BETWEEN STATUS ATTAINMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DIALOGUE: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE LEOPOLDINA IN 1750 Marion Mücke “In an especially noble gesture, you, honoured Sir, have chosen to raise a lowly and deflated soul from the dust of contempt, revive it with a new spark, and encourage it to promote the useful and pleasurable sciences.”1 In these words written in 1750, along with many more, as was custom- ary at that time, Johann Ambrosius Beurer (1716–1754), an apothecary from Nuremberg, expressed his thanks to Andreas Elias Büchner (1701– 1769), the current president of the Leopoldina, for his admission into the illustrious circle of this German academy of natural scientists. The striking metaphor concerning the “dust of contempt” from which the apothecary was lifted by his admission into the academy raises questions about the significance of membership in the Leopoldina in the middle of the eigh- teenth century. Starting with this particular case, we shall examine below different processes of acceptance into this academy, with a view to the motives and interests of both the applicants and the representatives of the academy. An introductory outline of the founding and aims of the academy will facilitate understanding of this endeavour. Founding of the Leopoldina in Schweinfurt and Initial Difficulties By the time of Beurer’s admission in 1750, the German Academy of Natural Scientists had indeed already achieved the status of a renowned establish- ment rich in tradition, whose president was then just beginning to make plans for festivities to celebrate its 100th anniversary. The Leopoldina was 1 Johann Ambrosius Beurer to Andreas Elias Büchner, Nuremberg, 19 December 1750 (Leopoldina Archives, MNr. 566), in Marion Mücke and Thomas Schnalke, Briefnetz Leopoldina. Die Korrespondenz der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher um 1750 (Berlin 2009), 227, lines 135–138. The present paper is based on work done in relation to editing an exchange of letters between the sixth president of the Leopoldina, Andreas Elias Büchner (1736–1769), and the then Director Ephemeridum, Christoph Jacob Trew (1743–1769): ibid. I also wish to express particularly warm thanks to Heinrich Bosse, the chair of my confer- ence session, for his valuable suggestions and encouragement. © MARION MÜCKE, 2013 | doi:10.1163/9789004243910_008 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Marion Mücke - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:28:32PM via free access 174 marion mücke founded as the Academia naturae curiosorum in 1652, only a few years after the end of the Thirty Years War, by four physicians in the Franconian free imperial city of Schweinfurt. It is thus the oldest of the academies in the German-speaking world focusing on natural science and medi- cal science still in existence today.2 Its founding took place at a time of multi-faceted considerations about how to organise scholarly exchange of ideas and knowledge generation outside of universities. Similar proj- ects were implemented in several European centres with the support of politically influential persons.3 But by contrast with the Royal Society in London, which was granted a royal charter in 1662, and the Académie des Sciences in Paris, founded in 1666 under the guiding influence of the French minister of finance Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683), the Leopol­ dina arose not in the intellectual, economic, or political centre of a highly centralised monarchy but apart from the major German residential and university towns in the free imperial city of Schweinfurt.4 Also of little renown are the founding fathers of the Academia naturae curiosorum, the local city physician Johann Laurentius Bausch (1605–1665) and the physicians Johann Michael Fehr (1610–1688), Georg Balthasar Wolfahrth (1607–1674) and Georg Balthasar Metzger (1623–1687), who also practiced in Schweinfurt. At a ceremonial gathering on 1 January 1652, these indi- viduals elected Johann Laurentius Bausch as the first president of their association. Fehr and Metzger were installed at his side as adjuncts. These founding fathers of the Leopoldina looked to the Italian academies of the 2 On the early history of the Academia naturae curiosorum, see especially Mason Barnett, Medical Authority and Princely Patronage: The Academia naturae curiosorum, 1652–1693 (Chapel Hill 1995); id., ‘Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Reformen in der frühen Academia naturae curiosorum’, in Detlef Döring and Kurt Nowak (eds.), Gelehrte Gesellschaften im mitteldeutschen Raum, 1650–1820 (Stuttgart and Leipzig 2002), 2 vols., I: 47–72; Uwe Müller, ‘Die Leopoldina unter den Präsidenten Bausch, Fehr und Volckamer (1652–1693)’, in Benno Parthier and Dietrich von Engelhardt (eds.), 350 Jahre Leopoldina—Anspruch und Wirk­ lichkeit. Festschrift der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, 1652–2002 (Halle 2002), 45–93; id., ‘Johann Laurentius Bausch und Philipp Sachs von Lewenhaimb. Von der Gründung der Academia Naturae Curiosorum zur Reichsakademie’, in Richard Toellner et al. (eds.), Die Gründung der Leopoldina—Academia Naturae Curiosorum—im histo­ rischen Kontext. Leopoldina­Symposion vom 29. September bis 1. Oktober 2005 in Schweinfurt (Stuttgart 2008), 13–41; and Richard Toellner, ‘Im Hain des Akademos auf die Natur wißbe- gierig sein: Vier Ärzte der Freien Reichsstadt Schweinfurt gründen die Academia Naturae Curiosorum’, in Parthier and von Engelhardt 2002 (note 2), 15–43. 