Quaestio 9/2009 Annuario di storia della metafisica Annuaire d’histoire de la métaphysique Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Metaphysik Yearbook of the History of Metaphysics © 2009, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium © 2009, Pagina soc. coop., Bari, Italy Questo volume è stampato con un contributo del Consiglio di Amministrazione dell’Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-2-503-53289-9 ISSN 1379-2547 D/2010/0095/102 Quaestio 9/2009 Origini e sviluppi dell’ontologia (secoli XVI-XXI) Naissance et développements de l’ontologie (XVIème-XXIème siècles) Entstehung und Entwicklungen der Ontologie (XVI-XXI Jahrhundert) Origins and Developments of Ontology (16th-21st Century) a cura di Costantino Esposito con la collaborazione di Marco Lamanna Q Direzione Costantino Esposito e Pasquale Porro Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro Comitato Scientifico / Comité Scientifique / Wissenschaftlicher Beirat / Advisory Board Jean-Robert Armogathe (École Pratique des Hautes Études - Paris) • Werner Beierwaltes (München) • Giulia Belgioioso (Università del Salento) • Enrico Berti (Padova) • Olivier Boulnois (École Pratique des Hautes Études - Paris) • Mario Caimi (Buenos Aires) • Vincent Carraud (Caen) • Giulio d’Onofrio (Salerno) • Mário Santiago de Carvalho (Coimbra) • JeanFrançois Courtine (Paris IV - Sorbonne) • Kent Emery, Jr. (Notre Dame) • Jorge Gracia (State University of New York - Buffalo) • Miguel Angel Granada (Barcelona) • Dimitri Gutas (Yale) • Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br.) • Norbert Hinske (Trier) • Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i.Br.) • Ruedi Imbach (Paris IV - Sorbonne) • Alfonso Maierù (Roma «La Sapienza») • Jean-Luc Marion (Paris IV Sorbonne) • Jean-Marc Narbonne (Laval) • Dominik Perler (Humboldt-Universität - Berlin) • Gregorio Piaia (Padova) • Stefano Poggi (Firenze) • Paolo Ponzio (Bari Aldo Moro) • Riccardo Pozzo (Verona) • Jacob Schmutz (Paris IV - Sorbonne) • William Shea (Padova) • Andreas Speer (Köln) • Carlos Steel (Leuven) • Giusi Strummiello (Bari Aldo Moro) • Loris Sturlese (Università del Salento) Redazione Anna Arezzo • Marienza Benedetto • Annalisa Cappiello • Davide Cellamare • Donatella Colantuono • Giovanna D’Aniello • Giambattista Formica • Marialucrezia Leone • Marco Lamanna • Vincenzo Lomuscio • Francesco Marrone • Stefania Scardicchio • Michele Trizio Gli indici sono stati approntati da Annalisa Cappiello e Davide Cellamare. «Quaestio» is a peer-reviewed journal, open to unsolicited contributions. The articles sent to the Direction are assessed by the members of the Advisory Board, or by other specialists chosen by the Board. Contributi e volumi per recensione vanno inviati alla Direzione di «Quaestio»: Costantino Esposito • Pasquale Porro Dipartimento di Scienze Filosofiche - Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro Palazzo Ateneo - Piazza Umberto I, I-70121 - Bari (Italia) e-mail: esposito@filosofia.uniba.it • porro@filosofia.uniba.it Abbonamenti / Abonnements / Subscriptions Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67 - B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium), tel. +32 14 44 80 20 - fax +32 14 42 89 19 e-mail: info.publishers@brepols.com Indice Origini e sviluppi dell’ontologia (secoli XVI-XXI) COSTANTINO ESPOSITO Introduzione. Dalla storia della metafisica alla storia dell’ontologia VII I. Alle origini dell’ontologia moderna: l’orizzonte tardo-scolastico e rinascimentale JOSEPH S. FREEDMAN The Godfather of Ontology? Clemens Timpler, «All that is Intelligible», Academic Disciplines during the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries, and Some Possible Ramifications for the Use of Ontology in our Time 3 MÁRIO S. DE CARVALHO Tra Fonseca e Suárez: una metafisica incompiuta a Coimbra 41 JACOB SCHMUTZ Les innovations conceptuelles de la métaphysique espagnole post-suarézienne: les status rerum selon Antonio Pérez et Sebastián Izquierdo 61 PAOLO PONZIO Notitia sui est esse suum. Nota sull’ente e sull’io nel pensiero metafisico di Tommaso Campanella 101 II. L’età cartesiana e le metafisiche del razionalismo GIULIA BELGIOIOSO L’invenzione dell’ontologia cartesiana nelle interpretazioni del Novecento 113 MASSIMILIANO SAVINI Johannes Clauberg e l’esito cartesiano dell’ontologia 153 MICHAËL DEVAUX / MARCO LAMANNA The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 173 FILIPPO MIGNINI Dell’ontologia in Spinoza 209 VI Indice STEFANO DI BELLA Crisi e rinascite della sostanza. L’eredità leibniziana nell’ontologia analitica da Russell a Kripke (e oltre) 225 III. Dalla Schulmetaphysik all’Idealismo tedesco LUIGI CATALDI MADONNA L’ontologia sperimentale di Christian Wolff 253 ALEXEI N. KROUGLOV Die Ontologie von Tetens und seiner Zeit 269 RICCARDO POZZO L’ontologia nei manuali di metafisica della Aufklärung 285 NORBERT HINSKE Ontologie oder Analytik des Verstandes? Kants langer Abschied von der Ontologie 303 KLAUS DÜSING Grundformen der Ontologie bei Kant und bei Hegel 311 STEFANO POGGI Da Wolff a Herbart: l’ontologia di un soggetto inesistente 325 GIUSI STRUMMIELLO Beyond the Possible. The Overturning of Early Modern Ontology in Schelling 335 IV. Prospettive novecentesche JEAN-FRANÇOIS COURTINE Husserl et la réhabilitation de l’ontologie comme ontologie formelle 353 FRIEDRICH-WILHELM VON HERRMANN Metaphysik und Ontologie in Heideggers fundamentalontologischem und ereignisgeschichtlichem Denken 379 MAURIZIO FERRARIS Documentalità e ontologia sociale 389 Varia. Note Cronache Recensioni VENERANDA CASTELLANO On the Byzantine Aristotle Commentators 409 MICHELE TRIZIO Le vie della spiritualità monastica a Bisanzio 412 ANNA AREZZO Storia di una «leggenda tenace»: le vicende della «doppia verità» 417 Indice VII ALESSANDRO PERTOSA La tradizione dell’ockhamismo: una rivisitazione storiografica 423 ANNALISA CAPPIELLO Necessità e finitudine: il pensiero di Pomponazzi e la tradizione dell’aristotelismo rinascimentale 427 FRANCESCO MARRONE La dimostrazione dell’infinità divina e la ragione formale dell’infinito nella prima metà del Seicento 432 ELODIE CASSAN Descartes et la recherche de la verité 441 EVELINA MITEVA Tetens and Pre-Kantian Debate on the Status of Metaphysics 445 FRANCESCO VALERIO TOMMASI Walking on the Tightrope. Metaphysics as the Icon of Human Condition 448 A Note from the Editors 453 Gli Autori 455 Indice dei nomi 459 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna* The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) Introduction In the opening of the chapter «Aux origines de l’ontologie», in his work L’Être et l’essence (1948), Étienne Gilson wrote: «On use librement aujourd’hui du terme d’Ontologie, et nous l’avons fait nous-mêmes jusqu’ici sans scrupule – ou presque – pour désigner la science de l’être comme tel et des propriétés qui lui appartiennent. Il n’est pourtant pas sans intérêt de noter que ce terme est relativement moderne, puisque, comme nous le verrons, il apparaît pour la première fois au XVIIe siècle»1. Thus, it was only after the term ontology appeared and began to be used in the modern age that the science of being, or metaphysics, began to be called ontology: the neologism was often used ex post, for example in reference to the works of Plato and Aristotle. It is well known that the term ontology is not mentioned in any of the works by medieval or ancient philosophers, and so it is properly a paleonymy. In the early 1960s, Jean École (1961)2, Ernst Vollrath (1962)3 and José Ferrater Mora (1963)4 all published pioneering works on the history of ontology, focusing their attention on the rise of the term and its circulation. * Michaël Devaux wrote §§ 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45; Marco Lamanna wrote the Introduction, Problems and Context of the Rise of the Term ontology, Conclusions and §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 21, 46. They coauthored §§ 5, 11, 24, 30, 43. The authors would like to thank Fabienne Carelle and Lisa Adams for their editorial assistance. 1 É. GILSON, L’Être et l’essence, Vrin, Paris 19943, p. 144. 2 J. ÉCOLE, La «Philosophia prima sive Ontologia» de Christian Wolff: histoire, doctrine et méthode, «Giornale di metafisica», 16 (1961), pp. 114-125. 3 E. VOLLRATH, Die Gliederung der Metaphysik in eine Metaphysica generalis und eine Metaphysica Specialis, «Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung», 16 (1962), pp. 258-284. 4 J. FERRATER MORA, On the Early History of Ontology, «Philosophy and phenomenological research», 24 (1963), pp. 36-47. «Quaestio», 9 (2009), 173-208 • 10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.1.100702 174 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna The works by École, Vollrath and Ferrater Mora, which take up some indications already contained in the works by Rudolf Eucken5, Rudolf Eisler6, Max Wundt7 and Étienne Gilson, certainly had the merit of clarifying the context within which metaphysics – or at least a part of it – began to be called ontology: it was the new scholastic philosophy taught in the gymnasiums and reformed academies in the German area in the 16th and 17th centuries. While the historical context within which ontology arose is the same, historians have available today a much broader knowledge on the subject. Initially, before the term began to be used in a generic way, it was not used to identify a single model of the science of being, but several. Moreover, the term appears to have been used in a context in which there was a widespread tendency to coin neologisms, especially Graecisms, in order to give a name to traditional sciences or to those more recently identified, such as in the case of the neologism psychologia. The term ontology had therefore to impose itself on other competitors, such as ontosophia, which was first used by Caramuel y Lobkowitz to denominate the science of being. In this paper a list of the occurrences of the term ontosophia will be presented, until it was identified (Clauberg, Chauvin) with the term ontologia and eventually superseded by the latter. However, the term ontology was not just preferred to contemporary neologisms, but even to more traditional terms. Authors such as Goclenius and Wolff used ontology as a substitute for the term prima philosophia, which was too rich in tradition and risked rendering ambiguous the model of science of being authors sought to indicate. Some of these authors did not use the term ontology to indicate metaphysics in general, but only one part of it, metaphysica generalis, that is, the transcendental and formal science of being as a genus and that of its universal distinctions (transcendentals, properties and modes). Theology and rational psychology, since they dealt with special and particular beings, had to be separated from ontology to be placed on the other side of metaphysics that is, as metaphysica particularis or metaphysica specialis. The aim of this paper is to offer a chronological list of the known occurrences of the term ontology, even when used as an adjective, starting from its first oc- 5 R. EUCKEN, Geschichte der philosophischen Terminologie, Unveränd. Nachdr. der Ausg., Leipzig 1879, repr. Olms, Hildesheim 1960, 3n., p. 133. 6 See the entry «Ontologie», in R. EISLER, Handwörterbuch der Philosophie, E.S. Mittler und Sohn, Berlin 1913, pp. 460-461, and in R. EISLER, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, Bd. II, E.S. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin 1929, pp. 344-346. 7 M. WUNDT, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1939. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 175 currence in the work Ogdoas scholastica (1606) by the Calvinist Jakob Lorhard, up to Philosophia prima sive ontologia (1730) by Christian Wolff, a work in which the term had its final endorsement. Problems and context of the rise of the term ontology Research carried out by Joseph S. Freedman shows that between 1520 and 1560, in Central Europe, there were a sharp reduction in the chairs of metaphysics and a decrease in the publication of metaphysics-related works8. In our opinion, this could be imputable to: 1) The strongly anti-metaphysics option still dominant in Lutheran culture at the end of the 16th century; 2) The instability in theology due to the spreading of the various reformed movements; 3) The widespread belief that, according to Protestants, theological disputes could be solved without resorting to metaphysics, but rather to philology or logic9; 4) The widespread presence, in reformed academies and gymnasiums, of philosophies that, like Ramism, merged with anti-scholastic and anti-metaphysical tendencies. From 1560, however, the spread of Calvinist movements in western Germany and the Netherlands led to a new scenario. Calvinist followers were the first to spread Ramism in Germany, as Pierre de la Ramée was a Calvinist. A project to redefine the subjects and fields of the discipline was planned by the Ramists; and at the same time, they pushed for a strong anti-metaphysical option, thus claiming as a subject-matter of logic some of the traditional objects of metaphysics, e.g. the principle of entity. The recourse to Ramistic logic was aimed at resolving, with the help of its common tools and rules, some Protestant theological controversies. Ramistic logic thus came to be defended not just by Calvinists, but also by Melanchtho- 8 Cf. J.S. FREEDMAN, Philosophy Instruction within the Institutional Framework of Central European Schools and Universities during the Reformation Era, «History of the Universities», 5 (1985) pp. 117-166, in part. pp. 120-121; J.S. FREEDMAN, Aristotle and the Content of Philosophy Instruction at Central European Schools and Universities during the Reformation Era (1500-1650), in J.S. FREEDMAN, Philosophy and the Arts in Central Europe, 1500-1700. Teaching and Texts at Schools and Universities, Ashgate Variorum, Aldershot 1999, V, pp. 213-253, in part. p. 216; J.S. FREEDMAN, Encyclopaedic Philosophical Writings in Central Europe during the High and Late Renaissance (c. 1500-c. 1700), «Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte», 37 (1994), pp. 212-256, in part. pp. 220, 224, 234; J.S. FREEDMAN, Classifications of Philosophy, the Sciences, and the Arts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, «The Modern Schoolman», 72 (1994), pp. 37-65, in part. pp. 46-47. 9 With regard to this problem, see M. FORLIVESI, A Man, an Age, a Book, in M. FORLIVESI (a cura di), Rem in seipsa cernere. Saggi sul pensiero filosofico di Bartolomeo Mastri (1602-1673), Il Poligrafo, Padova 2006 («Subsidia Mediaevalia Patavina», 8), pp. 23-144, in part. pp. 75-77. 176 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna nians (the so-called Philippo-Ramists), as well as by some radical Lutherans (Heizo Buscher and Daniel Hofmann). The return to metaphysics in Protestant areas starting from the 1590s can be explained by the urgent need to find a common language to discuss theology as well as to compete with Catholic culture that had never abandoned metaphysics. The Calvinists were the first Protestants to teach metaphysics in the reformed gymnasiums (Herbon, Steinfurt, St. Gallen), together with the trivium and quadrivium. They also reinstated the study of metaphysics in the reformed universities (Basel, Heidelberg, Marburg), but chiefly, they were the first to import into Reformation Germany the metaphysical models of the Jesuits, starting with the works of Benet Perera and Pedro da Fonseca. Calvinists had fewer ideological problems than Lutherans in recovering the study of metaphysics, even that of Catholic authors. Furthermore, when Francisco Suárez’s Disputationes metaphysicae was published in Germany (Mainz, 1600), the opposition of Lutherans towards metaphysics progressively disappeared, especially towards the metaphysics of their old rivals in the faith: the Jesuits. Henning Arnisaeus, with his De constitutione et partibus metaphysicae tractatus (1606)10, and Jakob Martini, with his Exercitationum metaphysicarum libri duo (1608)11, initiated the reception of Suárez’s metaphysics within a Lutheran context12. Nonetheless, before the impact of these Jesuit works, some metaphysical works had already been published in Reformation Germany, such as those by Nikolaus Taurellus13 and Daniel Cramer14, as well as the reprint of Quaestiones in primam Aristotelis philosophiam by Johannes Versor15. 10 H. ARNISAEUS, De constitutione et partibus metaphysicae tractatus, in quo pleraque ad hanc materiam pertinentia discutiuntur, Impensis Iohannis Thimen Bibliopolae, Francofurti ad Oderam 1606. 11 J. MARTINI, Exercitationum metaphysicarum libri duo, Sumptibus Zachariae Schureri Bibliopolae, (Leipzig) 1608. 12 On the initial reception of Suárez’s metaphysics in a Lutheran context, in particular with Henning Arnisaeus and Jakob Martini, see E. LEWALTER, Spanisch-jesuitische und deutsch-lutherische Metaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1967², pp. 63-69; see also U.G. LEINSLE, Das Ding und die Methode. Methodische Konstitution und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik, Maro Verlag, Augsburg 1985, pp. 221-254. 13 N. TAURELLUS, Philosophiae triumphus, hoc est metaphysica philosophandi methodus, per Sebastianum Henricpetri, Basilae 1573; N. TAURELLUS, Synopsin Aristotelis Metaphysices ad normam christianae religionis explicate, emendatae et completae, Apud Guilielmum Antonium, Hanoviae 1596, now in J.W. FEUERLINI Dissertatio apologetica pro Nic. Taurello philosopho altdorfino atheismi et deismi iniuste accusato, Apud Joh. Adamum Schmidium, Norimbergae 1734. 14 D. CRAMER, Isagoge in Metaphysicam Aristotelis, quaestionibus rotunde & dilucide comprehensa, Hanoviae 1594. 15 J. VERSOR, Quaestiones in primam Aristotelis philosophiam, e tenebris [...] recens erutae [...] in lucem editae a M. Zacharia Sommero, Fridebergensi Silesio. Cum praefatione [...] Salomonis Gessneri, S.S. The- The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 177 However, there is no doubt that the reception of Jesuit models was the real ground on which the new tradition of metaphysics, later called Schulmetaphysik16, was built. Thanks to the most recent findings, Jesuit models – especially those of Perera, Fonseca and Suárez – were often placed in opposition by Protestants, initially in any case. There are at least three models comparing and contrasting with each other in the first generations of philosophers belonging to Schulmetaphysik. Disputes mainly focused on the subject-matter and status to assign to metaphysics. The Calvinist Clemens Timpler was the one who had assigned the role of the subject of general metaphysics to the concept of the pure intelligible, and not to ens, and who ascribed full intelligibility to the notion of nihil. Timpler’s radical approach – followed by Jakob Lorhard17 to the letter and later on by Matthias Martinus18 – was opposed by the Lutherans Henning Arnisaeus, Jakob Martini, Christoph Scheibler, Johann Scharf and Abraham Calov. Jakob Martini19 and Christoph Scheibler20 re-proposed Suárez’s choice, who had identified ens reale as the subject of metaphysics: the Disputationes metaphysicae was therefore often used in opposition to Timpler. ologiae Doctoris [...], Excludebat Wolffgang. Meisner, sumptibus Clementis Berberi Bibliop., Witebergae 1596. 16 There is a rich historiography that documents the indebtedness of Protestant and Reformation scholastic philosophy, the so-called Schulmetaphysik, to Benet Perera, Pedro da Fonseca and Francisco Suárez. Cf. K. ESCHWEILER, Die Philosophie der spanische Spätscholastik auf den deutschen Universitäten des Siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, in H. Finke (Hrsg.), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchandlung, Münster 1928, pp. 251-283; LEWALTER, Spanischjesuitische cit.; B. JANSEN, Die scholastische Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, «Philosophisches Jahrbuch», 50 (1937), 4n., pp. 401-444; WUNDT, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts cit.; P. DI VONA, Studi sulla scolastica della Controriforma, La Nuova Italia, Florence 1968; E.M. ROMPE, Die Trennung von Ontologie und Metaphysik. Der Ablösungprozeß und seine Motivierung bei Benedictus Pereirus und anderen Denkern des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Phil. Diss., Rheinische Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität, Bonn 1968; C.H. LOHR, Jesuit Aristotelianism and Sixteenth-Century Metaphysics, in Paradosis. Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain, G. Fletcher / M.B. Schuete (eds), Fordham University Press, New York 1976, pp. 203-220; W. SPARN, Wiederkehr der Metaphysik. Die ontologische Frage in der lutherischen Theologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts, Calver Verlag, Stuttgart 1976; J.-F. COURTINE, Suárez et le système de la métaphysique, PUF, Paris 1990. 17 J. LORHARD, Metaphysicae seu Ontologiae Diagraphe, in Ogdoas scholastica continens diagraphen typicam artium Grammatices {Latinae, Graecae, Logices, Rhetorices, Astronomices, Ethices, Physices, Metaphysices, seu Ontologiae, Apud Georgium Straub, Sangalli 1606. 18 M. MARTINUS, Idea methodica et brevis encyclopaediae, seu adumbratio universitatis, Ex officina Christophori Corvini, Herbornae 1606. 19 J. MARTINI, Exercitationes metaphysicae cit., l. I, th. III, p. 35; (against Timpler) in part. l. I, exer. III, pp. 54-61. 20 C. SCHEIBLER, Opus Metaphysicum, Duobus libris Universum [...], 1. Continens Primam Philosophiam, quam vocant, seu Partem Metaphysicae Universalem, Typis Nicolai Hampelii, Chemlinus, Giessae 1617, l. I, c. 1, art. 5, nr. 107-108, p. 40; (against Timpler) in part. l. I, c. 1, art. 3, nr. 93-94, pp. 35 sqq. 178 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna On the other hand, in order to justify his choices, Timpler21 had drawn on a passage from the Commentary on the Books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics by Pedro Fonseca in which the priority of the concept of aliquid was asserted over those of ens and non-ens. «Verbum, aliquid, (quod etsi non est in Graeco, subauditur tamen necessario) sumendum & ipsum est, quam latissime ut entia, & non entia comprehendat»22. A passage that in Fonseca is just occasional, in Timpler turns into a justification for the use of the concept of intelligible in a super-transcendental sense: it works as a supreme genus not just for real being and the being of reason, but also for the pair of opposed terms nihil/aliquid that precede that of being. In the debate between those who, like Timpler, had identified the super-transcendental concept of intelligible as the subject of metaphysics and those who had pointed out the irreplaceable role of ens reale as a primary metaphysical notion, a third model seems to have gained a place, midway between the two. It was the model proposed by the Calvinist Rudolph Göckel (Latin: Goclenius) in his Isagoge in peripateticorum et scholasticorum primam philosophiam (1598), in which the model of metaphysics presented by Benet Perera in the first book of his De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus (1576) was taken up again. Against Timpler, Goclenius claimed the extensional identity between ens and intelligible and confirmed general metaphysics in the role of science of being, instead of that of science of the pure intelligible. The subject of metaphysics, therefore, was still universal and general being (ens universale). However, this was not ens reale, but an even more abstract notion, which came before the division of being into real being and being of reason. In agreement with Timpler, Goclenius asserted that metaphysics had to be divided into two parts, one universal and one particular. Goclenius took this epistemological division from Perera and developed it by resorting to the paradigm of secundae intentiones (genus, species, individual). The study of being as genus and of its partitions (transcendentals, modes, categories) was assigned to the first part of metaphysics, while the second part of metaphysics was dedicated to the study of some species of being: God and the angels. As mentioned above, according to Goclenius, the first part of metaphysics, that is metaphysica universalis or metaphysica generalis, was a transcendental 21 C. TIMPLER, Metaphysicae systema methodicum, Prelo Richteriano, impensam vero Conradi Nebenii, Francoforti 1607, c. II, q. III, p. 63. 22 P. DA FONSECA, Commentariorum in Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae, Typis Ioannis Saurij, impensis Ioannis Theobaldi Schonvvetteri, Francofurti 1599, tomus II, l. V, c. 1, q. 1, s. 2, p. 12. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 179 science, which deserved the new name of ontology to avoid confusing it with the other models of metaphysics. In particular, Goclenius did not want to confuse it with the one that identified God as the cause of the totality of the subject of metaphysics and not just the cause of a part of it, such as in the case of being as species. The task of ontology was to describe the generation of special, more complex entities, such as God or created beings, delegating however their study to special sciences. The status of metaphysics as the science of being and not of the pure intelligible was thus retained, while, at the same time, a division of the objects and fields of metaphysics was proposed, which would be very successful in Schulmetaphysik. Johann Heinrich Alsted, Liborius Capsius, Abraham Calov, Johann Micraelius, and Christian Wolff would call ontology the science of being and of its universal divisions; according to these authors, ontology represented the general science of metaphysics and resulted in the epistemological division of metaphysics into general metaphysics and special metaphysics. The latter was the predominant model of ontology in Schulmetaphysik: a model which would be confirmed in Wolff and Baumgarten, up to Kant’s critique. Here following is a chronological list of the occurrences of the term ontology between 1606 and 1730. 1. Jakob Lorhard (1606) Jakob Lorhard (Latin: Lorhardus, 1561-1609), a professor of Philosophy at Durlach and later rector of the Calvinist Gymnasium of St. Gallen from 1604, published his Liber de adeptione veri necessarii, seu apodictici in 1597. In this work, Lorhard on several occasions speaks of a suprema philosophia of being and the first general principles of beings, and identifies the subjects of the inferior sciences23 (inferiores disciplinae). So, according to Lorhard, suprema philosophia is metaphysics in that it is the science of being and of its principles, a sort of architectonic science. In 1606, when he was already rector in St. Gallen, he published his Ogdoas scholastica continens diagraphen typicam artium Grammatices {Latinae, Grae23 «[...] ad supremam Philosophiam referenda sunt, quae prima omnium o[ntwn principia considerat, omniumque disciplinarum principia firmat. Inferiores enim disciplinae nec principia, nec subiecta, nec propria absoluta et seipsis considerata contemplantur». And also: «[...] Alioquin enim principia disciplinarum communia sunt, nec proprie pertinent ad disciplinas inferiores, sed ad supremam Philosophiam, quae summorum generum et principiorum affectiones, quoad summa genera, vel principia sunt, contemplatur». J. LORHARD, Liber de adeptione veri necessarii, seu apodictici, ex officina Gruppenbachiana, sumptibus Auctoris, Tubingae 1597, c. XI, pp. 68-69, 74. 180 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna cae, Logices, Rhetorices, Astronomices, Ethices, Physices, Metaphysices, seu Ontologiae, which was designed as a high school textbook for his «studiosi adolescentes», containing the tables of the main teaching subjects, represented through Ramistic diagrams, which included metaphysics. Similar to what was happening in the same years at the reformed Gymnasium Arnoldinum of Steinfurt, where the Calvinist Clemens Timpler taught, Lorhard promoted the teaching of metaphysics in gymnasiums. Moreover, thanks to more recent research24, we know that Lorhard’s metaphysics in the Ogdoas scholastica is not an original work. What Lorhard did was to propose a diagrammatic representation, in the Ramistic tradition, of Timpler’s Metaphysicae systema methodicum (1604), and more exactly, to propose the theorems found in the introduction to each chapter of Timpler’s work. According to Joseph S. Freedman, Timpler’s works constitute the standard of scholastic philosophy which was most widespread in gymnasiums and reformed academies in the first decades of the 17th century25 and Lorhard was probably the first to promote it. By re-proposing Timpler’s metaphysics literally, Lorhard put forward a model in which the subject of metaphysics was the universal concept of the intelligible, and not that of being. The real difference with Timpler is that Lorhard gave to metaphysics the name ontology, coining the Latin neologism. This is the first occurrence of the term known today26. In the Ogdoas scholastica, the term always appears as a synonym of metaphysica, in the title as well as three more times in the work; in the expanded edition of the work, the Theatrum philosophicum, published posthumously in Basel in 1613, the term no longer appears in the title, but it is kept in the work. The metaphysics is the same in both editions. The whole of metaphysics Lorhard called ontology (metaphysica seu ontologia), both its universal and particular parts. Paradoxically, the term ontology (literally: “the science of being”) was used for the first time to name a metaphysics that rejected the typical definition of the science of being in order to become the science of the intelligible27. 24 M. LAMANNA, Sulla prima occorrenza del termine «Ontologia». Una nota bibliografica, «Quaestio», 6 (2006), pp. 557-570. 25 «Clemens Timpler not only exemplifies the highest standards of late 16th and early 17th century European academic philosophy, but his works also provide an excellent survey of its scope and content». Cf. J.S. FREEDMAN, Foreword, in European Academic Philosophy in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. The Life, Significance, and Philosophy of Clemens Timpler (1563/4-1624), Olms, HildesheimZürich-New York 1988, vol.I, pp. ii-iii. 26 Raul Corazzon (2003) was the one who discovered the Latin neologism ontologia in Lorhard’s Ogdoas scholastica (1606). See the website http://www.formalontology.it. 27 With regard to Timpler’s definition of metaphysics see COURTINE, Suárez et le système cit., p. 266. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 181 The Ogdoas scholastica is cited by Johann Heinrich Alsted in his work Encyclopaedia (1630) and by Thomas Sagittarius in his Metaphysicorum Aristotelico-Scaligerorum libri 2 (1654). 2. Rudolph Göckel (1613) A biography of Jakob Lorhard28, recently discovered, reveals that in March 1607 the rector of St. Gallen was called to teach Theology at one of the chairs of the Philipps-Universität in Marburg by the Calvinist landgrave Moritz von Hessen. The appointment came to nothing and in September 1607 Lorhard had already gone back to the Gymnasium of St. Gallen. In Marburg, which was then a very important centre of Calvinist culture, Rudolph Göckel (Latin: Goclenius, 1547-1628) had been teaching for a long time. It can be assumed29 that Goclenius took from Lorhard the term ontology, perhaps after meeting him in Marburg, before using it in the entry abstractio in his Lexicon philosophicum (1613). Goclenius transliterated the Latin term into the Greek noun «ojntologiva» and the adjective «ojntologikhv». Goclenius’ Lexicon philosophicum enjoyed a wide circulation inside the academies of Reformed Germany. Giorgio Tonelli defined it as «the most important philosophical dictionary of its time in Germany»30. Some years before, during the 1590s, Goclenius had begun to study the works of Benet Perera and Pedro Fonseca in Marburg. In his Isagoge in primam philosophiam (1598), Goclenius proposed the paradigm of metaphysics of the De communibus by Perera in the context of Reformation culture31. Prima philosophia is the universal part (scientia universalis) of metaphysics, has ens universale as its subject and deals with transcendentals, modes and degrees of being up to the division of categories. On the other hand, metaphysica is theology and the science of separate intelligences properly speaking; in other 28 The author was Georg Leonhard Hartmann (1764-1828), Swiss biographer and historian. Cf. G.L. HARTMANN, Jakob Lorhard, in Beiträge zu den Lebensgeschichten aller Geistlichen die Bürger der Stadt St. Gallen, StadtASG, KiA, IV, 1, 1, Sankt Gallen 1826, pp. 95-96. 29 This hypothesis was formulated in P. ØHRSTRØM / J. ANDERSEN / H. SCHÄRFE, What has happened to Ontology, in Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge. 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Kassel, Germany, July 17-22, 2005, F. DAU / M.-L. MUGNIER / G. STUMME (eds.), Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2005, pp. 425-438, in part. pp. 428-429. 30 Cf. G. TONELLI, A short-title list of subject dictionaries of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Extended Edition, Revised and Annotated by E. Canone and M. Palumbo, Olschki, Firenze 2006, p. 60. 31 Cf. M. LAMANNA, De eo enim metaphysicus agit logice. Un confronto tra Pererius e Goclenius, «Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale» 34 (2009), pp. 315-360. 182 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna words, it is a science that deals with some species of being but not with universal being. The latter was defined by Goclenius as scientia transnaturalis, while prima philosophia was a transcendental science. According to Goclenius, in order to improve the results of metaphysics, the field of genus had to be separated from that of species. This distinction between objects mirrored the epistemological distinction between the sciences of prima philosophia and metaphysica. In his Lexicon, Goclenius also proposed to differentiate the abstraction processes needed to obtain the subjects of the two separate parts of metaphysics. If theological abstraction (secundum rem et rationem) pertains to metaphysics, prima philosophia follows the abstraction model of mathematics (secundum rationem tantum). In this context, Goclenius gave the new name of «ojntologiva» and the adjective «oJntologikhv» to the «philosophia de ente seu transcendentibus»32. According to Goclenius, and unlike Lorhard, «oJntologiva» was only the universal and transcendental part of metaphysics. 3. Matthias Lobetantz (1613) [sub praesidio33 Andreas Hojer] In the same year in which the term appears in Goclenius’ Lexicon of 1613, a new occurrence of the neologism can be found. The term appears in Latin and in its adjectival form in the title of a disputation by Matthias Lobetantz, which was presided over by Andreas Hojer and discussed at the University of Rostock. The title of the disputation is Disputatio ontologica de bono et malo34. However, little is known about the two protagonists. The registers of the Alma Mater of Rostock show that Hojer was awarded the title of magister at the University of Rostock in May 1612 and then became a member of the faculty of arts, but without a stipend («recepit in facultatem gratis»), in the winter term of the same year35. In 1617 he became a Protestant preacher in Braunsberg, and in 1637 he moved to Marienburg. The only thing that is known about Lobetantz is 32 See the article «Abstractio», in R. GÖCKEL, Lexicon philosophicum quo tanquam clave philosophiae fores aperiuntur, Typis viduae Matthiae Beckeri, Impensis Petri musculi & Ruperti Pistorij, Francofurti 1613, reprint Olms, Hildesheim-New York 1980, p. 13-18, in part. p. 16. 33 The expression «sub praesidio» will be used from this point forward in the text to indicate all the dissertations, disputes and theses discussed under the presence or the supervision of an academic. 34 M. LOBETANTZ, Disputatio ontologica de bono & de malo. [...] in Florentissima Megapolensium Academia sub praesidio Dn. Andreae Hojeri Philosophiae Doctoris publice & placide ventilandam proponit Matthias Lobetantz Husio-Hols. In Auditorio Unicornis die Octobris horis matutinis, Typis Joachimi Pedani, Rostochi 1613. 35 A. HOFMEISTER (Hrsg.), Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock, Bde. I-VII, Stiller, Rostock 1886-1922, in part. Bd. II (1891), p. 303a; Bd. III (1885), p. 4b. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 183 that he enrolled in Rostock in 160936 and discussed his Disputatio ontologica in Hojer’s presence in October 1613. Since the Reform began to spread, Rostock and its university were Lutheran, like Hojer and Lobetantz. In 1613, the year in which both the Theatrum philosophicum and the Lexicon philosophicum by the Calvinists Jakob Lorhard and Rudolph Göckel were published, the term ontologia appeared for the first time in a Lutheran context. However, Lobentantz used the adjective «ontologica» with a more generic meaning compared to Goclenius and his «ojntologikhv». The term only appears in the title of the disputation and is used to determine its field of investigation. The disputation is about the being of good (bonum) and (malum), and for this reason it is more properly called an «ontological disputation» (disputatio ontologica). Ontologia is usually used as a substitute for natura. According to Lobetantz, in the first place good must be ontologically located among the transcendentals of being, together with the «principijs et affectionibus simplicibus prioribus Uno & Vero»37. In the second place, Lobetantz investigates the nature of good in relation to that of evil, raising the question whether evil is a positive or privative being. In his disputatio Lobentatz cited Lutheran authors such as Jakob Martini and Christoph Scheibler, and Calvinist authors such as Bartholomew Keckermann and Clemens Timpler. Several quotations from Fonseca and Suárez also recur, which is proof that Jesuit authors were already accepted in Lutheran academies. With Lobetantz a generic use of the term ontologia began to spread, which was unrelated to issues linked to the disciplinary separation of metaphysics. 