Cosmopoeia, which contains an explicit polemic against this text; see Casmann, Cosmopoeia et οὐρανογραϕία christiana, 37–60. See also note 55 below. This work of Casmann is not the one I deal with in § 4.
33 Hofmann, Pro duplici veritate Lutheri, C2v: “Crellium igitur, quem errare dicit Philosophus, accusare similiter non ausim. Non enim puto eum aliter judicasse (In Philosophia verum esse: Anima hominis est mortalis & mundus est aeternus) quam quod quaedam argumenta pensitavit, quae merae rationi sunt immota. Bene autem facit Crellius, quod negat eadem vera, in Theologia”. The Philosophus Hofmann refers to here is Rudolph Goclenius the Elder (1547–1628). I have not been able to identify the relevant passage in Goclenius’s writings but there can be no doubt regarding his identity. Just a few lines after his statement on Crell, Hofmann quotes a passage from Goclenius’s Isagoge in primam philosophiam, putting it in the mouth of the same Philosophus; see ibid., C3r; Goclenius, Isagoge in Peripateticorum, 215–16 (the edition cited by Hofmann). On the details of Hofmann’s polemic against Goclenius, see Mager, “Lutherische Theologie”, 91–93. Above all, see Lamanna, La nascita dell’ontologia, 36–54.
34 Hofmann, Pro duplici veritate Lutheri, esp. A4v–B1r, B2v, C2r–v, D1v–D2r. See foremost the following two passages: ibid., B1r: “nisi videlicet fundamentum Christianismi evertere velimus distinguendum esse accurate inter veritatem Philosophicam & veritatem Theologicam, seu inter carnalem & spiritualem veritatem, in collatione Ethnicorum & Christianorum, seu non renatorum & renatorum, immundorum & mundorum”; and ibid., D1v: “Vbi duae & quidem oppositae normae sunt veritatis, ibi duplicem veritatem singulis peculiarem agnosci oportet. Regulis enim discrepantibus, ea quae congruunt singulis, discrepant a se mutuo. Sed ratio humana & verbum Dei, seu sapientia humana, & sapientia Dei sunt normae oppositae veritatis. Ergo duplicem veritatem singulis peculiarem agnosci oportet”. On the details of Hofmann’s position, see the studies listed in note 8.
35 On the Collectio errorum, see Bianchi, Il vescovo e i filosofi, 26; Thijssen, “What Really Happened on 7 March 1277?”, 85–88, 106–12; Bianchi, Censure et liberté intellectuelle, 215–17; Piché, “Prolégomènes”, 21, note 2; Bianchi, “Gli articoli censurati”, 161.
36 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 240: “qvod contraria simul possint esse vera in aliqva materia”. In general, Thomasius does not indicate the editions he draws upon. In this case, he only says that the Collectio was being transmitted as an appendix to Peter Lombard’s Sentences, the theological manual of medieval scholastics; see ibid., 240, note e, 241, note f. I refer to a Basel edition of the Sentences from 1502, as well as to Denifle’s Chartularium; see Collectio errorum, P1va; Denifle, Ab anno MCC, 558. All translations are my own.
37 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 241, note f. See also Collectio errorum, P2ra; Denifle, Ab anno MCC, 487.
38 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 240–44. Thomasius’s next source is two short quotes from Francesco Petrarca’s De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia. They criticize anonymous thinkers who, suspending faith, asserted the eternity of the world; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 242, note h. These passages are cited from an edition I was not able to identify; cf. Petrarca, De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia, 730, 732. Next in Thomasius’s list comes a letter of Jean Gerson’s composed in 1426. He adduces an excerpt which rejects as insane that two contradictory enunciations could obtain at the same instant of time; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 242, note h. Thomasius is probably using a Basel edition of Gerson’s works from 1517 to 1518; see Gerson, “Epistola laudans mellifluam”, bb3rQ. Gerson’s letter is full of references to medieval condemnations. On this aspect, see Bianchi, “Gli articoli censurati”, 165–66. The last among Thomasius’s “external” sources is the preface to the commentary on Aristotle’s Physics by the Jesuit Franciscus Toletus (1532–1596). Thomasius adduces a passage which condemns the practice of affirming that certain propositions are true according to philosophy but false according to faith. This is where the reference to the famous decision of the Fifth Lateran Council to proscribe this practice comes to the fore; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 242, note i. In this case, Thomasius could have been using an edition published in Cologne in 1579; see [Ledesma], “Ad lectorem”, *3v. (The preface has been attributed to Toletus’s fellow Jesuit Diego de Ledesma; see Casalini and Sander, “Perera’s Pious Humanism”, 27, note 96.) On Luther’s highly negative attitude toward the Fifth Lateran Council and especially the bull Apostolici regiminis, see Headley, “Luther and the Fifth Lateran Council”; Cappiello and Lamanna, “Il principio dell’unicità”, 244–48. For a brief discussion of Thomasius’s “external” sources, see also Landucci, La doppia verità, 147–48; Landucci, “Alla ricerca della ‘doppia verità’”, 20.
