Monatliche Unterredungen and Curieuse Bibliothec

WILHELM ERNST TENTZEL AS A PRECURSOR OF LEARNED JOURNALISM IN GERMANY: MONATLICHE UNTERREDUNGEN AND CURIEUSE BIBLIOTHEC

Thomas Habel

Early Learned Journals: The Take-Off Phase in German-Speaking Europe

When the first issue of W.E. Tentzel’s Monatliche Unterredungen appeared on the literary market in 1689, learned journals had already been in exis- tence for more than two decades.1 Periodical journals appeared almost simultaneously as a new medium in France ( Journal des Sçavans, 1665ff.), England (Philosophical Transactions, 1665ff.) and Italy (Giornale de’ Let- terati [Roma], 1668ff.), seeking to adapt to the ever accelerating process of knowledge at the time.2 The first exponents of learned journals met this objective by reporting on new releases in the book market as well as on noteworthy developments in the world of scholarship. By doing so, they succeeded in combining the traditional components of the scholarly exchange of information—scientific publications, disputations, and scholarly correspondence on the one hand, and bibliographies and term catalogues on the other hand—in a medium that was both periodical and continual. For the first time, this offered members of the Republic of Letters an opportunity to obtain from one source, as it were, timely

1 Very useful contemporary information about early scholarly publications can be found in Christian Juncker, Schediasma Historicum . . . (Leipzig 1692); [Markus Paulus Huhold], Curieuse Nachricht Von denen . . . Juornal- [sic], Quartal- und Annual-Schrifften . . . (first edn. Leipzig 1715, third edn. Freyburg [d.i. Jena] 1716); [Heinrich Ludwig Goetten], Gründliche Nachricht Von den Frantzöische [sic], Lateinischen und Deutschen Journalen, Ephemer- idibus . . .—Continuation . . .—Die andere Continuation (Leipzig 1718, 1720 and 1724). For additional catalogues of eighteenth-century books and classification of learned publications, see Thomas Habel, Gelehrte Journale und Zeitungen der Aufklärung (Bremen 2007), 80–87. 2 See Otto Dann, ‘Vom Journal des Sçavans zur wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift’, in Bern- hard Fabian and Paul Raabe (eds.), Gelehrte Bücher vom Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart (Wiesbaden 1983), 63–80; Martin Gierl, ‘Korrespondenzen, Disputationen, Zeitschriften. Wissensorganisation und die Entwicklung der gelehrten Medienrepublik zwischen 1670 und 1730’, in Richard van Dülmen and Sina Rauschenbach (eds.), Macht des Wissens. Die Entstehung der modernen Wissensgesellschaft (Köln et al. 2004), 417–438; Habel 2007 (note 1), 46ff.

© THOMAS HABEL, 2013 | doi:10.1163/9789004243910_014 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 290 thomas habel and comprehensive information about virtually all recent news in the scholarly world. As early as 1667, only two years after the emergence of this new medium, the first response on the German market appeared when the jurist Friedrich Nitzsch from Giessen published a Latin translation of the French Journal des Sçavans under the telling title Le Journal des Sçavans, hoc est Ephemerides Eruditorum (Leipzig: Schürer and Fritzsch). Nitzsch employed the same argument that Denys de Sallo had formulated pro- grammatically in introducing his Journal des Sçavans: with the help of this new organ, the reader could get a comprehensive view of important new publications without having to purchase them in advance, and could even obtain a general knowledge of literature without having to buy a single book.3 The initial success of Nitzsch’s project, which was published for no less than five full years, illustrated that this concept also found a response among the German scholarly public, based on the Republic of Letter’s great need for knowledge about new trends and ideas. The first serious attempt to establish an independent journal in Ger- many took place in 1668, when Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz devised plans for a Nucleus librarius semestralis, a semi-annual publication of scholarly reports on the model of the Journal des Sçavans. But despite strenuous preparations, this project was never realised, as Leibniz was unable to procure either the hoped-for Imperial Privilege or financial support.4 The Miscellanea curiosa medico-physica (Leipzig: Trescher; appearing later in different places and under different publishers), which first appeared in 1670—with express reference to the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions—was the first original German scholarly journal.5 As in the case of Nitzsch’s translated journal, the language of publication was the international Latin of scholars.6 In the form first of

3 Original: ‘L’Imprimeur au Lecteur’, Journal des Sçavans, January 1665, fol. A3v–A4r; translated by Nitzsch: ‘Interpres Lectori Benevolo S!’, 1 (1667), fol. a4v–a5r. 4 For details, see Hans Widmann, ‘Leibniz und sein Plan zu einem Nucleus librarius’, Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 4 (1963), 621–636; Habel 2007 (note 1), 54f. 5 The first version of the continually changing descriptive title was Miscellanea curiosa medico-physica Academiae Naturae Curiosorum sive Ephemeridum medico-physicarum Germanicarum Curiosarum. The journal published by the Academia Naturae Curiosorum, later known as the Leopoldina, appeared irregularly. 6 A German translation, limited to articles concerned with medicine (20 volumes), was issued a century later: Der Römisch-Kaiserlichen Akademie der Naturforscher auserlesene medizinisch-chirurgisch-anatomisch-chymisch- und botanische Abhandlungen (Nürnberg: Endter & Engelbrecht, 1755–1771).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 291

“observations” [observationes] and “annotations” [scholia], and later also of treatises as well as announcements of publications by its circle of members, the oldest German academy of natural history published news and findings from the medical and natural sciences in annual volumes. The journal was produced with the help of a large team of contributors, originally under the aegis of its president and later under a specially appointed Director Ephemeridum. Of greatest significance for the expansion of scholarly publications in Germany was the Acta Eruditorum (Leipzig: Grosse and Gleditsch), which appeared in Latin beginning in 1682.7 The Acta was published monthly by Otto Mencke, professor of moral and practical philosophy, together with the Societas ad Colligenda Acta Eruditorum Lipsiensia, which had been founded specifically for that purpose. Renowned scholars helped to produce the Acta from the outset.8 Published under its original title until 1731 and thereafter as Nova Acta Eruditorum, this scholarly journal offered its readers—members of the Republic of Letters9 who were proficient in Latin—as well original contributions and translations of foreign articles into Latin as reviews and other scholarly news. Mencke’s journal was basically conceived as polyhistoric, in accordance with the contemporary idea of universal scholarship. This inclusivity, however, applies only to the section containing reviews; the scientific contributions, by contrast, were weighted heavily towards the natural sciences as well as mathematics and medicine. Four years later, in 1686, another learned journal published in Latin appeared under the title Ephemerides litterariae (Hamburg: Langemack).10 A special feature of this journal, which was probably founded by the phy- sician Joachim Ludwig Körber and was supported by numerous scholars, was weekly publication with the aim of being up-to-date.11 Although it

7 For a thorough discussion, see Augustinus Hubertus Laeven, De “Acta Eruditorum” onder redactie van Otto Mencke (Amsterdam 1986; engl. transl. 1990); for a summary, see Habel 2007 (note 1), 56–60. 8 A synopsis of the years 1682–1706 can be found in Laeven 1986 (note 7), 267ff. 9 In addition to representatives of the so-called learned professions, this also included all university students. 10 Further information can be found in Holger Böning und Emmy Moepps, Hamburg. Kommentierte Bibliographie der Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzblätter, Kalender und Almanache . . . (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996), 3 vols., I: 97ff.; Holger Böning, Welteroberung durch ein neues Publikum (Bremen 2002), 188f. 11 The Ephemerides litterariae evinced the first unmistakable signs of a weekly (or even daily) learned bulletin. This model was only to become permanently established, however, with the publication of the Neue Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen (Leipzig 1715ff.).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 292 thomas habel gave clear preference to news from the natural sciences, medicine and history, the journal was nonetheless devoted to all fields of knowledge. Like its parallel edition appearing in French under the title Ephemerides Sçavantes, the Ephemerides litterariae lasted only long enough to publish six issues. The first German journal12 to publish contemporary “curious” knowledge in the national language was the Gröste Denkwürdigkeiten der Welt Oder so genannte Relationes Curiosae (Hamburg: Wiering), which was issued between 1682 and 1691 by the compiler and author of novels Eberhard Werner Happel.13 The Relationes Curiosae, a popular-scientific publication, appeared first in the form of a learned supplement to the Relations- Courier of Hamburg, one of the leading historical-political newspapers of the day. From 1683 it was also published separately in biennial volumes, owing to its enormous success.14 With the greatest possible recourse to current scholarly writings, Happel reported on what was new and of interest from virtually every field of knowledge: natural history and medicine, geography, ethnology, technical developments, meteorology, astronomy, jurisprudence, history, and politics, as well as wondrous, peculiar and remarkable occurrences of every type.15 Enriched by anecdotal and literary comments, the topics covered were presented in adeptly organised the- matic segments. Although Happel aimed by his own admission to address a readership of scholars, he nevertheless focused primarily on a public that was not likely to be proficient in Latin (or in other foreign languages) and gave preference to receiving knowledge in a popularised form. The Monats-Gespräche (Leipzig: Weidmann; Halle: Saalfeld), published by the jurist Christian Thomasius of Leipzig under various titles between