4. Johann Heinrich Alsted (1620; 1630) As already mentioned, Goclenius’ Lexicon philosophicum enjoyed a wide circulation in the academies of Reformation Germany. However, in the nomenclature of about two hundred entries in the Latin Lexicon, the occurrence of the term ontology had a relatively small space. Goclenius did not give ontology its own separate entry. In order to understand the attribution of the term ontologia to Goclenius, we need to refer to the Calvinist Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638). Before teaching philosophy and later theology at the Schola Nassovica in Herborn, Alsted 36 37 HOFMEISTER (Hrsg.), Die Matrikel cit., Bd. I (1889), p. 296a. LOBETANTZ, Disputatio ontologica cit., f. A2r. 184 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna was a pupil of Goclenius in Marburg in 160638. Together with Goclenius he participated in the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619), in which European reformed churches condemned the religious doctrine of Arminianism and set forth the reformed doctrine, also referred to as the Five Points of Calvinist Dogmatics. In 1612 Alsted published Philosophia digne restituta39 in which ens was clearly confirmed as the subject of metaphysics. Ens is «primum principium incomplexum», therefore the first intelligible. In this way Alsted took a stand in the debate over the subject of metaphysics that had involved Goclenius, Timpler and other reformed philosophers in these years. However, according to Alsted, beyond ens in latitudine, metaphysics also included species entis, which constituted the subject-matter of inferior disciplines. In his two monumental encyclopaedias (Cursus philosophici encyclopaedia, 1620; Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta, 1630), Alsted uses the following words at the beginning of the part dedicated to metaphysics: «Metaphysica est sapientia, quae considerat ens qua ens est. Aliâs dicitur prima philosophia, & ojntologiva in Lexico Goclenii pag. 16. Ejus partes duae sunt, generalis & specialis, sive communis & propria. Pars generalis proponit transcendentia. Transcendentia sunt generalissimi termini, qui vagantur per omnia praedicamenta. Ea sunt vel subjectum Metaphysicae, vel illius subjecti principia & affectiones. Subjectum Metaphysicae est ens: cui opponitur non-ens. Ens est, quod essentiam habet. Alias dicitur res & aliquid»40. There is a clear attempt by Alsted to turn the division of metaphysics proposed by Goclenius into an encyclopaedic one and to define prima philosophia, i.e. general metaphysics, as ontology. On the one hand, there is the science of being and of transcendentals in general; on the other hand, there are the single species of being that are the subject-matter of the special part of metaphysics. His side taking with Goclenius is still more evident when we consider that Alsted knew Lorhard’s Ogdoas scholastica, but credited Goclenius with the authorship and appropriate use of the term: ontology is for Alsted the ontology of Goclenius. 38 H. HOTSON, Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638). Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2000, pp. 11-12. 39 J.H. ALSTED, Philosophia digne restituta, Herbornae Nassoviorum 1612, p. 15. 40 Cf. J.H. ALSTED, Cursus philosophici encyclopaedia libris XXVII, Typis Christophori Corvini, Herbornae Nassoviorum 1620, l. V, c. I, p. 149; cf. also J.H. ALSTED, Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta, Herbornae Nassoviorum 1630, t. III, l. XI, c. I, p. 573, ND W. Schmidt-Biggemann (Hrsg.), FrommannHolzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1989, Bd. II, p. 573. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 185 5. Liborius Capsius (1627; 1635) The Sapientia (vulgo Metaphysica) idealis (1627) was published by Liborius Capsius (1589-1654), professor of logic and metaphysics at Erfurt University. The book opens with various «delineations». The third delineatio deals with the synonyms of sapientia. The first synonym is metaphysica, the second is scientia catholica, the third is ontologia («Sapientia dicitur Ontologia»), and the last is philosophia prima. There are explanations for all the synonyms except ontologia! Sapientia is defined as «[...] ars catholica entis, qua ens contemplativa»41. The text does not mention the term ontosophia, even though sapientia is a key concept in it. Caramuel and Clauberg may have been the first to use ontosophia42. Capsius’ interest in ontology was probably not limited to the Sapientia (vulgo Metaphysica) idealis. In a collected volume, held in the Bibliotecha Amploniana of Erfurt, some printed sheets of a short research (two folia r/v) by Capsius were found whose subject is metaphysics and whose title is Rerum Transcendentium Stud.<-ium> (1635)43. It was probably a compendium of the metaphysics that Capsius taught to his students in Erfurt. Many of the definitions given by Capsius would actually be treated in greater depth in four disputations – collected in the same volume – discussed by some of his pupils under his supervision between 1638 and 1639. One of these disputations will be included in the section dedicated to Johannes Christoph Segers. In the Rerum Transcendentium Stud., Capsius divides metaphysics into a general part, or syncritica, and a particular part, or diacritica. The first is ontology properly speaking, which is also defined as the indeterminate part of metaphysics: «Illa [the indeterminate part of metaphysics] Ens spectabat in Ontologia Abstractiori secundum Conceptum Formalissimum, praecisum ab omni principio, modoque limitante. Haec [the determinate part of metaphysics] idem Ens contemplabatur in Ordine ad Principia & Passiones seu Attributa. De Principis actum diecodikw`" in Archeologia Entitativa, ubi Principia Entis partim abstractissimi & denudati ab omni determi- 41 Erfurt, 1627, p. 28 (for both quotations). Claude Weber mentions this text to Jean École who quotes it in La place de la Metaphysica de ente, quae rectius ontosophia dans l’histoire de l’ontologie et sa réception chez Christian Wolff, in T. VERBEEK (ed.), Johannes Clauberg (1622-1665) and Cartesian Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London 1999 («Archives internationales d’histoires des idées, 164»), p. 62. 42 Concerning the difference between ontologia and ontosophia, see the little known article by J.A. VÁZQUEZ, “Ontologie” und “Ontosophie”, «Antaios», 8 (1966), 3, p. 259-268. 43 M. LIBORIUS CAPSIUS METAPH. AC LOG. PP., Rerum Transcendentium Stud. S.P.D., Aere ac Praelo Hertzianis, Jerefordiae (1635) [located in UB Erfurt: LA. 4° 00261 (18)]. 186 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna natiori Essendi ratione, partim ad determinatum Essendi modum limitati, exsculpissimus»44. 6. Abraham Calov (1636) For a long time in 20th century historiography, the Lutheran theologian Abraham Calov (Latin: Calovius, 1612-1686) was regarded as the inventor of the term ontology. In 1939 Wundt credited Calov’s Metaphysica divina (1636) as the work in which the neologism first occurred. And in 1961 Jean École, even though mentioning the occurrence of the term in Goclenius’ Lexicon, credited Calov with the merit of being the first to have consciously developed an ontologia as a preliminary part of metaphysics45. Even among Calov’s contemporaries, there was a widespread belief that he was the “father” of ontology. Lutherans, as we shall see with Johannes Hundius, were not the only ones to believe this, but Calvinists too, as the case of the Ontosophia (1646) by Johann Clauberg proves. This happened despite the widespread circulation of Goclenius’ Lexicon philosophicum and Alsted’s Encyclopaedias, and despite the fact that Calov did not regard himself as the inventor of the term, which he thought was coined in Greek and spread through its Latin form46. Like Goclenius and Alsted, Calov used the Greek term: «Scientia de Ente Metaphysica appellatur communiter a rerum ordine, ∆Ontologiva rectius ab obiecto proprio»47. According to Calov, ontology is the «scientia de ente in universali». It is not a preliminary science as it is preceded, within the metaphysical system, by two other sciences, gnostology and noology: the first studies the cognoscibile qua cognoscibile, while the second studies first principles. Keeping the separation between general metaphysics and special metaphysics, Calov included ontology in general metaphysics and attributed to the latter the subject of ens in abstractione summa and its attributes. CAPSIUS, Rerum Transcendentium Stud. cit., f. 1v (sine numero). «[...] Metaphysica divina [...] peut être considérée dans l’état actuel de nos connaisances, comme la première ontologie. [...] on peut bien dire qu’avec Calov, l’Ontologie en tant que discipline est déjà née». J. ÉCOLE, La Philosophia prima sive ontologia de Ch. Wolff, «Giornale di metafisica», 1 (1961), p. 116; also in J. ÉCOLE, Introduction à l’opus metaphysicum de Christian Wolff, Vrin, Paris 1985 («Reprise»), p. 10. 46 A. CALOV, Metaphysica divina a principiis primis eruta (1636), p. 4, in ID., Scripta philosophica, Impensis Joachimi Wilden, literis Alberti Hakelmanni, Lubecae 1651. 47 CALOV, Metaphysica divina cit., p. 4. 44 45 The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 187 7. Johann Christoph Segers (1639) [sub praesidio Liborius Capsius] The recent discovery of Capsius’ Rerum Transcendentium Stud.<-ium> (1635) shows that the attention the author dedicated to ontology was not restricted to the publication of Sapientia (vulgo Metaphysica) idealis (1627). Capsius promoted the study of the “new” metaphysical discipline among his students. Between 1638 and 1639, Capsius presided over the discussion of metaphysical disputations at the University of Erfurt. One of these was entitled De ontologia generali; the respondent was Johann Christophorus Segers. The only information available on Segers is that he came from Thuringia and was enrolled at Erfurt in 1627 with the Latin name of Ioannes Christophorus Segerdes48. Besides appearing in the title of the work, the Latin term ontologia appears three times in the text of the disputation. As in the Rerum Transcendentium Stud., metaphysics is divided into a propria, or diacritica, part and a common, or syncritica, part (also called communis). The latter is also called ontologia and deals with «Entis momenta generalissima»49. In turn, ontology is divided into two parts: an ontologia directa and an ontologia indirecta. The subject of the former is being and its affections (transcendentia), while the subject of the latter is non-being. The field of non-being includes «non-ens incomplexe proprie» such as negations and privations; and «non-ens incomplexe proprie» such as being in potency, being in becoming and being fluxum caducum. The definition of being given by Segers in the ontologia directa is very interesting. After differentiating the participial from the nominal meaning of the concept of being50, Segers declares: «I. ENS, RES, ALIQUID, formaliter aequipollent. II. Forma Metaphysica, Essentia, Natura, Quiditas, Terminus, idem in re cum Ente dicunt, licet rationes conceptibiles quasdam diversas involvant. [...] ENS est, cui convenit Essentia una realis, aptaque ad realiter existendum. Vel: Quod habet Essentiam vel actualem, vel realiter producibilem aut productam. Vel: Quod potest esse independeter a Ratione»51. In this instance the influence of Suárez’s Disputationes metaphysicae is clear. 48 Acten der Erfurter Universitaet, Historischen Commission der Provinz Sachsen (Hrsg.), J.C. Hermann Weissenborn (Bearb.), II Teil, Hendel, Halle 1884, p. 543, l. 35. 