39 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 243.
40 Ibid., 240. I shall discuss this passage in more detail in the next section. The “conjectural” character of Thomasius’s quest for the medieval origins of double truth is once again highlighted in the preface to the collection that contains the De dupluci & contradictoria veritate; see Thomasius, “Ad lectorem benevolum praefatio autoris”, b1r, note g.
41 Hofmann, Pro duplici veritate Lutheri, A3r. Luther’s theses are introduced as the occasion of the disputation. They had already formed part of an earlier dispute held in 1598 under Hofmann’s presidence, which had in fact sparked the Hofmann controversy; see Hofmann and Pfaffrad, Propositiones de Deo, B2v.
42 Luther, “Die Disputation de sententia”, 3–4.
43 The main contributions to be mentioned here are Streiff, “Novis linguis loqui”, 78–114; White, Luther as Nominalist, 367–76; Bianchi, Pour une histoire de la “double vérité”, 25–32, 50–56. See also Frank, Die Vernunft des Gottesgedankens, 47–49; Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft, 281–84; Landucci, La doppia verità, 148–49; Zahnd, “Protestantische Debatten”, 62–64, 70; Zahnd, “Sorbona mater errorum”, 471–72.
44 Cf. Landucci, La doppia verità, 147–49, who, however, does not draw an explicit connection between Thomasius’s utilization of medieval condemnations and Hofmann’s appeal to Luther’s polemic against the Sorbonne.
45 Collectio errorum, P2ra; Denifle, Ab anno MCC, 487.
46 On this, see Radeva, “From Reconstruction to Reformation”, 446–51.
47 Collectio errorum, P1ra; Denifle, Ab anno MCC, 543.
48 Thomasius, Dilucidationes Stahlianae, 31–32.
49 As suggested by Landucci, La doppia verità, 148; Landucci, “Alla ricerca della ‘doppia verità’”, 21. The discussion of Luther’s position was a prominent issue during the Hofmann controversy; see, above all, Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft, 286–88.
50 On this, see Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”, esp. 179–96; Santinello, “Thomasius (1622–1684)”, esp. 456, 458–60; Quinto, Scholastica, 228–30; Roling, “Saeculum barbaricum”, 283–85.
51 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 240: “Sed nempe affectuum intemperies in transversum hos [i.e. the proponents of double truth] rapuit, cum alios, qvi philosophiae studium profiterentur, nimia duceret gentilium Philosophorum admiratio; in aliis, qvi augusta Theologorum nomina induissent, contemptus & odium qvoddam literarum philosophicarum facultatem judicandi obnubilaret”. Cf. ibid., 244.
52 On Casmann in general, see the recent encyclopedic entry Forshaw, “Casmann, Otto” (with further literature). On his Ramist tendencies in the context of the spread of Ramism in Germany, see Hotson, Commonplace Learning, 127–35, passim.
53 “Lectori benevolo”, A2v. On this work, Casmann’s project of a “Christian philosophy” and his involvement in the Hofmann controversy, see Mahnke, “Casmann in Stade”, 187–88, 194–96, 227–32, 236–37; Röser, “Casmann und die Naturphilosophie”, 21–25; Blair, “Mosaic Physics”, esp. 47–50; Heßbrüggen-Walter, “‘Wisdom of the Flesh’”.