12 Johann Frisch’s Erbauliche Ruh-stunden (Hamburg: Heuß), a simultaneously instructive and entertaining weekly publication, had already appeared in German between 1676 and 1680. In the form of fictitious conversations, the journal not only provided information about current events but also offered morally edifying reflections. Frisch’s Ruh-stunden was thus a precursor of weekly journals devoted to moral topics. See Böning 2002 (note 10), 222ff. For further information, see Böning and Moepps 1996 (note 10), I: 63–68. 13 For further information, see Böning and Moepps 1996 (note 10), I: 75–87; Uta Egen- hoff, Berufsschriftstellertum und Journalismus in der frühen Neuzeit (Bremen 2008). 14 On the complexities of its history of publication and wide reception (imitations and translations), see Böning and Moepps 1996 (note 10), I: 75–78. 15 Happel quotes many of his sources, including learned journals such as the Journal des Sçavans and the Miscellanea curiosa medico-physica, in the prefaces to each volume.— Egenhoff 2008 (note 13), 38ff., provides a differentiated evaluation of the topics covered.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 293

1688 and 1690, was the first learned journal in the German language.16 28 monthly issues appeared at irregular intervals, addressed by no means only to the scholarly community but also to a wider “educated public”. Responsibility for publication was first ascribed to an alleged “Soci- ety of the Idle” [Gesellschafft derer Müssigen] and the fictitious editor “E.D.F.U.K.”; later the imprint listed Thomasius himself. Thomasius func- tioned as author and editor all in one until the issue of December, 1689. After stepping down, he was succeeded by his student Johann Jakob von Ryssel.17 For the first year of publication, Thomasius adapted a well- known format, that of creating a debate between fictitious persons who exchange opinions about their professed impressions of literature. This provided the opportunity to treat selected topics from multiple perspectives. Beginning in the second year, he switched—primarily for practical reasons—to a relatively simpler reporting style that was less demanding in literary terms, “as the previous journale des scavans published for several years now in Holland, France, and here in Leipzig have been accus- tomed to use.”18 This permanently changed the image of the journal: the continuous prose dialogues involving fictitious discussants were replaced by a collection of subdivided and enumerated individual texts for which Thomasius was personally responsible. Aside from critical and satirical contributions, which also included literary feuds with other scholars,

16 Title in January 1688: Schertz- und Ernsthaffter, Vernünfftiger und Einfältiger Gedancken/ über allerhand Lustige und nützliche Bücher und Fragen. Annual title, 1688: Freymüthige Lustige und Ernsthaffte iedoch Vernunfft- und Gesetz-mäßige Gedancken Oder Monats-Gespräche, über allerhand, fürnemlich aber Neue Bücher. On the history and char- acter of the journal, see Robert E. Prutz, Geschichte des deutschen Journalismus (reprint of Hannover 1845 edn., Göttingen 1971), 296–333; Georg Witkowski, Geschichte des litera rischen Lebens in Leipzig (reprint of Leipzig 1909 edn., München 1994), 203–219; Hanns Freydank, ‘Christian Thomasius der Journalist’, in Max Fleischmann (ed.), Christian Thom- asius: Leben und Lebenswerk (Halle 1931), 345–382; Thomas Woitkewitsch, ‘Thomasius’ “Monatsgespräche”. Eine Charakteristik’, Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 10 (1970), 655–678; Martin Gierl, Pietismus und Aufklärung (Göttingen 1997), 470–486; Herbert Jau- mann, ‘Bücher und Fragen. Zur Genrespezifik der Monatsgespräche’, in Friedrich Vollhardt (ed.), Christian Thomasius (Tübingen 1997), 395–404; Habel 2007 (note 1), 60–64 and 453f. 17 Ryssel attempted to continue Thomasius’ work in the same spirit from the end of 1689 but was forced to cease publication of the initially very successful journal as early as April of 1690.—The Monats-Gespräche was reprinted in full in the same year in Halle. A further issue was announced in the catalogue for the Easter Fair in 1699 but was apparently never published. See Catalogus universalis . . . Das ist Verzeichnuß aller Bücher, so zu [Franckfurt und Leipzig] des jetzigen 1699sten Jahres . . . gedruckt worden sind (Leipzig 1699), fol. [c4r]. Individual monthly issues were still being reprinted in 1706, for instance the issue of January 1689 (Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: M: Ac 370). 18 Monats-Gespräche, January 1689, ‘Vorrede’, 27.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 294 thomas habel discussions of selected new publications were the principal subject matter of the Monats-Gespräche. Thomasius was primarily interested in theological, juristic and philosophical works, but also in popular political- historical and edifying writings as well as belle-lettres. Instead of the mere dissemination of information, he offered a combination of argumentation and opinion [ Judicium]. This combination was the specific feature of his style of discussion, by which he attempted to fulfil the claim expressed in the annual titles of the Monats-Gespräche to be simultaneously “forth- right”, “humorous” and “serious”. The early original German journals presented here doubtless exhibit fundamental similarities based on external factors prescribed by the medium and their focus on scholarly information. As noted above, however, significant differences remain as well, concerning not only the selection of the news presented and the internal organisation of textual matter, but also the publication model chosen and the intended readership (see overview in table below). The scope of what was considered learned periodicals in the late sev- enteenth century was relatively broad. Nor did this change by the mid- eighteenth century, when a veritable flood of journals had arrived on the scene. When Johann Andreas Fabricius, himself the editor of such journals, attempted to define them in 1752, he remarked: Monthly publications, diaries, Ephemerides litterarias, journals, etc. . . . are publications which appear in installments and are particularly concerned with certain scholarly topics. They are of different genres and also have different names . . ., most contain reviews of books, . . . others relate certain occurrences and experiences . . . still others consist of treatises on particular scholarly matters.19 In his alphabetically arranged inventory of journals, Fabricius—in strict accordance with his own definition—listed all of the above-mentioned periodicals of the early period, from Nitzsch’s Latin translation of the Jour- nal des Sçavans to the German-language journals issued by Happel20 and Thomasius.

