Search Results

This chapter starts with a very concise discussion of how the different approaches to classical literature debated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries can be traced back to the ancient world and the Middle Ages. The rest of the chapter demonstrates how scholars in the early eighteenth century reflected on the work of their predecessors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries based on their own scholarly concerns. The first example is Pieter Burman (1668–1741) and his Sylloge epistolarum (1724–7), the edition of unpublished writings by the French critic Henri Valois (1603–76; edition published in 1740), and the edition of George Buchanan (1506–82), published in 1725. In the Sylloge, for example, Burman focuses on letters that show how eminent scholars thought about the correct reading of classical texts, while a ‘popularizer’ like Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) is criticized. Valois’s work was used as a starting point to reflect on what Burman and his nephew Pieter Burman the Younger (1713–78) saw as the downfall of French textual criticism. Finally, Burman’s own interest in the stylistic and rhetorical aspects of texts also allowed him to avoid involvement in politically sensitive matters, as was the case for Buchanan’s views in contemporary Scotland. The final example discussed in this chapter is the prefatory material written by Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736) for the edition of Erasmus’ Opera omnia (1703–6), in which Le Clerc dwells on the relationship between the study of ancient literature and other academic disciplines such as philosophy and theology.

This chapter introduces the debate on classical learning, as well as some of the key players in these debates, such as Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736), Pieter Burman (1668–1741), Richard Bentley (1662–1742), and Charles Rollin (1661–1741), against the background of the culture wars of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The opposing approaches to Latin and Greek texts are discussed. On the one hand, we find a more text-critically oriented focus that was associated by contemporaries with scholars either operating in the United Provinces or in close contact with Dutch peers. The other approach was associated with French scholars and focused on the historical and moral content of texts. This opposition is helpful in understanding the culture wars at the turn of the eighteenth century as it guards us from simplifying the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns to a straightforward clash between ‘old’ and ‘new’.

This chapter contains selected letters from the private correspondence of the moral philosopher Damaris Cudworth Masham. It includes some of Masham’s letters to and from her close friend John Locke, the well-known English empiricist and political thinker, as well as her correspondence with the Genevan philosopher-theologian Jean Le Clerc and the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, spanning the period from 1682 to 1705. The topics of the letters range from issues to do with enthusiasm, faith, and knowledge to friendship, Stoicism, Locke’s idea of thinking matter, and Ralph Cudworth’s doctrine of plastic nature. The chapter begins with an introductory essay by the editor, situating Masham’s letters in relation to the development of her own independent moral and epistemological views in her published works. The text includes a number of editorial annotations, to assist the reader’s understanding of early modern words and ideas.

Bayle’s equivocal relationship to Arminianism is here examined from the perspective of the status of the Bible. Though rejecting the doctrine that every word was to be considered divinely inspired, Bayle did defend the divinity of Scripture in his polemic with Jean Le Clerc. For Le Clerc, biblical criticism could solve theological conflicts by discovering the authentic meaning of Scripture, but Bayle insisted that natural light precedes exegesis, and revelation is limited to those matters that do not conflict with reason. He dissociates himself from Socinianism by distinguishing moral from speculative reason. Only moral reason offers an absolute norm. Bayle disregards the Arminian distinction between what is against reason and what is beyond reason. His Commentaire philosophique juxtaposes the natural light that can identify divine elements in the Bible with our historical reality that frustrates its capacity for apprehending religious truths. Thus Bayle inevitably clashes with the Arminian tradition.

Robert E. Brown focuses on Jonthan Edwards’ engagement with the emerging criticism of the early modern period, when the question of who authored the Pentateuch occupied many a biblical interpreter. Influenced by the more rationalistic approach of the Jewish scholar Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164), several writers—including Thomas Hobbes, Isaac La Peyrère, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon, and Jean Le Clerc—argued against the traditional belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. One leading responder to this view was Louis Ellie Du Pin, a French Catholic ecumenist, and Edwards, interestingly enough, drew substantially on Du Pin in his own discussion of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Brown uses this episode to show that Edwards was a creative consumer of European ideas, which illustrates that early modern biblical interpretation was more complex and layered than often recognized.

This section presents, in Latin and English, the entirety of Anton Wilhelm Amo’s 1734 Philosophical Disputation Containing a Distinct Idea of those Things that Pertain either to the Mind or to Our Living and Organic Body. In this work Amo attempts to work out the implications of the impossibility of being-acted-upon for the mind’s actions, and tries to show how the mind understands, wills, and effects things through the body by ‘intentions’ which direct motions in our body intentionally toward external things. Amo tries to show how far each type of human act belongs to the mind, how far to the body; he argues especially against Jean Le Clerc, who had attributed a broad range of acts to the mind.