The topics about which he wrote were varied and included, among others, medicine, history, botany, zoology, and chemistry. After graduation, he worked as a teacher at several schools and universities, and as a physician in Rothenburg from 1591 onwards. He had studied at the universities of Wittenberg and Jena, and had matriculated in medicine at the University of Basel in the 1580s. 9 In order to analyse Libavius’ and Fludd’s arguments for and against the fraternity in a polemic context, it is best to examine the two writings where the second was a clear response to the author of the first, the Analysis and the Short Apology.īy the time of writing his Analysis, Libavius was an established scholar.
8 Although the Apologetic Tract has received some attention from historians, Fludd’s Short Apology still awaits a careful analysis, even though this was his first clear response to Libavius’ criticism. 7 Despite his opponent’s death, Fludd published an enlarged version of his defence in his Apologetic Tract (1617). 6 Shortly after the publication of Libavius’ second blast, the Well-intentioned Considerations (1616, ten times as large as his 1615-refutation), he passed away, and he probably never had a chance to read Fludd’s reply. 5 In response, the following year Fludd penned a refutation of Libavius’ arguments in his defence of the brotherhood, the Short Apology (1616). Libavius publically rejected the Rosicrucian manifestos in the Analysis of the Confession of the Rose Cross (1615). What urged institutions to officially suppress or contain the ideas and sympathies of their members, and how do these formal responses compare to the informal critiques of Rosicrucian opponents? By way of conclusion of this chapter, the early modern debates over Rosicrucianism will briefly be compared to several official investigations.ĥ.1 The Rosicrucian Manifestos Debated: Libavius and Fludd How and to what extent did the general reformation play a role in their writings?Īlongside these debates, universities and courts responded formally to Rosicrucianism.
#The eyes of ara shield puzzle pro
In the texts of these four authors about the Rosicrucian phenomenon, the arguments pro and contra the Rosicrucian manifestos are best brought to light, revealing what was most at stake for these defenders and detractors of the Rosicrucian writings and the ideas expressed in them. 4 Grick’s attack soon received a response from Daniel Mögling, whom we have encountered in the previous chapter. While not as famous a figure as Libavius, and not yet studied comprehensively, he belongs to the few well-known names of anti-Rosicrucianism. 3 In 1617, one year after Fludd’s written defence of Rosicrucianism, another Rosicrucian opponent, Friedrich Grick (dates unknown), published a ruthless attack on the fraternity. 2 Libavius’ criticism of the movement was not much later vigorously refuted by the English neo-Platonist philosopher, astrologer, and physician Robert Fludd (1574–1637), who is well known for his Rosicrucian sympathies. His alchemical writings and anti-Paracelsian sentiments have received appropriate attention in the recent available historiography, but his fierce attacks on the Rosicrucian fraternity and their followers still deserve proper investigation. One of the best-known critics of the Rosicrucian manifestos was the Lutheran physician and alchemist Andreas Libavius (ca. 1560–1616). In a study of Rosicrucianism, an analysis of the movement through the eyes of its most fervent adversaries is appropriate, because only by also studying its critics is one able to identify all the salient points and novelty of the Rosicrucian claims.Ī good method for an analysis of anti-Rosicrucianism is to tackle the opposing arguments involved in polemical constellations, and to investigate key discussions between anti-Rosicrucian scholars and Rosicrucian apologists. While Haslmayr was forced to row the galleys, arguments for and against the manifestos continued apace. Scholars immediately penned their critiques, while representatives of several universities and courts launched investigations into individuals they suspected of Rosicrucianism. 1 Chemists, physicians, and theologians alike were shocked and outraged by these heterodox texts. Once published, the Rosicrucian manifestos and their proponents attracted much criticism from all quarters of Europe, and from all corners of the intellectual world.
0 kommentar(er)