19 Johann Andreas Fabricius, Abriß einer allgemeinen Historie der Gelehrsamkeit (Leipzig 1752–1754), 3 vols., I: 665, 849.—The fifteenth “Hauptstück”, ‘Von Journalen’ (849–944), offers a detailed bibliographical summary in addition to an overview of the “genre”. 20 As the popular-scientific Relationes Curiosae apparently marked the outer limits of the learned journal, it was not listed as such in numerous contemporary bibliographies.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 295 Readership (Specialised) scholars Scholars Scholars Educated public/ scholars Scholars/ educated public Type of news Announcements, treatises, illustrations Reviews, treatises, news, illustrations News, reviews, 2 illustrations Contributions, illustrations Reviews, treatises, satire, disputes, illustrations Form Report Report Report Report Discussion Subject matter Medicine, natural sciences All fields (medicine, natural sciences) all fields (medicine, natural sciences, history) All fields All fields (theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, literature) Editor, authors 1 editor + diverse authors 1 editor + diverse authors 1 editor + group of authors 1 editor (= author) 1 editor (= author) Periodicity Monthly Weekly Every 2–3 days Monthly Annual publication Language of Latin Latin German German Latin Table 1. Early learned periodicals in Germany: similarities and differences publication Duration of 1682–1731 1686 1682–1691 1688–1690 1670–1706 Journal Acta eruditorum Ephemerides Litterariae Relationes curiosae Monats-Gespräche Miscellanea curiosa

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 296 thomas habel

Tentzel’s Early Contacts with “Learned Journalism”

The polymath Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659–1707), whose learned monthly publications lastingly enriched the German world of journals, came from a prominent Thuringian family of theologians. His biography is in many ways typical of the scholarly world of his time:21 after completing Latin school and a three-year course of studies in Wittenberg (philosophy, oriental languages, history and ecclesiastical history), he earned a Master’s degree in 1679. In 1682 he became an adjunct professor [Adjunkt] of the faculty of philosophy. Following the sudden death of his father in 1685, he had to give up this university career that had begun with promise. In 1686 he was called to the gymnasium at Gotha, which gave him a public position that offered security.22 On the basis of his general scholarship and his extraordinary knowledge of numismatics, he was made supervisor of the princely coin and medal cabinet at the Court of Gotha. After the death of the court historiographer Caspar Sagittarius, Tentzel became his successor in 1694. He subsequently left Gotha and moved to Dresden, where in 1702 he was named a Royal Polish and Electoral Saxon Councillor, archivist, and court historiographer.23 When he lost these court positions in the following year, he retired to private life.24

21 Contemporary sources on Tentzel’s life and writings: Adolphus Clarmundus [= Johann Christoph Rüdiger], Vita, & Scripta Clarissimi Viri Wilhelmi Ernesti Tentzelii, . . . = Das Leben/ und Schrifften Des sehr berühmten Mannes/ Wilhelm Ernst Tentzels/ . . . (Dresden and Leipzig 1708); Johann David Köhler, ‘Eine Gedächtnis-Müntze auf den hochberühm ten Chur-Sächsischen Rath und Geschicht-Schreiber Wilhelm Ernst Tentzeln, von A. 1700’, Münz-Belustigung 15 (1743), 97–102; Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste (Halle and Leipzig 1732–1754), 64 and 4 vols., XLII: 901–906. 22 On Tentzel’s positions in Gotha, see Tentzel in Saxonia Numismatica oder Medaillen- Cabinet . . . Albertinischer Haupt-Linie (Gotha et al. 1705), ‘Vorrede’, fol. b2v–c2v.—In the course of a scholarly dispute, Tentzel makes critical comments on the status of school- masters, remarking that it is a pity that they “have to spend time on the burdens of school work. Sed haec fata sunt eruditorum in Germania”. Monatliche Unterredungen, March 1689, 307. 23 Contemporary evidence can be found in Nova Literaria Germaniae 1 (1703, 3), 91: “Celeberrimus Wilhelmus Ernestus Tentzelius, antehac Historiographus Ducalis Saxonicus, & ab aliqous mensibus Potentiss. Poloniarum Regi & Sereniss. Saxonum Electori a Con- siliis et ab Archivo”. 24 Cautious remarks about his dismissal, which was never entirely clarified, can be found in Rüdiger/Clarmundus 1708 (note 21), fol. C2v. Köhler 1743 (note 21) is more pre- cise, stating that Tentzel lost his position, “when the Saxon Grand Chancellor, Count of Beichlingen, was deposed by his enemies, as he had attempted to make too much of the House of Beichlingen” (100). Köhler alludes here to Tentzel’s Typus Genealogiae

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 297

Tentzel’s correspondence with various journal editors in his own coun- try and abroad,25 his written references to the journals themselves, and the great number of books he was known to have26 testify to his enthu- siastic use of the new medium of learned journals. According to information in an exchange of letters with Otto Mencke, the founder of the Acta Eruditorum, Tentzel embarked on a journalistic career in 1685.27 His first review was published in Mencke’s Acta Eruditorum in January 1686, when Tentzel was 26 years of age. By 1703, this presentation of a significant work on ecclesiastical history was to be followed by at least 34 further reviews for Mencke’s journal—all without exception written anonymously.28 All reviews written by Tentzel—no less than eight of which were of his own publications29—were in fields for which he was qualified to review by virtue of his studies in Wittenberg or his professional responsibilities in Gotha: oriental and classical languages, ecclesiastical and medieval history, genealogy, regional history, geography, and natural history. A chronologically arranged catalogue of Tentzel’s reviews for the Acta Eruditorum,30 including the fields of their subject matter,31 appears below.

Beichlingicae Plenioris (Jena 1702). For the currently favoured “interpretation” of this affair, see Franz Xaver Wegele, Geschichte der deutschen Historiographie (München 1885), 724. 25 See Rüdiger/Clarmundus 1708 (note 21), fol. B3v–B4r. 26 Information at least about parts of Tentzel’s library can be found in three auction catalogues, the earliest and most interesting of which is the Catalogus librorum . . . omnium facultatum, manuscriptorumque viri clarissimi Wilhelmi Ernesti Tentzelii, Consiliarii, Histo- riographi Saxonici, & Polyhistoris (Weimar 1714). 27 See Laeven 1986 (note 7), 165. 28 In accordance with convention in learned journals, reviews in the Acta Erudito- rum were anonymous on principle. Nonetheless, relatively reliable determination of the authorship of articles can be made on the basis of hand-written names found in the editor’s personal copy. See details in Laeven 1986 (note 7), 113ff. and 267–328; Habel 2007 (note 1), 58f. 29 Self-reviews of one’s own work concerned with mere presentation of content were a regular feature of most learned journals. 30 Books marked with an asterisk * were additionally given far more extensive reviews by Tentzel in his Monatliche Unterredungen. 31 The index of the Acta Eruditorum distinguishes the following six fields and groups of fields: I. Theologica & ad Ecclesiasticam Historiam spectantia; II. Juridica; III. Medica & Physica; IV. Mathematica; V. Historica & Geographica; VI. Philosophica & Philologica Miscellanea.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 298 thomas habel

Table 2. Tentzel’s reviews for the Acta Eruditorum, 1686–1703 Year and Pages Author and work reviewed Field Month 1686/I 20–23 Mabillon, Johannes: De Liturgia Gallicana Libri III. Theology (Paris 1685). 1686/II 70–74 Le Moyne, Stephanus: Varia sacra seu sylloge Theology variorum opusculorum græcorum ad rem ecclesiasticam spectantium. T. 1 (Leiden 1685). 1686/III 145–148 Le Moyne, Stephanus: Varia sacra seu sylloge Theology (= 150) variorum opusculorum graecorum ad rem ecclesiasticam spectantium. T. 2 (Leiden 1685). 1686/IV 205–208 Hody, Humfredus: Contra Historiam Aristeae De Theology LXX Interpretibus Dissertatio (Oxford/London 1685). 1686/VII 336–337 Galanus, Clemens: Historia Armena, ecclesiastica et History and politica (Cologne 1686). Geography 1687/III 129–133 *Müller, Andreas: Speciminum Sinicorum (s.l. 1685). Philosophy and Philology 1687/III 135–142 Johannes Parisiensis O.P.: Determinatio de modo Theology Existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris (London 1686). 1687/VI 303–305 Harduin, Joannes: De baptismo quaestio triplex Theology (Paris 1687). 1687/VIII 445–455 Grotius, Hugo: Dissertatio de coenae Theology administratione, ubi pastores non sunt (London 1685). 1687/X 541–543 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Iudicia eruditorum de Theology symbolo Athanasiano (Frankfurt a.M./Leipzig/Gotha 1687). 1687/XII 668–670 Spanheim, Fridericus: Historia Imaginum Restituta, Theology Praecipuè Adversus Gallos Scriptores nuperos Lud. Maimburg et Nat. Alexandrum (Leiden 1686). 1688/II 74–76 Martyrologium Eccelisa Germanica pervetustum Theology quod per septigentos annos delituit in publicum (Augsburg 1687). 1688/III 125–128 Usserius, Jacobus: Opuscula duo, nunc primum Theology Latine edita, alterum de Episcoporum [et] Metropolitanorum Origine, alterum de Asia Proconsulari (London 1687). 1688/III 132–139 Simon, Richardus: Fides ecclesiae orientalis seu Theology (= 140) Gabrielis Metropolitae Philadelphiensis opuscula (Paris 1686). 1688/VI 334–335 Pfanner, Tobias: De catechumenis antiquae ecclesiae Theology liber (Frankfurt a.M./Leipzig/Gotha 1688). 1688/VIII 444–447 Larroque, Matthaeus [de]: Adversariorum sacrorum Theology libri tres opus posthumum (Leiden 1688). 1688/VIII 447–450 Aletophilus, Gothofredus: Die über Hundert Jahr Theology Ihren Widersachern unsichtbar gewesene, nunmehro aber . . . zerstreuete Evangelische Teffereckerthal- Kirche (Denckstatt [Leipzig?] 1688).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 299

Table 2 (cont.)

