Dedication, no date (1583), Thomas Erastus to Theodor Zwinger (BP.Erastus.1583-04)
| Author: | Thomas Erastus |
| Recipient: | Theodor Zwinger |
| Type: | Dedication |
| Date: | no date [1583] |
| Pages: | 4 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=3028 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Thomas Erastus, Ad Archangeli Mercenarii Philosophi Patauini Disputationem de putredine responsio, Basel: Conrad von Waldkirch 1583, sig. (:)2r–(:)3v [BP.Erastus.1583-04]
|
| Reprinted in: | BP.Erastus.1590-02 |
| Also in: | BP.Erastus.1583-05 |
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | Erastus discusses the importance and controversy surrounding the concept of "Putrefaction." He emphasizes its significance not only to doctors but also to philosophers, noting that many have debated its nature for centuries. He had previously published a disputation on this topic, believing that both Aristotle and ancient doctors like Hippocrates and Galen did not diverge from popular opinion, even if they seemed to. Erastus then mentions a critique by Archangel Mercenary, a philosopher from the University of Padua, who accused Erastus of spreading false doctrine. Erastus defends himself, stating he wasn't aware of Mercenary's writings when he presented his views. He decided to respond to Mercenary's objections after realizing that not everyone saw them as weak as he did and to clarify certain points for the benefit of students. Erastus also combined his response with Mercenary's disputation for readers' convenience. He dedicates his work to Zwinger for three reasons: to honor Zwinger's esteemed name, to seek Zwinger's judgment on the controversy due to his expertise and fairness, and to express gratitude for Zwinger's past kindnesses. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Thomas Erastus |
[sig. (:)2r] Thomas Erastvs excellentissima doctrina praedito viro, D[omi]n[o] Theodoro Zvingero Medicinæ in Academia Basiliensi professori ordinario, S[alutem] P[lurimam] D[icit].
Qvàm sit vtilis quamq́ue necessaria non Medicis tantùm, verum etiam Philosophis (ut de aliarum artium professoribus nihil nunc dicam) recta & exacta Putredinis notitia, non tibi solum, qui doctrina & iudicio plurimos antecellis, sed & alijs cunctis ferè notum est. Etenim apud Medicos vix vllius rei crebrior est mentio: nec possunt rectè intelligi & declarari plurima huius artis theoremata, nisi prius natura Putredinis perspecta sit & cognita. Nec Philosophi etiam ex omnibus de Natura dubitationibus & Aristotelis doctrinæ partibus sese expedire vnquam poterunt, quamdiu Putredinis naturam ignorabunt. Argumento ad huius rei confirmationem alio non est opus, quàm quod videmus multis iam seculis in hodiernum usque diem aliter hos, & aliter illos de ea disserere, & inter se tamen conuenire nundum potuisse. Hanc ob rem annis superioribus Disputationem de hac ipsa controuersia publicæ vtilitatis gratia diuulgaui, in qua pro virili me aparte demonstrare conatus fui, nec Aristotelem à Medicis dissentire, nec vtrosque (si modò rectè intelligantur, quæ à [sig. (:)2v] veteribus, Aristotele scilicet, Hippocrate & Galeno scripta sunt) á vulgi sententia discedere, licet plurimum discrepare iudicarti fuerint. Etsi autem non omnia tum ita exposui, ut volebam, & res postulabat, ea tamen proposui, ex quibus facilè potuit lis illa decidi, & controuersiæ nodus omnis dissolui. Nec dubito, quin veritatis amatoribus & studiosis (quod suis apud me literis excellentes viri complures testatum fecerunt) rem gratam & vtilem præstiterim. Longißimè alia interim est sententia Philosophi celeberrimi, D[omini] Archangeli Mercenarij (Philosophiæ in Academia Patauina ordinarij Professoris:) qui me nec bonam nec vtilem Reip[ublicae] operam nauasse censet, sed falsam, & ob id noxiam doctrinam sparsisse existimat. Itaque suis quibusdam rationibus motus, nostram sententiam non solùm publicè de cathedra, voce, verum etiam scripto oppugnare ac damnare aggressus est. Putauit ille fortaßis, me, quæ de Putredine antea scripserat in libro Dilucidationum, vidisse, & Disputatione mea infirmare & conuellere voluisse. At fallitur, si credit. Nam nec videram, nec nominari tum audieram eum librum, cum Disputationem meam publicam facerem. Hoc anno primum intellexi, eum aliquid contra nos meditari, et simul tueri velle, quæ de ea ex Aristotelis sententia in prædicto libro prolixè disputauisset. Si videre mihi ac legere prius contigisset, aliter meam certè Disputationem instituissem, & occasionem ei fortè rectius contradicendi præbuissem. Sed non multum nostra interest, qua de causa nos oppugnandos putarit: magis refert scire, [sig. (:)3r] quibus argumentis id præstiterit. Ea sunt eiusmodi, vt principio existimarim nulla responsione opus habere. In qua certè sententia perstitißem, nisi me cùm illæ causæ, quæ mox recensebuntur, tum amici precibus enixè petentes, vt hunc laborem vel sua causa in me reciperem, ab eadem abduxißent. Inuitus sanè ad disceptationem, qua me perfunctum arbitrabar, retractus sum, quod omnino mihi persuaserá, quemibet sine etiam monstratore aliquo perfacilè visurum, quàm infirmæ, quamq́ue inanes eßent omnes ferè obiectiones, quibus labefactare nostra tentat Aduersarius. Quia verò tandem comperi, non omnibus tales videri, quales mihi videbantur: et alia quædam per hanc occasionem explanari oportere animaduerti, quorum cognitio permagnam studiosis vtilitatem sit allatura, sententiam mutaui, & ad veritatis stateram contraria argumenta iustis ponderibus examinare, quantumq́ue roboris ac momenti habeant, alijs monstrare cœpi. Et quia noui, libellos in Italia excusos rarò ad nos & paucos & serò admodum perferri, vt magis consulerem lectoribus, qui nostra cum Aduersarij argumentis conferre desiderent (quod facere omnes oportet, qui de rebus dubijs & controuersis tutò sententiam ferre volunt.) Typographo author fui, vt Responsioni nostræ Disputationem D[omini] Mercenarij coniungeret.