3 On the academy movement of the seventeenth century, see Gerhard Kanthak, Der Akademiegedanke zwischen utopischem Entwurf und barocker Projektemacherei, zur Geistes­ geschichte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1987). 4 See Uwe Müller, ‘Der Reichsstadtgedanke in Mainfranken’, Frankenland: Zeitschrift für fränkische Landeskunde und Kulturpflege 40 (1988), 226–236. Marion Mücke - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:28:32PM via free access between status attainment and professional dialogue 175 sixteenth century as institutional models. Their own scholarly self-image was derived from the idea of Renaissance Humanism; they defined them- selves as Naturae Curiosi—those who thirst for knowledge of natural history5 and aspire to dedicate themselves to research of nature in a spirit of collegial cooperation. Study and knowledge of the relationships found in Nature seemed nec- essary to the founders of the Academy in order to “enlighten and spread the practice of medicine to the benefit and advantage of our fellow human beings”, as Johann Laurentius Bausch put it in an appeal to exter- nal physicians to join in the work of the Academy.6 The founding fathers formulated their concept of what the Academy should be in the Leges, the earliest, handwritten version of which dates from 1652.7 Membership was to be composed exclusively of medical doctors. The president of the Academy was to assign each member a topic concerned with plants, min- erals, or animals for scientific research on a semi-annual basis. On the 1st of January and the 1st of July of each year a research paper on this topic was to be returned to the president. The Academy’s founders aimed to produce a series of monographs that would contain all existing knowledge about contemporary remedies.8 This goal proved to be overly ambitious, however, as the amount of work involved in compiling such an “encyclo- pedia” of medicines exceeded the capacities of the Academy members, who as a rule worked primarily as practicing physicians. By the time of Bausch’s death in 1665 only three works had been published as part of the Academy’s programme.9 Moreover, in light of the small total membership of only 29 individuals who had joined the Academy since its founding, the overall development of this learned society could not be considered 5 See Toellner 2002 (note 2), 25–35; Laetitia Böhm, ‘Akademie-Idee und Curiositas als akademisches Leitmotiv der früh-modernen Leopoldina’, in Toellner et al. 2008 (note 2), 63–114: 97–98. 6 See Johann Laurentius Bausch, Epistola invitatoria (hand-written version of 1652, University Library of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Korr. J.L. Bausch, no. 2), quoted in German translation in Müller 2002 (note 2), 50. 7 See Leges (1652) in 14 paragraphs, ibid., 50–51. 8 See Wieland Berg, ‘Die frühen Schriften der Leopoldina—Spiegel zeitgenössischer “Medizin und ihrer Anverwandten” ’, in Uwe Müller (ed.), Salve Academicum. Festschrift der Stadt Schweinfurt anläßlich des 300. Jahrestages der Privilegierung der Deutschen Aka­ demie der Naturforscher Leopoldina durch Kaiser Leopold I. vom 7. August 1687 (Schweinfurt 1987), 15–23: 16. 9 See Wieland Berg and Jochen Thamm, ‘Die systematische Erfassung der Naturgegen- stände. Zum Programm der Academia Naturae Curiosorum von 1652 und seiner Vorge- schichte’, in Toellner et al. 2008 (note 2), 285–304: 295. Marion Mücke - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 12:28:32PM via free access 176 marion mücke satisfactory at that point. As reasons for this stagnation10 contemporaries cited in particular the great amount of work required of members to per- form the tasks expected of them and produce comprehensive monographs in addition to their professional responsibilities. However, these contem- poraries also pointed out organisational and infrastructural deficiencies that hampered the work of the Academy—particularly the peripheral location of Schweinfurt, the decentralised structure of the Academy and related difficulties in communicating by letter, as well as a lack of techni- cal and financial endowment. The time-consuming