Year and Pages Author and work reviewed Field Month

1690/VI 291–295 *[Mabillon, Johannes]: Museum Italicum, seu Theology collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothecis Italicis. T. 2 (Paris 1689). 1691/VIII 361–374 *Ludolf, Hiob: Commentarius ad Suam Historiam History and Aethiopicam (Frankfurt a.M. 1691). Geography 1692/XI 539–542 *Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Exercitationes selectae Theology (Leipzig 1692). Suppl. I32 15–19 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Epistola ad Amicum, qua Theology 1692/1 Responsio ad Clarissimi Viri Emanuelis a Schelstrate (Gotha 1687). 1692/8 431–432 Antelmy, Josephus: De veris operibus SS. PP. Leonis Theology Magni et Prosperi Aquitani dissertationes criticae (Paris 1689). 1692/9 495–496 St. Joannes Chrysostomos: Epistola ad Caesarium Theology Monachum (Paris 1689). 1693/VI 280–284 *Ludolf, Hiob: Appendix ad Suam Historiam History and Aethiopicam illiusque Commentarium (Frankfurt Geography a.M. 1693). 1697/I 10–14 *Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Epistola de sceleto Medicine and elephantino Tonnae nuper effosso. Ed. secunda (Jena Physics 1696). 1700/IV 152–155 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Discours von Erfindung der History and löblichen Buch-Drucker-Kunst in Teutschland (Gotha Geography 1700). 1700/IV 155–158 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Der Sächsischen . . . Stamm- History and Mutter, Frauen Margarethen, Chur-Fürstin zu Geography Sachsen, gebohrener Ertz-Hertzogin zu Oesterreich warhafftiger Todes-Tag (Gotha 1700). 1700/IV 158–161 Sagittarius, Caspar: Historia Gothana Plenior Ex History and optimis quibusque editis Scriptoribus . . . Concinnata Geography (Jena 1700). 1700/VI 271–274 Grabe, Johannes Ernestus: Spicilegium SS. Patrum, Theology Ut et Haereticorum, Seculi post Christum natum I. II. and III (Oxford 1699). 1700/VI 274–284 Tollinus, Jacobus: Epistolae Itinerariae (Amsterdam History and 1700). Geography/ Philosophy and Philology

32 Actorum Eruditorum quae Lipsiae publicantur Supplementa (Leipzig 1692), vol. I.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 300 thomas habel

Table 2 (cont.)

Year and Pages Author and work reviewed Field Month

1700/VIII 380–381 Lloyd, Guilielmus: Series Chronologica, History and Olympiadum, Pythiadum, Isthmiadum, Nemeadum, Geography Quibus Veteres Graeci Tempora Sua Metiebantur (Oxford 1700). 1700/X 446–448 Ciampini, Joannes: Vetera monimenta, in quibus Philosophy praecipue musiva opera sacrarum, profanarumque and Philology aedium structura . . . illustrantur. T. 2 (Rome 1699). 1701/IV 162–164 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Supplementum Historiae History and Gothanae primum (Jena 1701). Geography/ Philosophy and Philology 1701/X 433–436 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst: Supplementum Historiae History and Gothanae secundum (Jena 1701). Geography 1703/VI 285–288 Rudbeck, Olav: Nora Samolad sive Laponia illustrata History and (Uppsala 1701). Geography

In addition to his review work for Mencke’s journal, Tentzel also made a name for himself as a contributor to the Observationes selectae ad rem litterariam spectantes (Halle: Renger), a professional journal published in Latin between 1700 and 1705 and edited by scholarly associates of Chris- tian Thomasius in Halle. Although these contributions also appeared anonymously, Tentzel’s contemporaries were aware of his authorship.33

Tentzel and His Monatliche Unterredungen

It was probably the success of another German-language periodical— the Monats-Gespräche, which first appeared in 1688—that provided the impulse for the founding of the Monatliche Unterredungen, edited by Tent- zel and first published in 1689. Inspired by the good reception of Thom- asius’ Monats-Gespräche published by Moritz Georg Weidmann, Johann Friedrich Gleditsch—who together with Johann Grosse had already printed and distributed in 1682 Mencke’s Acta Eruditorum—came up with the idea of a competitor journal.34 How the connection to Tentzel was

33 See Caspar Heinrich Starck, Ad V. Cl. Vincentii Placcii Theatrum Anonymorum epimet- ron . . . (Rostock and Leipzig 1716), 15, 17 and 19. 34 Contemporary observers of the market voiced this suspicion early on. An explicit and very critical statement on this competitive situation was made by Christian Thomasius in

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 301 established and how the business details were arranged is not clear. But from what we do know, it can be inferred that their partnership was highly complementary: on the one hand was the ambitious and business-savvy bookseller and publisher who had already gained positive experience with the new medium and how to market it; on the other hand was the young scholar and schoolmaster who not only offered outstanding credentials as a recognised polymath and contributor to Mencke’s Acta,35 but who also sought an opportunity to earn money and, above all, to attain renown as a scholar.36 Tentzel’s decision in early 1689 to establish his own German-language journal was a milestone in the development of journal publishing in German-speaking Europe. Managed, financed and marketed by different booksellers and publishers in Leipzig,37 the Monatliche Unterredungen was to be the first learned journal in the German language consistently devoted to almost all areas of scholarship on the model of the Journal des Sçavans in Paris. Tentzel’s journal, which was unmistakably inspired by Thomasius’ Monats-Gespräche not only with respect to its design and title38 but also in its openness to a broader readership,39 was an extraordinary success from the outset in both professional and financial terms. It was consequently able to maintain a strong position on the market. The facts speak for themselves: the Monatliche Unterredungen was published for more than a decade in a largely unaltered format.40 Twelve issues were

Weitere Erleuterung . . . wegen der neuen Wissenschafft/ Anderer Menschen Gemüther erken- nen zu lernen (Halle 1692): He reports that there were booksellers “who encouraged others to imitate my fashion of writing and to discuss new books in the German language and in the form of monthly conversations.” They sought people who, for the sake of successful sales, were “to attack” the Monats-Gespräche. But “no one here [wanted] to do this for a good while, until the Monatliche Unterredungen . . . saw the light of day in 1689” (2f.). 35 Tentzel was also a good choice in so far as he dealt somewhat effectively with a fundamental problem faced by all learned journals—the (cost-intensive) acquisition of books: He possessed a considerable library of his own and also had largely unrestricted access to the extensive princely court library in Gotha. See Rüdiger/Clarmundus 1708 (note 21), fol. [C4r], B3r–v. 36 It was quite common for young academics, often of little means, to seek both a liveli- hood and career opportunities through learned journals. 37 For further details, see notes 47–49. 38 A prolonged scholarly feud arose between Thomasius and Tentzel as a result, from which Tentzel sustained most of the damage. See Goetten 1718 (note 1), 62ff. 39 Tentzel again takes up this aspect, when he launches his second journal. Here he addresses expressis verbis “people from other professions, [in addition to] scholars”, who “might be served by my work”. Curieuse Bibliothec 1 (1704, 1), [2]. 40 With an initial print run of probably 500 copies, the price per copy, as communicated by the publisher Gleditsch to Leibniz on 16 April 1692, was 2 Groschen. See Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, series 1: Allgemeiner politischer und