Tibi verò, vir clarißime, tribus de causis hunc nostrum (qualis & quantulus est) libellum consecrare volui. Prima est, vt de nominis tui splendore & dignitate partem aliquam gratiæ & authoritatis in eum deriuem, itaq́ue ornatior in publicum exeat. Non enim [sig. (:)3v] facilè contemtum iri videbam, si nomine tuo insignitus prodiret: Altera, quòd te maximè desidero arbitrum & iudicem esse huius controuersiæ, cùm & propter excellentem doctrinam insignemq́ue iudicij ἀκρίβειαν, poßis & propter singularem animi bonitatem velis veritati patrocinari. Tuo certè iudicio (sicut aliorum quoque doctorum) stare & cadere, vincere ac vinci paratus sum. Tertia, quòd hoc facto testatum esse cupio, (quando aliter tuis in me beneficijs respondere non queo) quantum te merito tuo amem & obseruem. Deus Optimus Maximus te tibi, tuisq́ue (inprimis autem Reipublicæ literariæ) diu incolumem seruet, Amen.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 18 August 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.
Thomas Erastus, to the man endowed with the most excellent doctrine, Mr. Theodor Zwinger, regular professor of Medicine at the University of Basel, sends many greetings.
How useful and how necessary the correct and precise knowledge of Putrefaction is, not only to doctors but also to philosophers (to say nothing now of professors of other arts), is known not only to you, who surpass many in doctrine and judgment, but also to almost everyone else. Indeed, among doctors, hardly any topic is mentioned more frequently. Many theorems of this art cannot be properly understood and explained unless the nature of Putrefaction is first observed and known. Nor can philosophers ever free themselves from all doubts about Nature and parts of Aristotle's doctrine as long as they remain ignorant of the nature of Putrefaction. No other evidence is needed to confirm this than the fact that for many centuries up to the present day, some have discussed it in one way and others in another, yet they have not been able to agree. For this reason, in previous years, I published a Disputation on this very controversy for the sake of public utility, in which I tried to show, to the best of my ability, that Aristotle does not disagree with the doctors, and neither do both (if only the writings of the ancients, namely Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen, are correctly understood) depart from the opinion of the masses, although they have been judged to differ greatly. Although I did not then present everything as I wished and as the matter required, I did propose things from which that dispute could easily be settled, and every knot of controversy untied. I do not doubt that I have done a favor and provided something useful to lovers of truth and scholars (as many distinguished men have attested in their letters to me). However, the opinion of the very famous philosopher, Mr. Archangel Mercenary, regular professor of Philosophy at the University of Padua, is very different. He believes that I neither did good nor useful work for the Republic, but spread a false and therefore harmful doctrine. Thus, moved by certain reasons, he began to attack and condemn our opinion not only publicly from the chair and by voice but also in writing. Perhaps he thought that I had seen what he had previously written about Putrefaction in the book of "Dilucidations" and wanted to weaken and overthrow it with my Disputation. But he is mistaken if he believes so. For I had neither seen nor even heard of that book when I made my public Disputation. Only this year did I understand that he was planning something against us and at the same time wanted to defend what he had extensively argued about it from Aristotle's opinion in the aforementioned book. If I had had the chance to see and read it earlier, I would certainly have set up my Disputation differently and perhaps given him a better opportunity to contradict. But it doesn't matter much to us why he thought he should attack us; it matters more to know by what arguments he did it. They are of such a kind that at first, I thought they needed no response. I would certainly have persisted in this opinion if both the reasons that will be listed shortly and the earnest requests of friends, asking me to take on this task even for their sake, had not led me away from it. Indeed, I was reluctantly drawn back to a debate which I thought I had completed, because I had fully persuaded myself that almost anyone would easily see, even without a guide, how weak and how empty almost all the objections are with which the Adversary tries to undermine our position. However, when I finally realized that they did not appear to everyone as they appeared to me, and I noticed that some other things needed to be explained on this occasion, the knowledge of which would bring great benefit to students, I changed my mind. I began to examine the opposing arguments against the balance of truth with just weights and to show others how much strength and significance they have. And because I know that booklets printed in Italy are rarely and very slowly brought to us, to better serve readers who wish to compare our arguments with those of the Adversary (which everyone should do who wants to form a safe opinion on doubtful and controversial matters), I authorized the printer to attach Mr. Mercenary's Disputation to our Response.
But to you, most illustrious man, I wanted to dedicate this little book of ours (such as it is) for three reasons. The first is to derive some part of the splendor and dignity of your name onto it as a mark of gratitude and authority, so that it may appear more adorned when published. For I saw that it would not easily be despised if it were to come forth bearing your name. The second reason is that I especially desire you to be the arbiter and judge of this controversy. Both because of your excellent doctrine and the remarkable precision of your judgment, you can and, due to the singular goodness of your spirit, wish to champion the truth. Certainly, I am prepared to stand or fall, to win or lose, by your judgment (as well as that of other learned men). The third reason is that by doing this, I wish to testify (since I cannot respond in kind to the benefits you have bestowed upon me) how much I love and respect you by your own merit. May the Best and Greatest God keep you safe for a long time for yourself, for your loved ones, and especially for the literary Republic. Amen.