49 J.C. SEGERS, De ontologia generali, quod Praeside M. Liborio Capsio P.P., III. Nonarum Augusti. In Auditorio Philosophico, Horis a 6. Matutinis, Praelo Martini Spangenbergii, Erfurti 1639, f. A2r, nr. 2. 50 «IV [sc. ens sumitur] Participialiter pro Re Existente. V. Nominaliter & Adaequate pro eo, quod habet Essentiam Unam, Realem, & Positivam, sed quatenus praescindit a statu Potentiali & Actuali: Sicuti sumitur in Metaphysicae definitione, opponiturque Rationi suae Formali, Modisque Unitis & Disjunctis». SEGERS, De ontologia cit., f. A2r. 51 SEGERS, De ontologia cit., f. A2v. nr. 15. 188 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna 8. Johann Flotwell and Johannes Hundius (1640) In 1640, in the same university in which Calov was professor at the time, the Albertus-Universität of Königsberg, a disputation entitled Disputatio prima Ontologica was discussed. The magister Johannes Flotwell – who had enrolled in Königsberg in 162552 – and the student Johannes Hundius53 – who had enrolled in 1636 – discussed some theses in which the need to include ontology among the sciences as an independent science was strongly underlined: «Necessario aliqua disciplina concedenda est ab aliis distincta, quae Ens in universali abstractione repraesentat»54 Resuming most of the arguments of Calov’s Metaphysica divina, Flotwell and Hundius asserted that the science of universal being should be called ontology and not metaphysics, as metaphysics was a name «extrinsecum, & aliis disciplinis commune». «Extrinsic» meant that the term metaphysics did not express the object the discipline dealt with, unlike the term ontology. The latter was the science whose subject was universal being and which dealt with the «affectiones universalissimae» of being and assigned objects to all the other sciences (disciplinae inferiores). For this reason, according to Flotwell and Hundius, ontology was the only one, real and universal science. In the text of the disputation, there is no hint as to who was the first to coin the term. Some of the quotations are taken from Calov’s Metaphysica divina55, who is called «Excellentissimus Dominus». Therefore, both the Lutherans of Königsberg and the scholars of the university probably had no doubts about who was the “father” of ontology! 9. Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz (1642) In 1642 Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz (1606-1682), Spanish Catholic ecclesiastic, used the word ontosophia in his Rationalis et realis philosophia: «Metaphysicae objectum est ENS, ideoque ∆Ontosofiva dicitur, quae “Onto" sofiva, seu ENTIS SCIENTIA. Differt a Facultatibus alijs, quod ipsa investiget objecti praedicata & dif52 G. ERLER (Hrsg.), Die Matrikel und die Promotionsverzeichnisse der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg, Bd. I, Dunker & Humblot, Leipzig 1910, p. 292, nr. 42, p. 324, nr. 57. 53 ERLER (Hrsg.), Die Matrikel cit., Bd. I, p. 367, nr. 17. 54 J. HUNDIUS, Disputatio prima Ontologica, Ex consensu Amplissimae Facultatis philosophicae, Typis Johanni Reusneri, Regiomonti 1640, f. A1r. 55 HUNDIUS, Disputatio prima cit., ff. A3r, A5r. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 189 ferentias essentiales, illae non nisi proprietas, passiones, attributa. Supponitur ab universis Artibus nullam supponens. Exorbitantiae gravi obnoxius, qui Theologiae, Physiologiae, aut Medicinae insudat, nî a Metaphysices eminenti notitia manuducatur. Non potest esse doctissimus in omnia scientia, qui exacte Ontosophiam percallet»56. And, further on in the text, Caramuel presented the meaning and merits of ontosophia, saying: «[...] periculose aedificat qui probabilia; stolide, qui dubbia supponit. Plurimi Ideas Ideis superstruentes Ontosophiam erexete Academiam, quae vel mole sua postmodum corruit arietante»57. The use of the term ontosophia by Caramuel may have come from his reading of Alsted58. 10. Heinrich Nicolai (1646) Heinrich Nicolai (1605-1660) studied in Wittenberg, Leipzig and Jena before going to Marburg in 1626, where he was awarded the title of magister after discussing a thesis in Hebrew. From 1630 he taught Logic and Metaphysics at the gymnasium of Gdansk, the city in which he also was a pastor. Later on, he became professor of Theology in Elblag. During the years spent in Gdansk, he published the Pansophia liberalis (1646). The work is a kind of small encyclopaedic treatise in which the subjects and the main disciplinary partitions of 46 disciplines are presented, through Ramistic diagrams. The pansophia59 is a systematic and organic combination of all these disciplines, among which the first three are gnostologia, noologia and metaphysica respectively. Calov’s influence is evident, as Nicolai probably met him in Gdansk. However, while the first two disciplines (gnostologia and noologia) have the same subject that Calov ascribed to them – the cognoscible and the principles of intelligence and knowledge respectively60 – unlike Calov, Nicolai identifies meta- C. LOBKOWITZ, Rationalis et realis Philosophia, Typis Everardi de Witte, Lovanij 1542, p. 65. LOBKOWITZ, Prima principia metaphysices, in ID., Rationalis et realis Philosophia cit., p. 66. 58 In the opinion of J. SCHMUTZ, La Querelle des possibles. Recherches philosophiques et textuelles sur la métaphysique jésuite espagnole, 1540-1767, thèse dactyl., Université libre de Bruxelles-École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), 2003, 77n., p. 238. 59 H. NICOLAI, Pansophia liberalis, Tabellis succincte ordinateque comprehensa & repraesentata [...], Georgius Rhetius, Dantisci 1646, p. 1. 60 NICOLAI, Pansophia cit., pp. 2, 4. 56 57 190 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna physica with ontologia without any distinction between the two61: their object (objectum) is ens ut ens. Indeed, from the diagrams, we can infer that, for Nicolai, there is no special part of metaphysics investigating the species of being. Together with noology, metaphysica seu ontologia is the general part of philosophy. Besides these two general sciences, there are all the single special sciences, such as pneumatica, cosmographia, physica and arithmetica. 11. Johannes Clauberg (1646; 1647; 1660; 1664; 1691) In 1647 Johann Clauberg62 (1622-1665) published the first edition of his Ontosophia63. The issue of the term metaphysics is tackled in § 89 with a reference to Caramuel and Calov: «[...] Metaphysicam dixere primam, supremam, transnaturalem philosophiam, divinam, catholicam, universalem scientia: novissime Ontosophia Caramuel Lobkowitz, Ontologiam post alios Abr. Calovius, aptissime uterque, nominarevunt»64. However, recent research by Massimiliano Savini shows that the term had already been used by Clauberg in Tessarakas thesium philosophicarum (1646), one year before his Ontosophia. «Deinde confundi solet Logica cum prima Philosophia seu scientia entis quatenus ens est (Ontologia)»65. The later editions of Ontosophia (1660; 1664) would give no further details about the origin of the term ontology. Clauberg maps ontology according to the various meanings of being: as the science of intelligibile, as the science of aliquid and nihil, and as the science of res66. NICOLAI, Pansophia cit., p. 5. On Clauberg see in part. M. SAVINI, Le Développement de la méthode cartésienne dans les ProvincesUnies (1643-1665), thèse dactyl, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 2001; U.G. LEINSLE, Reformversuche protestantischer Metaphysik im Zeitalter des Rationalismus, Maro Verlag, Augsburg 1988, pp. 88-105; ROMPE, Die Trennung cit., pp. 283-293. 63 J. CLAUBERG, Elementa philosophiae sive Ontososophia. Scientia prima, de iis quae Deo Creaturisque suo modo communiter attribuntur, distincta partibus quatuor, Typis Joannis Nicolai, Groningae 1647. 64 CLAUBERG, Diacritica, in Elementa philosophiae cit., § 89, p. 278. 65 J. CLAUBERG, Tessarakas thesium philosophicarum, de logicae ab aliis disciplinis quibus cum vulgo confundias solet distinctione, Typis Joannis Nicolai, Groningen 1646, Th. II, p. ii (sine numero); the adjective «ontologica» appears in Th. IX, p. II. On this new finding, see M. SAVINI, Johannes Clauberg: Methodus cartesiana et Ontologie, Vrin, Paris, forthcoming. 66 For an accurate reading of the opening of Ontosophia, see V. CARRAUD, L’ontologie peut-elle être cartésienne? L’exemple de l’Ontosophia de Clauberg, de 1647 à 1664: de l’ens à la mens, in T. VERBEEK 61 62 The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 191 «Entis initio statim tres distinguendae significationes. Nam vel denotat omne quod cogitari potest (distinctionis causa nonnullis vocatur Intelligibile) & huic non potest opponi quicquam; vel notat id, quod revera Aliquid est, nemine etiam cogitante, cui opponitur Nihil; vel significat Rem; quae per se existit, ut Substantia, cui solent opponi Accidentia»67. The Calvinist Clauberg’s ontology included, under the conceptual umbrella of ens, the three fundamental steps of the ontology of the Calvinist authors Timpler and Lorhard: intelligibile, aliquid/nihil, res. With Clauberg the priority of the intelligible over being becomes the priority of the intelligible within the definition of being: it meant that there was an extensional identity between being and the intelligible, and that being was first the pure intelligible: ontology was the science that took this model of being as its subject. 12. Johann Micraelius (1653; 1662) Johann Micraelius (1597-1658) wrote an entry on ontologia in his Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum (1653, 1662²)68: «ONTOLOGIA. ∆Ontologiva a nonnullis ponitur tanquam peculiaris disciplina Philosophica, quae tractat de Ente: quod tamen ab aliis statuitur objectum ipsius Metaphysicae»69. He still mentions ontologia s.v. Philosophia as a branch of metaphysics, or theoretical philosophy. After speaking of gnostology, hexology, technology, archaeology, and didactic, he writes: (ed.), Johannes Clauberg (1622-1665) and Cartesian Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London 1999 («Archives internationales d’histoires des idées», 164): and for a wider perspective on Ontosophia in the works of Clauberg, see M. SAVINI, Le Développement de la métode cartésienne cit., cc. V-VI. 67 J. CLAUBERG, Metaphysica de Ente quae rectius Ontosophia, in JOHANNIS CLAUBERGII Opera Omnia Philosophica, Ex Typographia P. & I. Blaev, Prostant apud Wolfgang, Ianssonio-Waesbergios Boom, a Someren, & Goethals, Amstelodami 1691, repr. Olms, Hildesheim 1968, c. I, nr. 1, p. 283. 68 J. MICRAELIUS, Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum ordine alphabetico sic digestorum, impensis Jeremiae Mamphrasii, typis Casparis Freyschmidii, Jenae 1653, col. 1125; and for the second edition: J. MICRAELIUS, Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum ordine alphabetico sic digestorum [...]. Editio Secunda ab ipso Authore Correcta & Aucta, cum novis novorum Terminorum & Vocabulorum Indicibus, impensis Jeremiae Mamphrasii, Bibliop., Typis Michaelis Höpfneri, Stetini 1662. The latter edition has been reprinted with an introduction by L. GELDSETZER, Stern-Verlag Janssen, Düsseldorf 1966 («Instrumenta philosophica. Series lexica», 1). The text of the first edition is quoted, since the second one merely shows typographical changes. 69 MICRAELIUS, Lexicon philosophicum cit., (ed. 1653), col. 752; (ed. 1662), col. 928. The second edition mixes upper and lower case: ONTologiva. 192 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna «Cujus [sc. metaphysica] species faciunt Ontologiam de Ente & Pneumatologiam quam subdividunt in Theologiam de Deo, Angelographiam de intelligentiis & Psychologiam de anima separabili»70. And s.v. Metaphysica: «Metaphysicae objectum est Ens quatenus [sic] Ens est. Unde etiam vocatur aliquibus ojntologiva»71. 13. Jacobus Fontinalis (1655?) Jacobus Fontialis, or Fontinalis72, probably wrote the Nodi perplexi, sive ontologia labyrinthea in 165573. 14. Dietrich von Wida (1663) [sub praesidio Christian Heinrich Mildeheupt] Christian Heinrich Mildeheupt, who was Master of Philosophy in Delmenhorst, is known mainly for publishing a Dissertatio ontologica de quaestione an conceptus entis sit unus. He presided over this Dissertatio, while the student, or defender, was Dietrich von Wida. The defence occurred on 7 March 1663. 