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 302 thomas habel published annually with as much regularity as possible, each with a carefully crafted frontispiece,41 and complemented at the end of the year with a summary of the year in review and a three-part index for the entire volume.42 Cessation of publication in December 1698 was due partly to the publisher’s desire for a new concept but also to the circumstances of Tentzel’s personal life.43 Demand for the first monthly issues, which seem to have gone rapidly out of print, was so great that parallel editions were published immediately. As early as 1690 a corrected reprint of the entire first year of the journal appeared. The issues for this year and for later years as well were published—completely or in part—by different publishers and in different formats, both as parallel editions and as reprints. In addition, a Dutch translation of the first year of the journal appeared in 1703.44 It can thus be assumed that the Monatliche Unterredungen had an extraordinarily high circulation. It has been shown that reprints, at least of individual issues, were still produced as late as 1709 and 1710, more than a decade after publication had ceased.45 The unusually large distribution of Tentzel’s journal, even today, is evidence that it also found its way onto the acquisition lists of public and private libraries at an early point. Obviously, the Monatliche Unterredungen had not taken long to become an established “institution” in the scholarly world. It was not for nothing that Tentzel succeeded in launching

historischer Briefwechsel, ed. by Leibniz-Archiv der Niedersächsischen Landesbibliothek Hannover (Darmstadt and Berlin 1923ff.), vol. VIII, 226 (no. 125).—The following figures for the Acta Eruditorum, provided in Laeven 1986 (note 7), 245 and 108, can serve as a basis for comparison: Print run of approximately 800–1,000 copies, price per copy approximately 2–2 ½ Groschen. 41 Thomasius had already found through experience with his Monats-Gespräche that the contemporary reading public greatly valued appropriate illustrations and expected at least a frontispiece. At the end of the first year of publication, he stated expressly that his readers had regretted the lack of copperplate engravings. He had thus made an effort to “repair this defect re integra and supply a copperplate engraving for each month’s issue”. Introduction for 1688, ‘Erklärung des Kupfer-Titels’, fol. (o)(o)3v. 42 There was an index of books, one of authors, and one of subjects. 43 For details, see p. 310f. 44 Publication of this translation was arranged by Simon de Vries, a schoolmaster from Utrecht, under the title Kort begrijp en ’t voornaemste margh van allerley onlanghs uytgeko- mene boecken in verscheydene talen en gewesten van Europa; . . . Uytgekipt en vertaeld uyt de Maendlycke gespraecken over allerley boecken &c., van den seer geleerden en vermaerden Heer Tenzelius (Utrecht: van Poolsum, 1703). 45 A reprint of the December 1694 issue carried the following information on its imprint page: Frankfurt/Leipzig: Philipp Wilhelm Stock, 1710.—Stock was also the publisher of the sequel of the Monatliche Unterredungen that was discontinued in 1707/1708.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 303 the Curieuse Bibliothec, a successor journal modelled on the Monatliche Unterredungen, through a new publisher in 1703/04. And in 1708, after Tentzel’s death, the Ausführlicher Bericht von Allerhand Neuen Büchern represented yet another attempt to establish a successor journal.

The Monatliche Unterredungen: The Physiognomy of a Learned Journal

The “promotionally effective” title pages of the Monatliche Unterredun- gen, which carried the same information for the entire life of the journal, conveyed an initial and highly instructive impression of the content of Tentzel’s journal. Here potential readers and buyers could find not only information about the journal’s programme—through the wording of the title—and about those responsible for the journal’s production but also information about the frequency of publication, subject matter, and format. The title page of each issue was complemented by a one-page frontispiece—not only to stimulate interest among buyers but also to illustrate subject matter.46 The basic information conveyed by the title page and the frontispiece (see fig. 1) made the Monatliche Unterredungen recognisable as a learned journal typical of its time, with the following specific features:

1. Publisher/editor: The respective publishers—initially Johann Chris- tian Laurer47 from Thorn, probably just a prête-nom, and a little later Johann Friedrich Gleditsch48 from Leipzig and finally his stepson Thomas Fritsch49—were mentioned on the title pages for the entire duration of

46 On illustrations in learned journals, see Habel 2007 (note 1), 189–204. 47 Johann Christian Laurer, who settled as a foreign bookseller in Thorn from 1687, appeared on the title pages only for the first year of the journal’s publication. Although he appears as the sole publisher of the journal in the issue for January/February 1689, he asks readers to submit learned news to the bookseller Gleditsch in Leipzig. Witkowski 1909 (note 16), 220 suspected that Gleditsch sought a publisher colleague located in Prus- sia whose name could be put forward in the event of possible problems with the Saxon authorities. 48 Gleditsch’s name appeared on the cover from March 1689 alongside Laurer’s, since Tentzel’s Journal proved to be harmless from the point of view of censorship. From 1690 onwards Gleditsch openly came forward as the sole publisher. 49 Gleditsch turned over the old publishing business which he had acquired by mar- riage to his stepson Thomas Fritsch in 1694 and founded his own highly successful publishing business. See Adalbert Brauer, Weidmann 1680–1980 (Zürich 1980), 24. Accordingly, from January 1694 the name Fritsch appeared on the cover of the Monatliche Unterredun-

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 304 thomas habel

Fig. 1. Monatliche Unterredungen, Frontispiece (Scholarly discussion) and title page (fictitious editor “A.B.”). 2nd rev. edition of the first monthly issue (Jan. 1689). Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. the journal’s publication. Their influence should by no means be under- estimated. They not only financed the Monatliche Unterredungen but also intervened occasionally and with lasting consequences where the content and programme of the journal were concerned. And they were the ones who designated the editor as well as several additional associates. In contrast to the publisher, Tentzel, the editor and author, hid his identity during the first year of publication behind a changing pattern of initials running through the entire alphabet from “A.B.” to “Y.Z.”50 From the second year of publication onwards, he refrained from using any form of identification. As he himself asserted, these forms of conventionalised

gen, first together with that of Gleditsch, and then alone from May onwards. Remarkably, however, the parallel editions for the year 1689 already showed the publisher’s name as Thomas Fritsch! 50 Use of these initials provoked heavy contemporary criticism. See Juncker 1692 (note 1), 269.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 305 anonymity would protect him from having to justify himself and his journal (see January 1690, 4).51 Despite all attempts to hide his identity, however, his editorship and authorship quickly became known.52 Although Tentzel was undoubtedly the main author of the Monatliche Unterredungen, there is much evidence that additional authors were also called upon. For the year 1696, at least, Tentzel announced that he and a good friend would each produce six issues in monthly alternation (see April 1696, fol. [T1v]).53 For the final issue that appeared in 1698, Tentzel was replaced by another author.54 2. Periodicity and continuity: In order to keep readers and above all buyers loyal to the journal, those responsible for its publication made efforts to ensure that it appeared not only continually but also regularly. They were by and large successful in the case of the Monatliche Unterre- dungen. Eleven normal monthly issues appeared, followed by a Decem- ber issue with a summary of the year and indexes. With the exception of natural disasters that hindered contact between Gotha and Leipzig, delays in production of the journal were caused primarily by Tentzel’s own editorial problems and scheduling conflicts. In 1693 and 1694, when the Palati- nate War of Succession (1688–1697) took a heavy toll on the book market, the journal project almost came to an end. Following the intervention of “distinguished patrons and good friends” (January 1694, 3), Tentzel found a solution to the difficulties by presenting older books along with new ones and publishing two issues simultaneously over a certain period (see June 1694, 510). From 1696, owing first to the publisher’s desire to integrate topics from new areas (see below) and then to Tentzel being increasingly overworked, there was a noticeable lag in delivery of the journal that ultimately could not be made up and hence brought about the end of the Monatliche Unterredungen.55

51 On the issue of anonymity in learned journals, see Habel 2007 (note 1), 126–149. 52 See Juncker 1692 (note 1), 261f.—The polymath Johannes Reiske, who felt that he had been judged wrongly by the Monatliche Unterredungen, made Tentzel’s responsibility known as early as 1690. 53 The concept of alternating authorship led to delays in publication and ultimately failed in terms of both organisation and content. See Tentzel’s comments in the issue for December 1696, 939. His remarks about this in a letter to Leibniz dated 21 December 1696 are even more explicit; see Leibniz 1923ff. (note 40), vol. XIII, 421 (no. 273). 54 On the final issue of the Monatliche Unterredungen, see p. 310. 55 In a letter to Leibniz on 21 November 1696 Tentzel admitted to major problems with his impatient publisher owing to delays, and stated that he could not exclude the possi- bility that the Monatliche Unterredungen might have to cease publication in the course of that year. See Leibniz 1923ff. (note 40), vol. XIII, 359 (no. 239).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 306 thomas habel