54 Casmann, Modesta assertio, §2r–§3r: “Primum genus dico eorum, qui propter pauca, quae in libris paganorum Philosophorum, a decretis & sanctitate nostrae religionis abludere, & aliena aquilinis cernunt oculis, non modo cetera quam plurima vere & vtiliter ab illis tradita reiiciunt, sed omnem etiam cuiusuis Philosophiae Christianam cognitionem rodunt, calumniantur, ac tanquam certam animorum pestem, ex hominum, praesertim Christianorum, societate exterminandam iudicant, clamant. […] Sed aiunt illi, errasse Philosophos Ethnicos: errarunt sane, sed sunt illi quidem errores Philosophorum, non Philosophiae: hominum, non artium: carpant, tollant illos: hanc & has nobis, quaeso, relinquant, sibi reseruent. Istos errores Philosophorum, qui norunt Orthodoxam Philosophiam, videre & refellere poterunt, qui non norunt, non poterunt. Non eget fides nostra Philosophiae fundamentis & praesidiis, non ea tamen reiicit. Domina famulae saepe vtitur ministerio”. Casmann, a pupil of Hofmann’s adversary Goclenius, then specifies that his work is written primarily against the slanderers of philosophy, i.e., against Hofmann; see ibid., §3r–v, §3v–§4r. This is suggested already by the full title, Philosophiae et christianae et verae adversus insanos hostium eius, & nonnullorum hierophantarum morsus & calumnias modesta assertio.
55 Ibid., §3v: “Alterum genus est eorum, qui diuina, vt vocant, Platonis & Aristotelis ingenia, vberrimamque cunctarum rerum scientiam cum excellenti eloquentia coniunctam, vsque eo admirantur & amplexantur, vt eos veluti numina & Deos a lapsibus immunes Philosophiae, tanquam Anthropolatrae & Prosopolatrae adorent, eorumque decreta Philosophica, tanta animi assensione complectantur, vix vt credant, quicquam esse posse probabile, quod improbetur ab illis, aut quod ab illis probetur, improbabile. […] Quid enim vilius & abiectius, aut quae maior animi caecitas esse potest, quam nihil per se sapere, nihil iudicare, totum ex alieno sensu iudicioque pendere? Nulla duci ratione, sed quasi pecudes aliorum sententia nutuque tantum moueri ac regi?” Seeing Crell as a target here is rendered plausible by the following consideration. The description of the admirers of Plato and Aristotle is echoed by some passages further down in Casmann’s work, where he also argues explicitly against the doctrine of duplex veritas; see Casmann, Modesta assertio, 37–38, 40–41. These latter passages in turn overlap with the attack that Casmann had launched against Crell in his Cosmopoeia; see Casmann, Cosmopoeia et οὐρανογραϕία christiana, 58–59 for the parallel wording. See also note 32 above.
56 Cf. Perera, De communibus omnium rerum, d1r–v. I owe this reference to one of the anonymous reviewers. On Perera’s preface, see Blum, Studies on Early Modern Aristotelianism, 148–51. A superficial perusal of the Modesta assertio did not allow me to identify any explicit references to Perera. In the earlier Cosmopoeia, however, his presence is considerable – his name is mentioned no fewer than three times in the table of contents alone; see Casmann, Cosmopoeia et οὐρανογραϕία christiana, e4r, e5r. In any case, Perera’s influence on Casmann deserves an in-depth examination.
57 With regard to the latter point, Perera was criticized by his fellow Jesuits. On this and Perera’s Aristotelian project, see the recent contributions Sander, “The War of the Roses”; Casalini and Sander, “Perera’s Pious Humanism”.
58 Perera is cited in a number of Thomasius’s writings. For two examples taken at random from works from the 1660s, see Thomasius, “De syncretismo Peripatetico”, 337, note w, 342, note n; Thomasius, Schediasma historicum, 12–13.
59 There is a further circumstance that speaks in favor of Thomasius’s dependence on Casmann (rather than Perera). At a crucial juncture of his narrative, immediately before he moves on to discussing Hofmann, Thomasius cites Casmann approvingly for having criticized Crell’s subscription to duplex veritas: “Sed hic omnino Casmanni judicium approbaverim, qvi adversus Crellium, ejusdem alias religionis socius disputans, non erubuerim, inqvit, dicere, duplicem illam veritatem esse Pseudaristotelicum figmentum ad omnes erorres [sic!] & atheismos excusandos & defendendos”; see Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 243–44. The quotation is taken from Casmann, Cosmopoeia et οὐρανογραϕία christiana, 58. This passage is repeated, with slight modifications, in Casmann, Modesta assertio, 40: “Duplex vero illa veritas vnius eiusdemque rei, vna Theologica sapientiae diuinae, altera Philosophica, sapientiae humanae, est diabolicum ad omnes errores atque atheismos excusandos & defendendos accomodatissimum figmentum”. From there it landed in the preface to Hofmann’s Pro duplici veritate Lutheri; see “Lectori benevolo”, A2v. In a way, the itinerary of this passage epitomizes the entire constellation Thomasius revisited with his De duplici & contradictoria veritate.
