FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO REFORMATION JACOB THOMASIUS’S USE OF ARISTOTLE IN THE DEBATE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN SOUL* Zornitsa RADEVA Abstract This article sheds new light on the complex relationship between Jacob Thom- asius’s main occupation as a professor of Aristotelian philosophy at the Lutheran University of Leipzig and his works on the history of philosophy, which showed the incompatibility of Aristotle with central Christian doctrines. I argue for a strong inner consistency between these two seemingly conflicting aspects of Thomasius’s intellectual activity. Far from paralyzing his way of doing ‘Chris- tian Peripatetic philosophy,’ the history of philosophy was for Thomasius an indispensable analytical tool for reforming Aristotelianism. To illustrate my thesis, I investigate the way Thomasius used his historical reconstruction of Aristotle’s theory of intellect to intervene in a contemporary debate on the origin of the human soul, a debate which played a central role in the crystal- lization of a Lutheran confessional identity. * The present article has been written within the framework of the research project ERC-2013-CoG 615045 MEMOPHI (Medieval Philosophy in Modern History of Phi- losophy), directed by Catherine König-Pralong. I would like to thank Nadja Germann, Catherine König-Pralong, and Mario Meliadò for having read and discussed with me in detail previous versions of this paper. Their critical observations and suggestions have greatly contributed to its present form. The remarks and bibliographical references I received from the two anonymous referees have helped me improve a number of weaker points in my exposition. I am also grateful to Luca Bianchi and Stefano Di Bella for their interest and comments on my work on Thomasius. Thanks to the kind invitation of Evelina Miteva and David Wirmer, I had the opportunity to present some preliminary results of my studies at the conference The Place of Intellect in Aristotelian Natural Phi- losophy. Arabic, Latin, and Hebrew Perspectives (Cologne, 15–16 February 2016). Nikolina Hatton kindly corrected my English. Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 84(2), 427-463. doi: 10.2143/RTPM.84.2.3269053 © 2017 by Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales. All rights reserved. 428 Z. RADEVA Introduction: an academic debate with narrative aspects In order to judge between the two currently prevailing opinions on the origin of the human soul, the one affirming its creation out of nothing, the other claiming that it is transmitted by the parents, the philosopher should enquire into the history of the whole controver- sy.1 This programmatic statement offers a prime example of the approach which Jacob Thomasius (1622–1684), remembered mainly as one of the mentors and correspondents of Gottfried Wilhelm Leib- niz, adopted when faced with a serious philosophical problem. The affirmation stems from the Disputatio physica de origine animae humanae, which Thomasius presided over in 1669, as a professor at the arts faculty of the University of Leipzig.2 Looking for the historical 1. J. THOMASIUS – (resp.) J. VAKE, Disputatio physica de origine animae humanae, sect. II, §§ 1-2, Lipsiae 1669, pp. 7-8: “De qvaestione proposita duae hodie regnant […] in scholis Christianorum sententiae: una eorum, qvi animas nostras volunt a Deo creari ex nihilo: altera illorum, qvi eas ex animabus parentum traducunt. Ut de his judicium fieri tanto melius qveat, operae pretium fuerit, qvemadmodum in Ecclesias hodiernas ingressae sint eae paulatim, ex historia totius controversiae circumspicere.” 2. For bio-bibliographical information on Thomasius see R. SACHSE, “Thomasius, Jakob,” in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 38 (1894), pp. 107-112, URL: https://www. deutsche-biographie.de/gnd119238098.html#adbcontent (visited on 17 October 2016); G. ACETI, “Jakob Thomasius ed il pensiero filosofico-giuridico di Goffredo Guglielmo Leib- niz,” in: Jus. Rivista di scienze giuridiche 8/2 (1957), pp. 259-318, esp. 260-273; G. SANTI- NELLO, “Jakob Thomasius (1622–1684),” in: G. SANTINELLO (ed.), Storia delle storie gener- ali della filosofia, vol. 1, Brescia 1981, pp. 438-467, esp. 438-442; H. JAUMANN, “Thomasius, Jakob,” in: W. KÜHLMANN (ed.), Killy Literaturlexikon. Autoren und Werke des deutschspra- chigen Kulturraums, Berlin/Boston 2012, URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/Killy/kill y.6712?rskey=D8aeTg&result=73&dbq_0=Thomasius&dbf_0=killy- fulltext&dbt_0=fulltext&o_0=AND (visited on 27.02.2017); H. JAUMANN, “Jakob Thom- asius, ein protestantischer Späthumanist. Seine Dissertationes und Programmata zur Philoso- phiegeschichte,” in: R. B. SDZUJ – R. SEIDEL – B. ZEGOWITZ (eds.), Dichtung — Gelehrsamkeit — Disputationskultur. Festschrift für Hanspeter Marti zum 