3. Programme and subject matter: The subtitle Von Allerhand Büchern und andern annemlichen Geschichten [On all types of books and other agreeable matters] says little of a concrete nature about the actual content of the journal.56 This was intentional; the afterword to the first issue stated that a programmatic preface defining the content of the issue was purposely omitted so that “the reader would likely be motivated to read the book for himself ” (January 1689, 154). In accordance with Tentzel’s polyhistoric self-image, the Monatliche Unterredungen was to offer the widest possible range of contributions for—as emphasised in the subtitle—“all connoisseurs of curiosities” (i.e. interesting news). Tentzel gave preference to fields to which he himself had the best access. In the preface to the journal for 1693, he made no secret of the fact that he would concern himself “for the most part [with] those books and subjects that dealt with ecclesiastical, civil, natural and literary history” (January 1693, 2). In addition, there was also a place for the numismatic and paleonto- logical subjects, which are still linked with Tentzel’s name today. After Thomas Fritsch had succeeded his stepfather Gleditsch as publisher in 1694, he attempted to expand the scope of the Monatliche Unterredun- gen. Beginning with the year 1696, he intended to include novels as well as permanent sections devoted to jurisprudence, mathematics, medicine, and the military science.57 This experiment began with the January issue but lasted for only a year, after which the journal reverted to Tentzel’s original concept. 4. Types of news and text: Even though Tentzel composed his learned contributions in the form of casual conversations (see below), the fictitious discussions nevertheless contained de facto very different types of news. Tentzel’s journal included different types of text typical of early learned journals; they were distinguished in terms of content, layout and typography. In concrete terms, the Monatliche Unterredungen contained the following types of text:

56 The invitation contained in the publisher’s message to readers to “make known their own assessments of books and other noteworthy observationes from the realm of curiosities” (January 1689, [2]) was likewise unspecific in terms of content. 57 The projected expansion of scope was taken up in an introductory discussion at the beginning of the year (see January 1696, 3f.). The reason for also including novels was rooted in the interests of the publisher: As Fritsch had lost many authors of scientific writings from the old publishing house to Gleditsch, the authors of novels, who had largely remained with Fritsch, were to be brought to public attention through reviews.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 307

Type of news (discussion format except for prefaces and indices) • Preface (occasionally with editorial announcements) • Presentation of new (sometimes old) books (occasionally with illustrations) – Book reviews – Excerpts, summaries – (critical) reviews – Book announcements – Information about new publications – Announcements of own publications – Announcements of prohibition of publications • Other learned news (occasionally with illustrations) – from/about institutions – from/about people – from/about scientific innovations – from/about projects – from/about libraries, art collections, cabinets of curiosities • Treatises, essays • Opinions, counter-criticism – reactions, critical responses – (second) reviews • Retrospect, review of the year • Index

In addition to its primary focus on books, the Monatliche Unterredungen featured learned news and critical responses. The presentation of new (and sometimes older) works took the form of either excerpts and summaries of content or critical debates of varying length. Other news from the scholarly world appeared in the form of brief announcements and reports, but more comprehensive contributions and prints of manuscripts, bibliographies, library catalogues and scholarly correspondence were common as well. Critical exchanges consisted of both readers’ opinions and the journal’s responses. By announcing that the focus of the Monatliche Unterredungen was on “discussions of as well as frequent impartial debates on new books” (Janu- ary 1689), Tentzel described his journal’s approach quite accurately. The journal communicated and discussed a broad range of scholarly news. 5. Discussion format: The discussion format indicated by the title of the Monatliche Unterredungen, which was deliberately modelled on Thomasius’ Monats-Gespräche, was part of a literary tradition with which contemporaries were very familiar. Tentzel’s brief introductory statement could therefore hardly have missed its aim and—as reflected in the

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 308 thomas habel frontispiece of the first issue—is likely to have engaged readers in the fiction of a discussion from the outset: In a renowned city in Germany, two good friends [Mssrs. Leonhard and Antoni] who were men of great curiosity in the current fashion and who enjoyed discussing new developments and new books [decided to meet once each month and] to make their discussions available to others in print (January 1689, 3). Tentzel knew how to perfect the fiction of these ongoing discussions by continually introducing new interlocutors: scholars from all four faculties, travellers and incidental guests, even a “gentlewoman” who presented novels. The discussion format did more than just respond to a contemporary fashion; it also offered various concrete advantages:58 first was the aspect of entertainment,59 as indicated by the catchword “pleasure” [Ergetzlichkeit] on the title page, with reference to the reader. Tentzel left no doubt about this intentional connection: as stated in an early preface, he purposely made disorganisation—i.e. the associative give-and-take of “familiar discussions”—an element of style, which took into account “not only the reader’s contemplation but also his pleasure” (January 1690, fol. A3v). Second, this format made it possible to juxtapose arguments and assessments from multiple perspectives so that opposing positions could be harmonised, at least in a pro forma fashion.60 Third, it provided important protection against unpleasant criticism. As Tentzel maintained:

58 As early as the issue of February 1688 of his Monats-Gespräche, Thomasius was already entertaining interesting programmatic thoughts about modes of presentation: Because with every book “some reasonable and some simple and foolish judicia” will be made (244), “it would not be inadvisable if one were to touch on both the simple as well as the reasonable judicia in the German journal; and in order for this to pass off well, it would suit such a journal to be presented in the form of a conversation” (244f.). For in the resulting give-and-take of opinions the authors under review “would seldom be able to touch the journalist . . ., if he had not made any clear determinations . . . People who are impartial and judicious [would] undoubtedly see in which direction the journalist had reflected most, whereas those who are partial would each find something that they could take a hold of as if the journalist were on their side” (245f.). 59 Tentzel repeatedly justified his intention to provide entertainment, for example in a review of Fabricius’ Scriptorum recentiorum Decas (Hamburg 1688): “Now every person is bound to seek the best for his neighbour. If he wishes to do so in a beneficial and fruitful way, he must appeal to people’s humour; one can usually achieve more with piquant words and a laugh than with the greatest Catonian gravity” (February 1689, 201). 60 This procedure served to defuse the criticism that a reviewer set himself up as a judge of others in the Republic of Letters, where all scholars were to be considered equal. See Thomasius (note 58), 245.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 309

“If I fashioned the discussions in my own head, they would turn out quite differently than they do” (January 1690, fol. A3v). In 1692 and 1694 Tentzel considered giving up the time-consuming and labour-intensive discussion format in favour of reviews and news in the usual style of reporting. With the exception of a single issue,61 however, he retained the established format—in the end undoubtedly for marketing reasons: on the one hand, because “what judicious people have enjoyed for three years . . . should not [now] displease them” (January 1692, 2) and, on the other hand, because it did not seem advisable to change “the title of the Unterredungen now that it had been sent out into the world and become known” (March 1694, 151). 6. Sine censura & approbatione: The additional notice reading Sine censura & approbatione auctoris, which was printed beneath the month in each issue, had nothing to do with official censorship but was directly linked with the choice of the discussion format. It adopted the fiction that the editor—as in a normal discussion—allowed each participant to express his unvarnished opinion and was thus not responsible for individual judgements.62 Various critics took offence at this apparent precau- tionary measure.63 Tentzel retained this notice until the end of 1693, after which it was eliminated without comment. 7. Frontispieces/illustrations: The copperplate engravings contained in the monthly issues—normally in the frontispiece at the beginning, and in 1693 as illustrations in the text—served primarily to illustrate the main topics addressed in the journal.64 In addition to the originally predominant purpose of entertainment,65 Tentzel increasingly exhibited the scientifically based intention to clarify and document subject matter. In doing so he was visibly striving to establish a comprehensible relationship between

