Dedication, 1604-02-05, Heinrich Nollius to Wigand Heimel and Simon Lucanus
| Author: | Heinrich Nollius |
| Recipients: | Wigand Heimel Simon Lucanus |
| Type: | Dedication |
| Date: | 5 February 1604 |
| Place: | no place [Ziegenhain] |
| Pages: | 6 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=5647 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Heinrich Nollius, Prodromi logici tractatus tres, Hanau: Wilhelm Antonius 1604, p. 3-8 [BP.Nollius.1604-01]
|
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | Nollius expresses his gratitude for the support in his studies since his youth. He discusses his journey from initially being resistant to Peripatetic (Aristotelian) logic to critically examining and finding flaws in Ramist Logic, which he initially followed. He argues that Ramist Logic, while popular and defended by its followers, lacks consistency and depth. He criticizes Ramus, the founder of this school of thought, for not providing a comprehensive and error-free philosophy but rather creating a sect for personal fame. Nollius also critiques the Ramist view of liberal arts as parts of philosophy, arguing that this view is both false and obscure. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Heinrich Nollius |
[p. 3] Amplissimi et prvdentissimis viris, Dn. M. Vigando Heimelio, sobrino, & Dn. M. Simoni Lucano affini, senatoribus; huic in rep[ublica] Zigenhainensi, illi in Treisensi, amicis & Mæcenatibus meis colendis S[alutem] P[lurimam].
Estis, prudentissimi viri, amici mei: re probastis. iuuistis enim me à puero in studiis feliciter, pro quibus vestris beneficiis quid rependam? Gratum animum. Quid reddam? Grati animi hos fructus, quos vobis iam iure dedico & nuncupo. Accipite itaque hunc mearum Logicarum Institutionum prodromum animis beneuolis, & ponderate ea, quæ vobis in eo offeruntur. Ponderate, inquam, ea, & vestrum iudicium mihi detegite. Est quidem in secundo Tractatu mihi res cum Ramea Logica. [p. 4] Hanc discutio. Et quæ in ea falsa sunt commonstro; non vulgaribus, sed nouè veris argumentis, & fundamentis. Ramea logica hactenus à Ramistis magno in precio habita est, & suo modo quo potuerunt, ab iis defensa. Laudandum hoc est: à præceptore enim suo non ita facilè cuipiam discedendum est. Vnde & ego in initio meorum logicorum studiorum, verbis etiam suauissimis difficulter emolliri potui ad Peripateticorum Systemata logica legenda & ponderanda. Ad hoc tanta asseclarum Rameorum copia me adduxit, nec non felix Rameæ doctrinæ successus. Tandem verò vbi ex Dei singulari gratia & auxilio meum iudicium sese extra exerere nisum est, atque ego simul logicas controuersias pro mei ingenii modiolo expendere incœpi, capita & lumina quædam philosophorum Peripateticorum inspexi, & in iis magnum acumen sapientiæ animaduerti: è contrario Petri Rami dogmata legi atque ea contuli cum Peripateticis Philosophiæ præceptis. Verum nihil erat, quo profundius & exquisitius doctrina & sapientia tantorum virorum Peripateticorum euerti poßet. Ra- [p. 5] mum vidi eò laborasse vt tantummodo sectam singularem faceret, & nomen sibi apud sui similes pareret; sed nihil adhuc vidi, in quo philosophia Ramea constanter consistat. Siquidem Ramus non conscripsit scientias certas, in quibus præcepta quædam Philosophiæ daret, quæ benè & commodè in certis subiectis commentariis explicaret. Licèt Ramus habeatur à suius pro illo, qui philosophiam nullis erroribus obnoxiam conscripserit, tamen