65. Geburtstag, Wien/Köln/Weimar 2012, pp. 587-603, esp. 587-591. — For an overview of Thomasius’s works and his activities in the context of the contemporary Lutheran educa- tional system, see M. GIERL – H. JAUMANN – W. SPARN, “Einleitung,” in: J. THOMASIUS, Philosophia practica (Gesammelte Schriften 1), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York 2005 (reprint Lipsiae 1682), pp. 1-22. — The ascription of the Disputatio physica to Thomasius seems unproblematic, although his respondent Vake certainly played a part in it. The text repro- duces basic tenets of Thomasius’s conception of pagan philosophy, which I shall have occa- sion to dwell on in the course of this article, and shows clear parallels to Thomasius’s text- book on natural philosophy, the Physica perpetuo dialogo […] adornata (1670). Moreover, Thomasius himself refers to this disputation as “theses nostrae” (J. THOMASIUS, “Praefatio LXVII. De sententia Aristotelis circa originem corporis & animae humanae,” in: J. THOMASIUS, Praefationes sub auspicia disputationum suarum in Academia Lipsiensi recitatae, FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO REFORMATION 429 ‘origins’ of a contemporary quaestio vexata3 was in this case particu- larly apposite and even necessary. Thomasius’s Disputatio physica can in fact be read as a comprehensive response to a work Johannes Zei- sold published in 1662, under the somewhat verbose yet informative title Diatribe historico-elenctica de sententiae creationem animae ration- alis statuentis, antiquitate & veritate, nec non de sententiae propagatio- nem animae rationalis per traducem statuentis, novitate & absurditate. Zeisold (1599–1667), a philosophy professor at Jena and fervid proponent of creationism, had waged a life-long polemic against the traducianist theories of the famous philosopher and physician Daniel Sennert (1572–1637) and his pupil Johannes Sperling (1603–1658), one of Thomasius’s preceptors at Wittenberg. Among his fellow Lutherans Zeisold was in the minority. Traducianism was more con- sistent with the Lutheran insistence on the unity of body and soul and, above all, with some distinctly Lutheran teachings on the nature and transmission of original sin. Creationism, on the other hand, had a number of Calvinist supporters and represented the dominant view argumenti varii, Lispiae 1681, pp. 418-426, esp. 419) and as “meam de origine animae humanae disputationem” (“Jakob Thomasius an Leibniz, Leipzig, 6. (16. Mai) 1669,” in: G. W. LEIBNIZ, Philosophischer Briefwechsel (1663–1685), ed. M. SCHNEIDER [Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Akademie-Ausgabe) 2/1], Berlin 2006, pp. 39-40, esp. 26, 12). The same work was reprinted in 1725 and in 1745 under a slightly changed title and with Thomasius as its sole author (J. THOMASIUS, Tractatio physica de origine animae humanae, Halae Magdeb. 1725 and 1745). Finally, it was attributed to Thomasius by the Lutheran theologians and historians of philosophy Johann Franz Budde (1667–1729) and Johann Georg Walch (1693–1775) (cf. J. G. WALCH, “Seelen Ursprung,” in: J. G. WALCH, Phi- losophisches Lexikon, Leipzig 1726, cols. 2330-2343, esp. 2330 and 2340; J. F. BUDDE, Com- pendium historiae philosophicae, observationibus illustratum, cap. VI, § XVII, ed. J. G. WALCH, Halae Saxonum 1731, p. 423). — On the literary genre of early-modern dissertations, their institutional setting, the university disputation, and the problem of their authorship, see H. MARTI, “Einleitung,” in: H. MARTI, Philosophische Dissertationen deutscher Universitäten 1660–1750. Eine Auswahlbibliographie, München 1982, pp. 11-77, esp. 13-31; H. MARTI, “Disputation,” in: G. UEDING (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 2, Darmstadt 1994, cols. 866-880; H. MARTI, “Dissertation,” in: G. UEDING (ed.), Historisches Wörter- buch der Rhetorik, vol. 2, Darmstadt 1994, cols. 880-884; W. A. KELLY, Early German dis- sertations: their importance for university history, East Linton 31997. 3. As noted already by Giovanni Santinello (“Jakob Thomasius e il medioevo,” in: Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale 4 [1978], pp. 173-216, esp. 179-182; ID., “Jakob Thomasius (1622–1684),” pp. 449, 462-463) and as we shall see further down, concepts like origo, initium, occasio, and radix function in Thomasius as fully developed historiographical categories. They serve to designate not only the spatio-tem- poral beginnings of certain doctrines but also the factors which brought them into being and conditioned their manifestation in the course of history. 430 Z. RADEVA among contemporary Catholics, being to a large extent the heritage of medieval scholasticism.4 To support his confessionally precarious thesis, in the Diatribe historico-elenctica Zeisold developed a full- fledged narrative argument based on the allegedly Tertullianic adage antiquissimum quod est, id quoque