61 The whole issue for July of 1695 was devoted to Tentzel’s description of coins; it offered a “Brandenburgian Numismata . . . instead of a monthly discussion” (July 1965, 529). 62 At the start of the second year, Tentzel remarks in the preface: My intention “in printing the words Sine Censura & approbatione Auctoris each month is to give the scholarly world sufficient notice that as the matters treated here and the censure given are arranged not so much by my own judgement and inclination as by that of others, they must be assessed and understood accordingly” (January 1690, 5). 63 See Juncker 1692 (note 1), 261f.—Tentzel still justified “the protestation made on the title page which many have mocked, sine censura & approbatione auctoris” 15 years later when he launched the Curieuse Bibliothec (1 [1704, 1], Preface, fol.) (r). 64 Tentzel is very clear regarding this purpose of illustration: “Just as we present a thing to our minds through imagination or fancy, we can also well present it to our eyes by means of a painting or a copper engraving” (December 1689, ‘Anhang’, 1250). 65 Tentzel speaks of copper engravings showing “mostly amusing affairs”. Ibid.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 310 thomas habel text and illustrations. When copper engravings were made according to Tentzel’s specifications, they were referred to in the accompanying text. When copper engravings from other sources were re-cut, an additional notice about their origin and content was included. In specific cases Tent- zel drew upon available illustrations but had some parts of them changed in order to make his position clear.66 Tentzel’s procedure can be illustrated by a concrete example. In his presentation of Christian Franz Paullini’s Zeit-kürtzende Erbauliche Lust (Frankfurt/M. 1697), part 3, the discussion turns to the spectacular concepts of aeronautics and to Philippus Lohmeier’s disputation on the subject.67 As Tentzel remarks, Lohmeier has demonstrated “that a wooden ship could actually lift off from the earth and ascend into the air with people on board, go far above the highest mountains and towers, [and] sail back and forth to far-off lands”. Anyone wishing to see such an air- ship need only consult “Happelii Relationes curiosas Part. IV. p. 309.” The reader “will hopefully not disagree if we borrow it from there for the current month’s copperplate engraving” (September 1697, 766). This was precisely what Tentzel did for the frontispiece of the September issue, which showed a laterally reversed partial re-cut of the above-mentioned copperplate engraving from Happel’s journal (see fig. 2).

The End of the Monatliche Unterredungen and the Founding of the Curieuse Bibliothec

Without offering any explanation to its readers, the Monatliche Unterre- dungen ceased publication at the end of 1698. The last issue appeared without a frontispiece and was noticeably different in style and quality from the journal that had preceded it and which had earned considerable plaudits. While the new author installed by the publisher to replace Tentzel68 was unsuccessful in continuing the Monatliche Unterredungen,

66 Active intervention in the contents and design of illustrations is clearly pointed out in the text. For example: “we thus want to make the drawing and have it placed with the engraving at the head of our Month as the first and principal figure” (April 1696, 303). 67 Philippus Lohmeier, Exercitatio Physica De Artificio Navigandi Per Aerem (Rinteln 1676, reprint Wittenberg 1679). 68 Relations between Fritsch, the pestering publisher, and Tentzel, the overburdened editor, had been tense since the imposed and unsuccessful change of concept in 1696. Owing to his professional and scientific commitments, Tentzel was not in a position to make the major effort necessary to return the journal to its previous successful course. Tentzel himself was vague about his “resignation”. In a letter of 21 November 1698, he

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 311

Fig. 2. Illustrations of aeronautics: – Left: Relationes Curiosae (part IV [1689], num. 39, p. 309) – Right: Monatliche Unterredungen (Sept. 1697, Frontispiece). Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen.

Tentzel decided immediately to start a sequel to his journal.69 But he was unable to find a publisher, even though he intended to renounce the con- versational style in favour of a more modern method of presentation. Only in 1703, after the loss of his remunerative position as an archivist at the court in Dresden, did Tentzel again attempt to launch a learned journal. In the same year after his forced retirement to private life, Tentzel set about founding a new journal together with the publisher Philipp

wrote the following ominous sentence: “It is known what fatalities have befallen the Mona thl. Unterredung”; printed in Friedrich Rudolphi, Gotha Diplomatica, Oder Ausführliche His- torische Beschreibung . . ., ed. by Hans Basilius von Gleichenstein (Frankfurt and Leipzig 1717), vol. I, ‘Vorrede’, 4. In the first preface to the Curieuse Bibliothec he later wrote that the Monatliche Unterredungen had had “greater applausum” than expected, but that he had nonetheless had “strong and important reasons to cease publication after ten years” (1 [1704, 1], fol.) (v). 69 In a letter of 2 July 1699 Tentzel informed Leibniz that he could issue a new journal beginning in 1700, provided that a competent publisher could be found; see Leibniz 1923ff. (note 40), vol. XVII, 323 (no. 205).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 312 thomas habel

Fig. 3. Curieuse Bibliothec, oder Fortsetzung der Monatlichen Unterredungen Frontispiece (The Old-Saxon pagan god Krodo) and title page (no date). Last issue published under Tentzel’s name (3rd repository, 9th section [1706]). Niedersächsische Staats- and Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen.

Wilhelm Stock from Frankfurt, who was seeking to establish himself in Leipzig. Known as the Curieuse Bibliothec, the journal came on the market in 1704,70 publishing twelve issues annually according to the editor’s preface. Tentzel was responsible for it until September 1706: under his own name and full title as court historiographer (see fig. 3). Regular publication became increasingly difficult, however, owing to his rapidly failing health. A new editor—Johann Gottlieb Krause, who had begun studies in Leipzig in 1705—was thus given responsibility for the journal beginning with the October issue. Krause, who later produced such distinguished journals as the Neuer Bücher-Saal der Gelehrten Welt (Leipzig: Gleditsch and Weidmann, 1710–1717) and the Neue Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen (Leipzig: Grosse and Georgi, 1715–1784) very successfully, compiled three monthly issues which could at best be characterised as an emergency

70 Despite the fact that they are dated differently on the title pages, the first two monthly issues already appeared in November 1703; see Nova literaria Germaniae, Febru- ary 1704, 58.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 313 solution before the publisher discontinued publication of the Curieuse Bibliothec. The deliberately chosen subtitle “oder Fortsetzung der Monatlichen Unterredungen” [or continuation of the Monthly Conversations] made clear that Tentzel sought to draw directly on the success of his original learned journal.71 Hence there was no need to develop a fundamentally new concept; the public, who sought a replacement for the earlier journal, could be presented with a format that was largely identical. Thus in his introductory preface describing the content of the Curieuse Bibliothec, Tentzel wrote that the journal would offer “reviews of old and new books of all sorts, especially those dealing with religious and worldly history as well as literary and natural topics.” He added that he would also include other texts to the extent that they were “either curieux and useful or written by famous auctores” (1 [1704, 1], fol. [(2r–v)]). Moreover, there was to be a wide variety of other learned news, so that readers could find the same types of text as had been offered by the Monatliche Unterredungen. Tentzel did, however, make one major change according to plans already laid in 1699: instead of the labour-intensive discussion format he adopted the “modern” format of articles written in the style of critical reports. The public—as Tentzel wrote with some self-confidence—would now question the assessments of the author himself and “accept or reject them as they pleased” (ibid., fol. [(2r)]). The Curieuse Bibliothec never enjoyed the same renown as the Monatli- che Unterredungen.72 In the years after the loss of his official positions, Tentzel lacked the financial and other resources necessary to achieve such recognition for his new journal. In response to a criticism in this regard,73 he wrote in a review that in Dresden he received neither sufficient new and good books nor did he have a library such as that in Gotha at his dis- posal (see 3 [1706, 5], 191f.). Nonetheless, his second journal, which faced no significant contemporary competition, was successful enough for the

71 It is also symptomatic that the first issue of the Curieuse Bibliothec contains the words “Monatliche” and “Unterredungen” as column titles, as if this was still the predeces- sor journal. Moreover, it should be noted at this point that Tentzel himself continued to speak of his “Monate”. 72 For Johann Georg Eckhart, who had himself edited a widely appreciated learned journal known as the Monatlicher Auszug (Hannover: Förster, 1700–1702), already the first issue was considerably less informative than the Monatliche Unterredungen; see Leibniz 1923ff. (note 40), vol. XXII, 103 (no. 74). 73 Burkhard Gotthelf Struve, Introductio ad notitiam rei litterariae (second edn. Jena 1706, third edn. 1710), 284f.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 314 thomas habel publisher to bring out a successor, known as the Ausführlicher Bericht von Allerhand Neuen Büchern, immediately after the Curieuse Bibliothec ceased publication. With the once again purposely formulated subtitle “zu Fortsetzung der Monatlichen Unterredungen . . . und Curieusen Bibliothec”, the new journal—which Stock continued to market until 1710—as a matter of course invoked its well-known predecessors that had been founded by Tentzel.