15. Gideon Harvey (1663) Gideon Harvey, who was born in Surrey, became a Commoner on 23 May 1655 at Exeter College Oxford, where he had studied Philosophy. He later studied Botany under Vorstius in Leyden, as well as Chemistry, Surgery and Pharmacy: he graduated in Medicine and was then admitted as a Fellow of the College of Physicians at The Hague, and served as a physician in the English Army in Flanders (1659). After travelling across Europe for a long time, he was made physician of the Tower of London and, later on, Doctor of Medicine at Cambridge MICRAELIUS, Lexicon philosophicum cit., (ed. 1653), col. 825; (ed. 1662), col. 905. MICRAELIUS, Lexicon philosophicum cit., (ed. 1653), col. 654; (ed. 1662), col. 770. 72 If we follow the correction by S. MATTON, Did Leibniz read Jacobus Fontialis, an article from the blog http://subsecivaelitterae.blogspot.com/2008/06/leibniz-lecteur-de-fontialis-propos-du.html, note 1. On Fonti(n)alis, see J.-L. MARION, Jacobus Fontialis. Essai de bibliographie, «Nouvelles de la République des Lettres», 1 (1993), pp. 126-128. 73 The author has not seen this manuscript. See instead J. LETROUIT, Das Fliegenfickenargument und der Beweis des Gottesdaseins in Jacobus Fontialis’ Nodi perplexi, sive ontologia labyrinthea, «Archiv für die Geschichte des kranken Denkens», 94 (2000), pp. 143-204 (not seen); the dating is shared by J.-L. MARION, Hobbes et Descartes: l’étant comme corps, in M. FICHANT / J.-L. MARION / D. WEBER (éd.), Hobbes, Descartes et la métaphysique, Vrin, Paris 2005, 1n., p. 74. 70 71 The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 193 (1698). The year of his death is uncertain, as some sources suggest 1700, while others suggest 1736. His medical treatises never enjoyed a great success in his faculty. In 1663 he published in two volumes the work Archelogia Philosophica nova; or, New Principles of Philosophy, containing 1. Philosophy in general, 2. Metaphysiks or Ontology, Dynamilogy or a Discourse of Power, Religio Philosophi or Natural Theology, Physicks or Natural Philosophy (London: Thomson 1663, 2 vols.). A second part was published under the title Psycheologia; or, a Book of Soul. 16. Mogens Mogensen Wingaard (1665; 1691; 1697) The Danish Mogens Mogensen Wingaard (1639-1710 ?) is the author of Disp. quartor Ontosophicae, published in Copenhagen in 1665, and Vindemiae ontosophicae de autoritate divina in philosophicis, also published in Copenhagen in 1691, and reprinted in 1697. 17. Johann Hojer (1667); Johann Georg Müller (1668); Johann Heinrich Scheucker (1668); Johann Bernhold (1670); Johannes Georgius Dolansky (1677) [sub praesidio Nicolaus Benedictus Pascha] Nicolaus Benedictus Pascha (1643-1704) was a rector in Groningen from 1677. He published 57 theological and philosophical disputations during his career. In the ontological field, his disputations took place between 1660 and 1680. The first ones, dating from 1667, are entitled Speculationum ontologicarum prima de ontologiae existentiae, definitione & partitione74 (defender: Johann Hojer); Speculationum ontologicarum secunda de causis ontologiae75 (defender: Johann Georg Müller); Speculatio ontologica de veritate76 (defender: Johann Heinrich Scheucker); and Contemplatio ontologica de conceptus entis ut sic simplicitate et compositione (defender: Johann Bernhold)77. Dating from 1677 are the Disputa74 J. HOJER, Speculationum ontologicarum prima de ontologiae existentia, definitione & partitione, Hake, Wittenberg 14 December 1667. 75 J.G. MÜLLER, Speculationum ontologicarum secunda de causis ontologiae, Hake, Wittenberg, 12 February 1668. 76 J.H. SCHEUCKER, Speculatio Ontologica De Veritate, Quam Praeses M. Nicolaus Benedictus Pascha, Zitta-Lusatus. Respondente Johanne Heinrico Scheuckero, Freiberga Misnico. Publicae Eruditorum ventilationi subiicit Ad D. XXIII. Maii, In Auditorio Minori [...], Hake, Wittebergae 1668. 77 J. BERNHOLD, Contemplatio ontologica de conceptus entis ut sic simplicitate et compositione, Henckelius, Wittebergae 1670. Calov is mentioned at the beginning of the disputation. 194 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna tio ontologica de bonitate78 (defender: Johannes Georgius Dolansky) and in particular the Collegium ontologicum thetico-axiomaticum, which seems to be a compilation of all the previous disputations79. This book, first published in 1677, was reprinted 20 years later80. 18. Georg Lehmann (1669) [sub praesidio Johann Ernst Hering] In 1669 the philosopher Johann Ernst Hering from Wittenberg presided over a dissertation defended by Georg Heinrich Lehmann, Dissertatio ontologica de objecto ontologias81. Hering is only known for his activities between 1665 and 1669. Lehmann, who is probably acted as defender, was a theologian and philosopher in Leipzig between 1675 and 1680, and later on in Helmstedt. 19. Antonin Regnault (1669) The Dominican Antoine Ravaille (1606-1676), known in his Order as Antonin Regnault or Réginald, published in 1669 the Doctrinae Divi Thomae Aquinatis tria principia cum suis consequentiis. The first part is entitled De Ontologia. 20. Jacob Thomasius (1670; 1678; 1692; 1705) Jakob Thomas82 (1622-1684), who was a Master of Leibniz, used the word ontologia, but with the aim of criticizing the ontological approach, just as Christ- J.G. DOLANSKY, Disputatio ontologica de bonitate, Burckhard & Liebenhirt, Wittenberg 1677. Collegium Ontologicum Thetico-Axiomaticum: XXV. Disputationibus semestris spatio in Electorali ad Albim Universitate publice propositum. in quo Non solum singulorum terminorum formalitates, qua fieri potuit accuratione, certis ac perspicue conceptis praeceptis proponuntur, adhibitaq[ue] exegesi, methodice resolvuntur [...], Studio ac opera M. Nicolai Benedicti Paschae, Zitta-Lusati, Facult. Philos. Adiuncti, Ziegenbein, Wittebergae 1677. 80 Ontologia thetico-axiomatica, Wilde-Zeidler, Frankfurt am Main-Leipzig 1694. 81 G. LEHMANN, Dissertatio ontologica de objecto ontologias, Henckel, Wittenberg 1669. 82 For a presentation of Jacob Thomasius’ metaphysics, see U.G. LEINSLE, Reformversuche protestantischer Metaphysik cit., pp. 139-149, and notes pp. 409-417; and on his relation with the history of ontology, see G. GRUA, La position de Leibniz par rapport aux ontologies scolastiques et ses conséquences dans sa doctrine, in Doctor communis. Acta et commentationes Pontificiae Academia S. Thomae Aquinatis (Supplementum ad acta III. Congr. Thomistici Internationalis), Romae, 4 (1951), 1, pp. 102-103; ROMPE, Die Trennung von Ontologie cit., pp. 335-339; H. SCHEPERS, La philosophie allemande au XVIIe siècle, in Y. BELAVAL (éd.), Histoire de la philosophie, Gallimard, Paris 1973, vol. II-I, pp. 429-430; COURTINE, Suárez et le système cit., pp. 443-444. 78 79 The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 195 ian Dreier and Ernst Soner (authors whom he often quotes) did. His criticism occurs in the Erotemata metaphysica83 and more precisely in the Historia variae fortunae, quam disciplina metaphysica [...] experta est84. Thomasius criticizes twice, in expressis verbis, the separation between pneumatics and ontology85. If the discourse on God and the angels no longer takes place in the field of (general) metaphysics, then what is called ontology is reduced to only a mere lexicon, a discourse on general words86. According to Thomasius, if the object of metaphysics is being qua being, it is no longer the type of abstract being that is considered by Aristotle as God Himself. Metaphysics is therefore a natural theology, while ontology is only the fruit of the Scholastics’ libido abstrahendi, it is not the metaphysics of Aristotle87. 21. Jakob Heintzschel (1671) [sub praesidio Georg Wagner] In 1671, at the Protestant University of Wittenberg, Jakob Heintzschel discussed a disputation, entitled Principia ontologica, in order to be awarded the baccalaureate in Theology. The disputation was presided over by Georg Wagner (1630-1683), who was theologian, pastor, and superintendent. In the disputation, the metaphysical doctrine of subsistentia is discussed in order to explain some theological articles, such as the hypostatic union and mystery of the Incarnation. Heintzschel declared himself convinced that it was useful to use some funda- 83 Second edition in 1670, and reprinted in 1678, 1692 and 1705. We read the third volume of the Gesammelte Schriften following the first edition. 84 Quoted by Johann Jacob Brucker on ontologia in the Historia critica philosophiae, Breitkopf, Leipzig 1744, vol. IV/2, p. 667. 85 «Quod postremum profecto magis consentaneum dixerim Philosophiae Christianae, quam vulgarem doctrinam, quae & ipsa Pneumaticam ab Ontologia abscindens, in ea simul de DEO, simul de Angelis agendum putat: non animadvertens, Aristoteles quidem, cur ita faceret, causam in Philosophia Gentili reperisse, Christianos eandem in sua Philosophia minime reperire». J. THOMASIUS, Erotemata Metaphysica pro incipientibus, accessit pro adultis. Historia variae fortunae, quam Metaphysica experta est, Lipsiae, Georg Heinrich Frommann, 1678², reprint in ID., Gesammelte Schriften, W. SPARN (hrsg.), Bd. III, OlmsWeidmann, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York 2003, § 49, p. 83; «Quae cum ita sint, si quis negotium suscipere velit, emendandi ea, quae hoc in genere hinc a Scholasticis, illinc ab ipso etiam Aristotele peccata fuerunt, is non incommode fortassis hanc inibit rationem, ut ante omnia separet Ontologiam ceu [sic] disciplinam universalem & instrumentalem ab omnibus particularibus ac principalibus, adeoque et a doctrina de DEO & de Angelis». THOMASIUS, Erotemata cit., § 58, p. 86. 86 «Quod si maxime naturali hac Theologia sic uti velis, ut eius velut occasione simul exhaurias terminos illos generales, qui alias Ontologiam circumscribunt, non desperandum est de huius etiam consilii successu, si ingenium adhibeas atque industriam». THOMASIUS, Erotemata cit., § 62, p. 87. 87 See G. SANTINELLO, La Historia philosophica nella scolastica tedesca, in G. SANTINELLO (a cura di), Storia delle storie generali della filosofia, vol. I: Dalle origini rinascimentali alla Historia philosophica, La Scuola, Brescia 1981, pp. 418, 446, 456. 196 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna mental metaphysical concepts in theology. However, in order for theology to benefit Heintzschel believed it was necessary to redefine the concepts, which were often unclear, of Natura, Subsistentia, Suppositum, i.e. to go into their ontology, and the disputation was therefore entitled Principia ontologica. In his arguments, Heintzschel often cited authoritative Catholic sources and there are frequent quotations from Suárez, while Abraham Calov is cited among the Protestant authors. In the whole text, the term ontology occurs twice, only on the title page of the work, and it is not distinguished from metaphysics: ontology is the fundamental science of definitions and concepts. 22. Lorenz Samuel Ernst (1672) [sub praesidio Johann Jacob Feßlin] Johann Jacob Feßlin (1645-1681), who was born in Ulm, studied Philosophy in Wittenberg in 1666 and graduated in 1669. He became a professor of Mathematics in 1674, after a period of time spent in Jena in 1673. He presided over 60 philosophical disputes, and published the Theorema ontologicum de proprium separatione in 1672, in Wittenberg, whose respondent was Lorenz Samuel Ernst (1651-1736). 23. Johann Friedrich Heunisch (1674; 1684) Johann Friedrich Heunisch (1661-1725) was a student in Jena, Erfurt, and Leipzig. After being awarded a licentia in Theology, he became the rector of the Gymnasium of Schweinfurt. After serving as a diaconus from 1692, he became pastor primarius in 1715. In 1674 (and again in 1684) he published, in Leipzig, De utilitate in theologia primi principii metaphysicae vulgaris praecartesianae88 in which he recalls (in Th. II) that ontology89 was the name given to metaphysics in the works of authors of his age. 24. Christian Weise (1675) In 1675 the German poet Christian Weise (1642-1708) published, under the pseudonym of Catharinus Civilis, the first edition of Die drey Klügsten Leute in His works were reprinted in a single volume entitled Heunischius redivivus. «In antecessum autem notetur quod terminus Metaphysica Aristoteli [...], recentioribus ojntosofiva [...]». We thank Jean-Robert Armogathe for having forwarded this quotation. 88 89 The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 197 der gantzen Welt (following editions: 1679; 1682; 1684; 1691; 1707; 1710). In this work the neologism ontology can be found in Latin90. 25. Jean Gayot (1674) In 1674 the enigmatic Oratorian and Cartesian, Jean Gayot, from Lyons, also known as Guillaume de Chavane91, defended some of his theses on ontosophy in his Synopsis ex onto-sophia92. 