ille Scholas quasdam & censuras quorundam librorum philosophicorum finxit, quæ, cum philosophia in mentis quiete & assensu sit posita, non sunt ipsa Philosophia, sed, si benè excoctæ fuerint ad philosophiam viæ & aditus. Artes quidem ex opinione Rameorum liberales à Ramo videntur in lucem editæ, quas putant eße philosophiæ partes, ideoque philosophiam in artibus istis hærere. Verum enim verò opinio illorum falsa, & absurda est. Habent enim partim falsum, partim obscurum hoc principium:[m1] Artes liberales sunt philosophiæ partes. Falsum est; quia artes sunt habitus in men- [p. 6] [te] hominum; habitus illi, qui sunt accidentia, non tantum à nobis cognoscuntur in Philosophia, sed etiam substantiæ, quibus isti habitus insunt: non solum illæ substantiæ in philosophia explorantur, sed etiam aliæ, nimirum eæ, quæextra homines sunt & inueniuntur, lumineque rationis nostræ naturali inuestigantur. Obscurum est illud principium, dum Ramistæ artes liberales tantum partes philosophiæ efficiunt; nec tamen à nemime Rameorum, nec ab ipso Ramo artes liberales benè, explicitè & dilucidè expositæ sunt. Rennemannus candorem Rameæ philosophiæ ostendit in suo Scuto, quod vocat insuperabile; siquidem ibi ait, Philosophiam (Rameam) esse liberalium artium comprehensionem; nec tamen enodat liberalium artium naturam, sed tantum generaliter artium. Hoccine est Philosophiam veram, quam vocat, defendere? Veritas cogit asseclas Rami, vt testentur, Rami Philosophiam non talem esse, qualem eam prædicent, nimirum breuem, methodicam, & erroribus nullis implicatam. Breuem quidem reddunt eam, dum promittunt se hoc tradituros, & tantum aliquid [p. 7] in eo expromunt & declarant. Sic breuem suam facit doctrinam Rennemannus, dum liberales artes debuit enucleare, & solum artes exposuit in genere, non artes liberales. Verum hæc breuitas est potius mutilatio necessariorum quam vera & compendiosa breuitas. Et quia ita decurtant ea, quæ tamen integra proponantur, non amant methodi veram dispositionem; siquidem ea, teste Ramo, vult vt ab vniuersalibus progrediamur ad singularia. Hæc singularia sunt & appellantur à Ramo Species. Species autem, quando ad eas descenditur, non mutilatæ postea exhibentur, ne potius videatur progressus ab vniuersalibus ad aliquid in singularibus, quam ad ipsa singularia integrè. Hæc copiosius & clare secundus tractatus docet; quem aspicite, vos mei amici & percurrite amicè; & si quendam errorem reperitis, eum mihi indicate: extirpabo illum. Valete amici, & pro me ad Deum orate, vt Deus clemens & misericors illud tantum, quiod indiuini eius nominis gloriam & hominum vtilitatem tendat, bene & feliciter in me pro ipsius placito perficiat. Ille Deus vos ad æternam vitam [p. 8] suo verbo in Iesu Christo Domino nostro educet, & vobis largiatur annos felices & Nestoreos. Amen. Valete iterum, & vestrum Nollivm amare pergite. Dabam è Museo, 5. die Feb[ruarii] Anno 1604.
V. A. studiosissimus M. Heinricus Nollius.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 31 December 2023. Attention: This translation is a machine translation by artificial intelligence. The translation has not been checked and should not be cited without additional human verification.
To the most ample and prudent men, Mr. M. Wigand Heimel, my nephew, and Mr. M. Simon Lucan, my relative by marriage, senators; the former in the Ziegenhain republic, the latter in Treisen, my respected friends and patrons, I send my warmest greetings.