The Exceptional Nature and Reputation of Tentzel’s Journals

Tentzel’s journals, which maintained their position on the book market until their author’s death, not only enjoyed unusual circulation for their time but also earned a notable reputation as a scholarly “news network”. They were a fixed frame of reference in the contemporary knowledge dis- course whose sources and evidence were beyond question. This earned them a particularly noteworthy position among early German-language journals, strongly confirmed by their widespread reception over several decades. Tentzel—undoubtedly in consultation with his publishers— developed a model for disseminating knowledge through journals that matched precisely the demands and expectations of a specific readership. His success was based on the idea of not only adopting established pat- terns and conventions but also combining them and varying them when necessary. Using various components as examples, his method can be out- lined as follows:

1. With his Monatliche Unterredungen Tentzel produced the first critical journal in the German language that was very consciously committed to the broadly polyhistoric concept of the Journal des Sçavans. He thus adopted the conventionalised standards and particularly the critical concept of this still new medium, thereby appropriating the following norms of presentation and critical assessment: evaluation only of subject matter and not of individuals; objectivity; competence; thoroughness; straightfor- wardness in dealing with subject matter; and moderation in tone.74 Like Thomasius, Tentzel by no means shrank from passing judgment. On the contrary, he expressed “public censure [criticism] of new books” (January 1690, ‘Vorrede’, 4) which was nonetheless “not contradicendi studio but

74 Comments on these features can be found above all in the programmatic prefaces (see, e.g., January 1690, 3–6) and in disputes with critics.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 315 ex amore veritatis” (December 1690, ‘Anhang’, 1136). He strove to express criticism that was not too harsh, but did not shy away from it when—in the interest of serving the truth—an inferior author deserved no better (see January 1696, 60). 2. His comprehensive knowledge of the journal market allowed Tentzel to combine different existing concepts—from Mencke’s Acta Eruditorum to Happel’s Relationes Curiosae—for a larger target public. By no means did this represent a retreat from the standards of university scholarship, however. Thus decidedly specialised texts, frequently containing extensive original quotations in foreign languages, were common. However— and here is where the element of popularisation came in—these texts were accompanied not only by explanations and additional anecdotes but also by translations or brief paraphrases of content when necessary. The subjects Tentzel dealt with thus remained in the realm of scholarship75 but were treated in a way that made them easier to comprehend.76 The principle of selective, focused presentation and discussion77 that Tentzel repeatedly emphasised was also part of this format. He did not commit himself to addressing the overall context but focused on those items that were of “curiosity” (i.e. interesting novelties). 3. Tentzel’s choice of subject matter shows that he was interested not only in current issues but also in new methods committed to empiricism.78 Thus in addition to conventional themes he also showed a preference for findings from the fields of numismatics, palaeontology, geography, ethnology and the experimental natural sciences. These priority areas, which underscored Tentzel’s “modernity”, were supported by illustrations that were both appealing to the public and scientifically reliable. 4. Tentzel did not adopt a simple format of review following review, treatise following treatise and news following news, but arranged material according to subject areas or topical groups.79 There was more to it than

75 This becomes unmistakably clear when Tentzel declares scholarly correspondence with experts as a conditio sine qua non not only for true scholarship but, naturally, for his journal as well. 76 The above-mentioned aspect of carefully calculated entertainment belongs in this context as well; see above and note 59. 77 The purpose of the discussion group, according to Tentzel, is to “actually examine [a particular work] and, where we find it appropriate, to take up this or that question or issue and give an opinion on it, and occasionally debate the pros & cons” (June 1689, 675). 78 In assessing travel accounts, for instance, Tentzel resorts to “a new mode of description . . . as demanded by the Royal Society in England and all other curious and learned people” (January 1690, 66). 79 Happel’s Relationes Curiosae and the first year of Thomasius’ Monats-Gespräche fol- low a similar procedure.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access 316 thomas habel merely arranging things together, however; he included complementary information from additional sources too, skilfully using associative techniques.80 This procedure of enhancing the material offered his readers both an overview and details. In the process, Tentzel also made use of the method of selection previously mentioned: only those aspects of a subject were taken up that were of interest in the context under consid- eration and thematically appropriate. 5. The decision to make critical assessments [ Judicium] of new works led—as Tentzel was fully aware—less to appreciation and recognition than to dispute and enmity. But in the final analysis the scholarly feuds81 arising from the interplay of criticism and counter-criticism made no small contribution to the journal’s sales.82 In this regard Tentzel’s journals did not try to avoid controversial subjects but were instead dedicated to them with the intensity and duration deemed adequate.83 6. Finally, Tentzel and his publishers strove to be as up-to-date as possible. This meant not only reviewing new books as quickly as possible but also disseminating contemporary scholarly news and printing correspondence as soon as it was received. That the presentation of current news was seen as a guarantor of success can be deduced from a myriad of purposely interspersed textual information that underscored the immediacy of a report and the timeliness of an article.84

Despite the exceptional position that Tentzel’s journals occupied in their time, they became increasingly less visible in the course of the eighteenth century. Their place was taken by contemporary learned journals that met the greater need for information in their own day and made Tentzel’s journals appear to be diffusely associative and “outdated” by comparison. In the field of Historia Litteraria (scientific publications), however, the

80 Although the discussion format in the Monatliche Unterredungen provided especially favourable conditions for this, it was not imperative, as Tentzel showed in the Curieuse Bibliothec. 81 On the techniques and methods of disputes in learned journals, see Habel 2007 (note 1), 250–295. 82 This connection was forthrightly addressed by Thomasius in 1692 (note 34), 3. 83 See, for instance, Tentzel’s comment: “the freedom we take to pass judgment on others we must also grant to others . . . I say, for the most part. For I believe that there is no evil in replying more than once to one’s opponent, above all if he criticises more things than previously” (December 1690, ‘Anhang’, 1137). 84 This can be illustrated by a concrete example: Concerning a spectacular finding of bones “a report is given by an arriving passenger who actually saw those huge bones which were recently excavated at the town of Tonna” (April 1696, 297).

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access wilhelm ernst tentzel as a precursor of learned journalism 317

Monatliche Unterredungen and the Curieuse Bibliothec remained authori- tative sources that were regularly consulted and quoted until the end of the Enlightenment. Tentzel’s achievement was eclipsed only by rather negative and historically unbalanced assessments in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.85 Tentzel’s contemporaries did not fail to acknowledge him or to recogn- ise the pioneering role he played in the world of learned journals, despite some reservations about particulars. “Tentzel, by virtue of his curieuse journals, has become so well known to scholars that they are not likely to forget him,”86 wrote one author of an anonymous journal article. He continued, “Now this is particularly true of the journal first published under the title Monatl. Unterredungen etc. and continued thereafter under the slightly altered name Curieuse Bibliothec oder Fortsetzung der Monatli- chen Unterredungen etc.”87 Although this contemporary praise may seem somewhat ardent, it can be said still from our today’s perspective that Tentzel recognised the possibilities of the new medium of the learned journal more readily, expanded them more energetically, and exploited them more skilfully than most of his direct competitors. Through his journals, which were groundbreaking in their day, Tentzel had a lasting influence and left an enduring mark on both scholarly and popular scientific communication in his time.

85 See especially Prutz 1845 (note 16), 344–347 and Joachim Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen (Leipzig 1942), vol. 1, 38f. 86 This quotation is repeated verbatim in Zedler 1732–1754 (note 21), XLII: 903. 87 Anonymous, ‘Was halten die Gelehrten von Wilhelm Ernst Tentzels Curieuser Bib- liothec?’, Der Unpartheyische Bibliothecarius (1713, 8), 712–717: 715.

Thomas Habel - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 08:22:17AM via free access