26. Samuel Strimesius (1678; 1697) Samuel Strimesius (1648-1730), a Calvinist theologian from Könisberg, studied at Magdalene College Cambridge. In 1674 he taught Philosophy in Cambridge and later became a professor of Theology in Frankfurt am Oder in 1679. He is the author of Ontologia et pneumatologia ex B. Grebenitzii Metaphysica scripta, which was first published in 1678, and reprinted in 1697. 27. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1683-1685; 1692-1695; 1708-1710) Leibniz is the only one of the great philosophers of the 17th Century to have used the term ontology. The well-known text, always presented as a hapax, comes from the Introducatio ad encyclopaediam arcanam. However, Leibniz had also used the term ontology in two other works before rejecting it. The date of the first text is set today between 1683-1685. Leibniz writes: «Scientia Generalis nihil aliud est quam Scientia de Cogitabili in universum quatenus tale est, quae non tantum complectitur Logicam hactenus receptam, sed et artem in- 90 C. WEISE [alias Catharinus Civilis], Die drey Klügsten Leute in der gantzen Welt, J. Fritzsch, Leipzig 1675, p. 181, also in ID., Sämtliche Werke, Bd. XVIII, de Gruyter, Berlin 2005, p. 112. With regard to this occurrence of the term see the website http://www.formalontology.it. 91 Jean Gayot also defended some Thèses des Principes de la physique et du monde visible selon les principes de Monsieur Descartes, Lyons, 2 September 1673. Another copy of the same text is known with the following title page: GUILLAUME DE CHAVANE, Thèses des Principes de la physique et du monde visible selon l’hypothèse de Mr. Descartes, Lyon, 3 février 1674. The texts are identical. 92 J. Gayot, Synopses ex philosophia decem. I. ex proto-philosophia. II. ex logica. III. ex onto-sophia. [...]. In quibus eo ordine & ea breuitate traduntur uniuersa fere quae Cartesius suis in scripsis explicuit [...], apud D.D. GAYOT Regis Quaestorem, hora sesquiprima / die 18 Mense Augusto, Lugduni In Bella-Area 1674. – A Synopsis ex onto-sophia is published on pp. 17-26. 198 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna veniendi, et Methodum seu modum disponendi, et Synthesin atque Analysin, et Didacticam, seu scientiam docendi; Gnostologiam quam vocant, Noologiam, Artem reminiscendi seu Mnemonicam, Artem characteristicam seu symbolicam, Artem Combinatoriam, Artem Argutiarum, Grammaticam philosophicam; Artem Lullianam; Cabbalam sapientum, Magiam naturalem; forte etiam Ontologiam seu scientiam de Aliquo et Nihilo, Ente et Non ente, Re et modo rei, Substantia et Accidente. Non multum interest quomodo Scientias partiaris, sunt enim corpus continuum quemadmodum Oceanus»93. The second text is dated from 1692-1695, and is entitled by modern editors (2004) De duobus systematis scientiarum. In it can be found a reflection by Leibniz as a librarian. When considering the books and their division in order to label them in a library, Leibniz ventured on making ontology a library category. However, this point of view was probably too much ahead of its time even for Leibniz, and so he changed his mind and decided to delete the whole paragraph94. A third occurrence of the term ontology can be found in another rejected text. It is entitled Ad Christophori Stegmanni Metaphysicam unitariorum, and may be dated to 1708-171095. Nicholas Jolley published it in 1975 without paying attention to the term ontology. In this work Leibniz initially wrote: «Scientiam autem generalis quam vulgo Ontolog»», but he later altered his text to read: «Scientia autem generalis quam dicam Metaphysicam vocant»96. And further down he referred to Goclenius and Thomasius97. Even though Leibniz thought he had created a category for this metaphysics, early in his career he seems to have read and referred to only a few users of the term ontology – namely Abraham Calov, Jacob Thomasius – and later to Jean Le Clerc98. 93 G.W. LEIBNIZ, Opuscules et fragments inédits, L. Couturat (éd.), Alcan, Paris 1903, also in ID., Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1999, Reihe VI, Bd. IV, Teil A, p. 527, ll. 18-26. 94 «Philosophici doppelt unterstr. (aaaa) Dida (bbbb) Logicam, Mnem (cccc) Didacticam, (aaaaa) Mnemonicam, (bbbbb) Logicam (aaaaaa) Rhet (bbbbbb) oratoriam seu (aaaaaaa) Persuasoriam (bbbbbbb) partem Rhetoricae persuasoriam, Mnemonicam; (aaaaaaaa) Metaphysicam, (bbbbbbbb) Ontologiam». G.W. LEIBNIZ, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2004, Reihe IV, Bd. V, p. 592, ad. l. 25. 95 However, Leibniz had already taken notes (lost) on this text by Stegmann (c. 1670). When he wrote the 1708 text, he still had these notes and used them. So perhaps this use of ontology goes back to the 1670s. 96 N. JOLLEY, An Unpublished Leibniz MS on Metaphysics, «Studia Leibnitiana», 7 (1975), 2, p. 179, l. 81 and var. ad l. 81. 97 «Quidam, ut Goclenius, et Jac. Thomasius Metaphysicam (vulgarem scilicet) habent pro mero Lexico philosophico terminorum generalium, non Alphabetice, sed methodice conscripto». N. JOLLEY, An Unpublished Leibniz MS on Metaphysics, «Studia Leibnitiana», 7 (1975), 2, pp. 180-181, ll. 120-123. 98 For an accurate study of the relationship between Leibniz and the ontological tradition, see M. DEVAUX, Leibniz et la question de l’ontologie, PUF, Paris, forthcoming. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 199 28. Jean-Baptiste Du Hamel (1684) Jean-Baptiste Du Hamel99 (1624-1706) is the author of the Philosophia vetus et nova, ad usum scholae accomodatae, in regia Burgundia olim pertractata (1663, 1675²). Its third edition (1684) presents a considerably revised text and the title itself changes. The first and second editions, which differ in the number of books (the first is divided into two books, the second into four books), are entitled De consensu veteris et novae philosophiae libri duo (1663) and De consensu veteris et novae philosophiae libri quatuor, seu Promotae per experimenta philosophiae pars prima (1675), while the title of the third is Philosophia vetus et nova, ad usum scholae (1684). The term ontology only occurs in the third edition. Metaphysics is thus threefold: ontology, or science of being; metaphysics itself, or the science of causes, i.e. etiology; and natural theology, or the science of God and the angels100. 29. Johann Heinrich Schweitzer (1685; 1691; 1694; 1696; 1700; 1709) Johann Heinrich Schweitzer (1644-1705) was a professor of Greek in Hanau between 1665 and 1667, after which he became a pastor in Birmensdorf, and later a professor of Greek and Canon Law. In 1705 he became the first pastor and ecclesiastic counsellor to the Elector Palatine in Heidelberg. The first edition of his Ontosophia Claubergiana in Theoremata & Axiomata succincte digesta was published in Basel in 1685, but the book was reprinted in 1691, 1694, 1696, and 1700 in Marburg and Frankfurt101, and in 1709 in Frankfurt. 99 On Du Hamel’s place in the history of ontology, see ROMPE, Die Trennung von Ontologie cit., pp. 177-192. 100 «Quod ut breviter & cum aliqua utilitate præstemus, in tres partes vel tractacus hanc Philosophiae partem distribuemus. In primo quae ad entis ipsius naturam, principia, affectiones & primas velut species pertinet, exequemur: adeo ut Ontologiam, seu entis scientiam, hoc tractatu complectamur. Atque haec est prima Philosophia, aut scientia generalis, ex qua reliquae dimanant. / Ontologiam excipiet Aetiologia, seu de causis tractatio, quae Metaphysicam proprie dictam complectitur: est enim Physicae contemplationis caput. [...] Tertius denique tractacus Theologiam naturalem comprehendit de Deo maxime, & anima rationali: perpauca enim de Angelis sunt nobis perspecta». J.-B. DU HAMEL, Préface, Question préliminaire, Division de la métaphysique, in Philosophia vetus et nova, ad usum scholae, Apud Stephanum Michallet, Parisiis 1684, tomus I, p. 434. 101 J.H. SCHWEITZER, Ontosophia Claubergiana in Theoremata & Axiomata succincte digesta, Marburgi-Francofurti 1700. 200 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna 30. Gerard(-us) de Vries (1684; 1685; 1703; 1712; 1713) Gerard de Vries (1668-1705) was a professor of philosophy in Utrecht known for his anti-Cartesian views (he himself translated into Latin the Voyage du monde de M. Descartes by Father Gabriel Daniel), and his un-slavish Aristotelian approach. He published De catholicis rerum attributis determinationes ontologicae adornatae102, in which the term ontologia is not used just as an adjective, as it is in the title. In the opening of the first chapter, De Vries establishes the identity between the terms metaphysics and ontology: «Quae Philosophiae pars Metaphysica vulgo vocatur, quod ea tradit quae naturam rerum Corporearum transcendunt, eandem, ad instar aliarum disciplinarum, ab objecto dicere liceat Ontologiam. Etiam, ab excellentia, jure merito Primam Philosophiam; quoniam agit de veritatibus primo-primis, in aliis Scientiis supponendis: quamobrem & Philosophiam Universalem, sive Scientiam Catholicam, haud male appellaveris»103. According to De Vries, ontology is a universal science, since it deals with all the general predicates, used by individual disciplines, under the most general meaning, i.e. with reference to being. Beings are per se what «naturam rerum Corporearum transcendunt». 31. Jean Le Clerc (1692; 1698; 1700; 1704; 1710) Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736)104, an Arminian and professor of Philosophy at the Remonstrant College of Amsterdam (one of his pupils was Étienne de Courcelles, the Latin translator of the Discours de la méthode), is mainly known for the publication of the three Bibliothèques (Bibliothèque universelle et historique [1686-1693], Bibliothèque choisie [1703-1713] and Bibliothèque ancienne et moderne [1714-1730]). He studied Cartesian philosophy in Geneva and in the beginning, his way of thinking was closer to a Cartesian theology, but he soon embraced Locke’s philosophy. He dedicated to Locke his Ontologia (which was 102 The first edition was published in 1684, and the book was reprinted in 1685, 1690, 1703, 1712 and 1713. 103 G. DE VRIES, De catholicis rerum attributis determinationes ontologicae adornatae, Apud Joh. Arnold Langerack, Lugduni Batavorum 1713, c. I, pp. 1-2. 104 For an overview of Le Clerc, see his biography by A. BARNES, Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) et la République des Lettres, Droz, Paris 1938, and for a review of his philosophical work, see M.C. PITASSI, Jean Le Clerc bon tâcheron de la philosophie. L’enseignement philosophique à la fin du XVIIe siècle, «Lias: Sources and Documents Relating to the Early Modern History of Ideas», 10 (1983), 1, pp. 105-122. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 201 the only publication of his course on Metaphysics)105. Le Clerc was «peu intéressé par ce qu’il appelle, non sans mépris, des subtilités métaphysiques»106. Without the neologism ontologia, the content of the Ontologia remains wholly scholastic in its terminology107. Therefore, Le Clerc was not a great innovator in the history of ontology, which he defined humbly: «At undecumque id nominis duxerit, scire nostra parum interest; atque, ut omnem circa nomen quæstionem vitaremus, eam Disciplinam Ontologiam, id est, ejpisqhvmh peri; tou` o[nto", Scientiam de Ente vocavimus»; «Paulo tamen clarius Ontologiam definire malumus: Scientiam de Ente in genere, ejusque proprietatibus»108. 32. Étienne Chauvin (1692; 1713) Similar to what is found in Micraelius’ Lexicon, but not in Goclenius’, an article on Ontosophia can be found in the Lexicon rationale sive thesaurus philosophicus ordine alphabetico digestus (1692, 1713²) by Étienne Chauvin (1640-1725). «ONTOSOPHIA, si vim vocis species sofiva o[nto", sapientia seu scientia entis; estque adeo vocabulum aptissimum huic designandae disciplinae, quae usitatissime in Peripateticorum scholis Metaphysica audit, utpote quod integrae definitionis munere non infeliciter fungitur, genus disciplinae & differentiam ex objecto innuens. Alias Ontologia, doctrina de ente, dicitur. Verum Ontosophiae voce commodius habitus scientiae entis; voce vero Ontologiae systema, methodicam de ente doctrinam complectens, significatur. Objectum igitur Ontosophiae est ens in genere. Verum hic Recentiores quidam monent observandum, ejusmodi ens esse quidem commune Deo & Creaturae, spiritui & corpori; non autem commune substantiae & accidenti, quasi abstrahaeret ab utroque. Nimirum, a vulgari Philosophorum sententia discedentes, Ontosophiae objectum directum & primarium faciunt ens propriissime & stricte sumptum, seu Rem, quam usitate substantiam vocamus, contradistincte ad rei modos seu attributa, idque propter rationes sequentes»109. 