You are, most prudent men, my friends; you have proven this in deed. For you have supported me from my youth in my studies, and for these your benefits, what can I repay? A grateful heart. What can I give back? These fruits of a grateful mind, which I now rightfully dedicate and name for you. Therefore, accept this precursor of my Logical Institutions with benevolent minds, and weigh the things that are offered to you in it. Weigh, I say, these things, and reveal your judgment to me. Indeed, in the second Treatise, I deal with Ramist Logic. I discuss it. And I demonstrate what is false in it; not with common, but with newly true arguments and foundations. Ramist logic has been held in high esteem by Ramists until now, and defended by them in their own way as best they could. This is commendable: for it is not so easy for anyone to depart from their teacher. Hence, at the beginning of my logical studies, even the sweetest words could hardly soften me to read and weigh the logical systems of the Peripatetics. The great number of Ramus' followers led me to this, as well as the successful outcome of Ramus' doctrine. But finally, when by God's singular grace and help, my judgment tried to exert itself independently, and I began to weigh logical controversies according to my modest ability, I looked into the heads and lights of some Peripatetic philosophers, and in them, I noticed great sharpness of wisdom: on the contrary, I read the doctrines of Peter Ramus and compared them with the precepts of Peripatetic Philosophy. But there was nothing by which the doctrine and wisdom of such great Peripatetic men could be more profoundly and exquisitely overturned. Ramus, I saw, labored to make only a singular sect and to earn a name for himself among his likes; but I have not yet seen anything in which Ramist philosophy consistently stands. Indeed, Ramus did not write certain sciences in which he would give some precepts of Philosophy, which he would well and conveniently explain in certain subjects. Although Ramus is considered by his followers as one who wrote philosophy free from errors, yet he invented certain schools and criticisms of some philosophical books, which, since philosophy is based in the tranquility and assent of the mind, are not themselves Philosophy, but, if well digested, are ways and approaches to philosophy. Indeed, according to the opinion of Ramists, the liberal arts seem to have been published by Ramus, which they think are parts of philosophy, and therefore philosophy resides in these arts. But indeed, their opinion is false and absurd. They have partly a false, partly an obscure principle: "Liberal arts are parts of philosophy." It is false; because arts are habits in the minds of men; those habits, which are accidents, are not only known to us in Philosophy, but also substances, in which these habits are inherent: not only those substances are explored in philosophy, but also others, namely those that are outside men and are found, and are investigated by the natural light of our reason. That principle is obscure, while Ramists make only the liberal arts parts of philosophy; and yet by none of the Ramists, nor by Ramus himself, are the liberal arts well, explicitly, and clearly set forth. Rennemann shows the candor of Ramist philosophy in his Shield, which he also calls invincible; indeed, there he says that Philosophy (Ramist) is the comprehension of the liberal arts; yet he does not unravel the nature of the liberal arts, but only generally of the arts. Is this to defend true Philosophy, as he calls it? The truth compels the followers of Ramus to testify that Ramus' Philosophy is not such as they proclaim it, namely brief, methodical, and not entangled with errors. They indeed make it brief, as they promise to deliver this and only express and declare something in it. Thus Rennemann makes his doctrine brief, while he should have elucidated the liberal arts, and only set forth arts in general, not the liberal arts. But this brevity is rather a mutilation of the necessary than true and concise brevity. And because they cut short those things which should be presented in their entirety, they do not love the true arrangement of method; since it, according to Ramus, wants us to proceed from universals to particulars. These particulars are called by Ramus Species. But when we descend to these Species, they are not then presented mutilated, lest it rather seem a progression from universals to something in particulars, than to the particulars themselves completely. This is taught more copiously and clearly in the second treatise; look at it, my friends, and peruse it kindly; and if you find some error, point it out to me: I will eradicate it. Farewell, friends, and pray to God for me, that God, gracious and merciful, may perfectly accomplish in me only that which tends to the glory of His divine name and the benefit of men, according to His pleasure. May that God lead you to eternal life by His word in Jesus Christ our Lord, and grant you happy and Nestorian years. Amen. Farewell again, and continue to love your Nollius. Given from my study, on the 5th day of February, in the year 1604.
Your most devoted student, M. Heinrich Nollius.