60 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 240–41: “Si qvid hic valeo conjectura, errandi occasio haec fuit. Venerat paulo ante in Latinum orbem Philosophia Aristotelica; cumqve una cum Aristotele simul ejus commentator ex Arabibus Averroes latina civitate donatus esset: adeo qvibusdam ingeniis blandita fuit ratio haud paulo tersius, qvam ante factum esset, sub horum veluti ducum auspiciis philosophandi, ut una cum iis, qvae vera docuissent Aristoteles atqve Averroes, simul errores ipsorum, sane qvam pestilentes, ipsiqve fidei Christianae maxime exitiales, defenderentur. Fuit autem, qvod vel pueri sciunt, horum alter Ethnicus, alter Mahometista. […] Damnata, ut dixi, fuit opinio tam absurda & ab omni ratione aliena: sed fecit tamen nimius in Ethnicum illum & Arabem sapientem amor, ut subinde essent, qvi errorem de duplici veritate refoderent”.
61 On the topos in question, see Bianchi, Studi sull’aristotelismo del Rinascimento, 101–24. Besides Casmann, of particular relevance here is once again Perera’s preface and Petrarca’s De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia, one of Thomasius’s explicit sources. With regard to the latter work, see the passages discussed in Bianchi, Studi sull’aristotelismo del Rinascimento, 112–13.
62 Thomasius, “Adversus philosophos libertinos”, 443.
63 See also § 3 above.
64 The reading I question is advocated in Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”; Santinello, “Thomasius (1622–1684)”; Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte. For arguments against it, see Radeva, “From Reconstruction to Reformation”. The positive, confident tenor of Thomasius’s reformed Aristotelianism is recognized in Tomasoni, Thomasius, 19–25, esp. 25. Cf. Mercer, “The Young Leibniz”, 28–32; Mercer, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, 32–36 (although I believe Mercer’s qualification of Thomasius as a “conciliatory eclectic” to be somewhat misleading).
65 For a paradigmatic formulation of this stance, see Thomasius, “Theologia scholastica et ejus initium”, esp. 229–32, 240–41. For further details, see the studies listed in note 50 above.
66 Thomasius, “De syncretismo Peripatetico”, 324: “Philosophiam Peripateticam Christianam profitemur in hac Academia, hoc est, eruditam & homine ingenuo dignam doctrinam, qvae neqve doceat qvicqvam, qvod a revelata divinitus religione discrepet, neqve tamen a vestigiis Peripateticorum Principis, qvatenus Christiana pietas permittit, temere discedat”.
67 Radeva, “From Reconstruction to Reformation”, 441–46.
68 The recurrence and importance of this assumption in Thomasius’s work is impressive but completely in line with the orthodox position of his time. One example is analyzed in Radeva, “From Reconstruction to Reformation”.
69 Thomasius, Schediasma historicum, 28.
70 The best and most frequently studied example of this procedure is the already cited Schediasma historicum, but it is ubiquitous in Thomasius’s works on the history of philosophy. For excellent in-depth discussions, see Santinello, “Thomasius e il medioevo”; Santinello, “Thomasius (1622–1684)”; Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte.
71 See Thomasius, “Adversus philosophos libertinos”, 437, 441–43; Thomasius, “De syncretismo Peripatetico”, 325–26, 344–45.
72 Thomasius, “De duplici & contradictoria veritate”, 239, 240, 241, 242.
73 Landucci, “Alla ricerca della ‘doppia verità’”, 21.
74 See Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit”, 390–91; Brogi, “La teologia di Simonide”, 46–47; Landucci, La doppia verità, 147.
75 Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, 777–78, notes f, g, k, 784, note y.
76 Cf. Bianchi, Studi sull’aristotelismo del Rinascimento, 133–83. Perhaps the most eloquent expression of this trend is offered by Francesco Patrizi in the framework of his anti-Aristotelian polemic; see Patrizi, De Aristotelis vita, 127–74. Thomasius was familiar with this section of Patrizi’s work; see Thomasius, “De syncretismo Peripatetico”, 331, passim.
77 Cf. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance, 10–33. For an application of Schmitt’s idea of Renaissance Aristotelianisms to the medieval period, see Bianchi, “Gli aristotelismi della scolastica”.