105 His Ontologia was first published in 1692, in Amsterdam, and in London in the same year together with the Pneumatologia. We find it again in 1698 in the Opera philosophica, reprinted during the period under investigation, in 1700, 1704, and 1710. See M.C. PITASSI, Jean Le Clerc cit., 10n., p. 116. 106 PITASSI, Jean Le Clerc cit., p. 105. 107 «[...] la Logica, l’Ontologia, la Pneumatologia, la Physica ne se détachent pas, quant à l’articulation interne, de la tradition reçue et révèlent à peine, au niveau formel, la nouveauté qu’ils contiennent pourtant. Si on les compare avec des manuels de l’époque, d’inspiration scolastique, on s’aperçoit que, surtout en ce qui concerne l’ontologie et la pneumatologie, la disposition des sujets et l’ordre des arguments n’ont pas subi de changements radicaux; la terminologie même reste souvent traditionnelle». PITASSI, Jean Le Clerc cit., p. 106. 108 Respectively Praefatio, § 2 and § 3, p. 324. 109 S. CHAUVIN, Lexicon rationale sive thesaurus philosophicus, Apud Petrum vander Slaart Bibliopo- 202 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna 33. Johann Eberhard Schweling (1694; 1700) The Cartesian Johann Eberhard Schweling (Latin: Suelingius, 1645-1714) was active in Cartesian debates. In 1690 he answered to the Censura cartesianae of the Bishop of Avranches with his Exercitationes cathedrariae in Petri Danielis Huetii censuram philosophiae cartesianae (but this text is less known than the controversy between Huet, Régis and Du Hamel). In 1694 Schweling published his Philosophiae tomus praeliminaris continens Logicam et philosophicam et vulgarem, neque non Ontosophiam, and in 1700 his Fasciculus tomorum Philosophiae continet Logicam, Ontologiam, Politicam was published in Bremen. 34. Edme Pourchot (1695; 1700) Edme Pourchot (1651-1734) taught Philosophy at the College of Grassins, and afterwards at the College of Mazarin. In 1695 he published Institutiones philosophicae ad faciliorem veterum ac recentiorum philosophorum lectionem comparatae (volume IV: Continens ethicam et exercitationes scholasticas in Aristotelis metaphysicam), and in 1700 Exercitationes scholasticae in varias partes philosophiae, praesertimque in Aristotelis metaphysicam, sive Series disputationum ontologicarum naturali ordine dispositarum, quibus praemissum est breve compendium philosophiae. 35. Alexander Joachim Scherping (1697) [sub praesidio David Lothsak] On January 16th, 1697, David Lothsak, from Grettin, who had studied in Rostock, presided over a dispute entitled Ontosophiae divinae speculum. The respondent was Alexander Joachim Scherping. (The Praesamen refers to the Metaphysica divina by Calov). lam, Rotterodami 1692, page Nnn, vo, col. a; below page Nnn, vo, coll. a-b: «2. Quia, cùm ens seu substantia immediate dividitur in mentem & corpus, vel Deum & creaturam, Ontosophia suo officio felicissime fungitur, & reliquis particularibus disciplinis objecta assignat [...]»; and page Eee3, ro, col. b: «Ab aliis dicitur Ontosophia, vel Ontologia, & quidem rectius. Quandoquidem utraque illa vox integrae definitionis munere non infeliciter fungitur. Est entis vulgaris Metaphysica, scientia entis, quatenus est ens: at Ontosophia, quasi dixeris, sofiva o[nto", est sapientia seu scientia entis; adeoque & genus disciplinae, & differentiam ex objecto sumptam innuit. Ontologia vero dicitur, quasi logiva vel lovgo" o[nto", sermo seu doctrina de ente. Quanquam & hoc observandum, quod voce Ontosophiae, commodius scientia entis; voce autem Ontologiae systema, methodicam de ente doctrinam complectens, significatur». The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 203 36. Gabriel Zehender, Johann Rudolph Gruner, Samuel Steiner (1699) [sub praesidio Samuel Leemann] The book entitled Disputationes philosophicae quae exhibet compendium ontosophiae (pars prior, altera & posterior) by Gabriel Zehender, Johann Rudolph Gruner, and Samuel Steiner is a compilation of the disputations defended under the supervision of Samuel Leemann. It was printed in octavo in Bern by the publisher Hügenentum in 1699. Samuel Leemann, or Lehmann, from the canton of Bern, was a pastor at Ligerz in 1678, and a professor of Philosophy in Bern in 1684, before becoming a professor of Hebrew the year after the publication of his ontological disputation. He died in 1709. At that time, ontosophia was twofold, comprising a general and a special part; the beginning of the general part (De ente et generalissimis entis attributis, §§ 1-69) was defended by Zehender, the end of the general part (§§ 70-103) and beginning of the special part (De generalissimis entis divisionibus ac specibus, §§ 1-21) by Gruner, and the end (§§ 22-67) by Steiner. 37. Eliseo García (1704) The Carmelite Eliseo García is the author of Assertiones transnaturales ex peripateticae metaphysices viridario decerptae, nimirum ex ontologia, diaphorontologia, tiogia, anthropologia, uranologia, angelosophia, theologia published in 1704. It seems to be the first ontology published in Spain110. 38. Josias Gottfried Neander and Georg Schwartze (1707) The work by Josias Christoph (?) Neander111 and Georg Schwartze, Ontosophia sive sapientia entis institutionibus metaphysicis proposita, published in 1707, is basically unknown. According to SCHMUTZ, La Querelle des possibles cit., 77n., p. 238. Neander’s second Christian name is not clear. Is it Josias Christoph Neander, a Lutheran theologian, who was born in 1630 and died on 13 January 1679 (?), or Josias Gottfried Neander, born on 27 January 1681, and died on 1 August 1748, and who became pastor the year after the publication of the book to which we refer? It is more likely to be the latter, except for the existence of a third Josias Neander! 110 111 204 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna 39. Jakob Johann Syrbius (1719) Jakob Johann Syrbius, who was born in June 1674 in Thuringia and died on 8 November 1738, was a Lutheran theologian. In 1693 he studied Philosophy, Theology, History and Languages at the University of Jena. A Doctor of Philosophy in 1696, he taught Logic and Metaphysics at Jena University from 1707 to 1730, where he then became professor of Theology. In 1719 he published at Jena the Institutiones Philosophiae Primae Novae et Eclecticae: Quarum pars prima, seu Architectonica Praeter Theologiam Philosophicam Omnis Eruditionis Fundamenta [...] Altero vero, seu Metaphysica Philosophiam Occultam Tertia denique, seu Ontologia Notionum Philosophicarum Vulgo Usitatiorum Explicationem Continet Addita Est Universae Historiae Philosophiae Tabula Cum indice copioso112. 40. Nathan(-iel) Bailey (1721; 1730) Nathan(-iel) Bailey died in Stepney on 27 June 1742, leaving no memorials of his life. In religion, he is said to have been a Sabbatarian: he seems to have been admitted to membership of the Seventh-Day Baptists at the Mill Yard Church in Whitechapel on 6 November 1691. He was a schoolmaster for a while. He is well-known for his dictionary An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, first published in 1721 (and reprinted in 1730, 1736 and 1755), where we can read an entry «Ontologist (ojntovlogo", G) one who treats on beings in the abstract»113. 41. Nicolas Magniez (1721) Nicolas Magniez (died 1749) is only known for his Novitius seu dictionarium latino-gallicum, schreveliana methodo digestum, published in 1721. In his handbook on Latin language learning, Le Postulant114, Louis-François Magniez de Woimont reputed his uncle Nicolas to be the author of the Novitius. Louis- 112 J.J. SYRBIUS, Institutiones Philosophiae Primae Novae et Eclecticae: Quarum pars prima, seu Architectonica Praeter Theologiam Philosophicam Omnis Eruditionis Fundamenta [...] Altero vero, seu Metaphysica Philosophiam Occultam Tertia denique, seu Ontologia Notionum Philosophicarum Vulgo Usitatiorum Explicationem Continet Addita Est Universae Historiae Philosophiae Tabula Cum indice copioso, Bielcke, Ienae 1719. 113 N. BAILEY, An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, Waller, London 1756 (4th ed.). 114 Charles Huguier - André Cailleau, Paris 1722, p. 245. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 205 François Magniez de Woimont was planning to write a reverse French-Latin dictionary (announced in the Novitius, p. 1390, but never published). The Novitius is the first non-philosophical dictionary that includes an entry on ontologia115. 42. Isaac Watts (1724, 1733) The Universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen conferred the degree of Doctor in Divinity on Isaac Watts (1674-1748) in 1728. He belonged to the Congregation of Dissenters. He began to preach when he was 24, and ordained to the pastoral office in 1702. He published poetry, theological and philosophical writings. In his Logic, or the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth (1724), he defines ontology as: «what was wont to be called the first part of metaphysics in the peripatetic schools. It treats of being in its most general nature, and of all its affections and relations»116. In the same way, in the Brief Scheme of Ontology, he says that: «In our days indeed that name [sc. metaphysics] is dropt, and with much better reason it is term’d Ontology, or the Knowledge of Being in general with its various affections»117. 43. Johann Georg Walch (1726) In 1726 the first edition of the Philosophisches Lexicon (following editions: 1733; 1740; 1775) was published. It was most probably the first dictionary written entirely in a modern language (German). The author was Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775), German theologian of Lutheran faith, who studied in Lepzig and, amongst Johann Franz Budde, in Jena. In the Philosophisches Lexicon, a specific entry is dedicated to ontology («Ontologie»). According to Walch, ontology – 115 Charles Huguier, Paris 1721, tome II, p. 947a: «ONTŎLŎGĬĂ, æ. f. Ontologie, la science qui traite de l’être en général». 116 I. WATTS, Logic, or the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth, Longman, London 1755 (10th ed.), p. 126; cf. also pp. 25, 122, 306. 117 I. WATTS, Philosophical Essays on various subjects [...] To which is subjoined, a Brief Scheme of Ontology; or the Science of Being in General, with its Affections, R. Ford & R. Hett, London 1733, p. 315, cf. also p. 320. The Brief Scheme of Ontology seems to have been a course given in the John Hartopp’s family (and therefore dating from 1696-1701), and was used as a handbook. See E. PAXTON HOOD, Isaac Watts: His Life and Writings, His Homes and Friends, The Religious Tract Society, London 1875, p. 50. 206 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna «Bedeutet die Lehre vom Ente, und ist eine Benennung, womit einige neueren Philosophen die Metaphysik beleget, und darunter die dieienige Wissenschaft, die vom Ente überhaupt und dessen Eigenschaften handelt, verstanden [...]»118. 44. Johann Franz Budde (1727) Johann Franz Budde (a descendant of the well-known French scholar Guillaume Budé), was born on 25 June 1667 and died on 19 November 1729. He was appointed assistant professor of Philosophy at the University of Wittenberg in 1685, and took his Master’s degree in 1687. In 1689 he went to the University of Jena to teach Philosophy. From 1693 to 1705 he taught Moral Philosophy at the University of Halle. He then returned to Jena as assistant professor of Theology. Perhaps the most universally accomplished German theologian of his time, he was an advocate of eclecticism. Concerning ontology, see his book Isagoge historico-theologica in theologiam universam singulasque ejus partes119. 45. Jakob Wilhelm Feuerlein (1727, 1728) Jakob Wilhelm Feuerlein, who was born in March 1689 and died in 1766, was a Lutheran theologian. From 1706 he studied Theology at the Universities of Altdorf and Jena, where he was a student of Budde. He was professor of Logic and after of Metaphysics at the University of Altdorf from 1715. In 1736 he went to the University of Göttingen. On ontology, see his Cursus philosophiae eclecticae120, as well as the work of his student Jodocus Munker, Dissertatio ontologica de substantia erroribus nonnullis opposita121 (sub praesidio Jakob Wilhelm Feuerlein). 118 J.G. WALCH, «Ontologie», in Philosophisches Lexicon: darinnen die in allen Theilen der Philosophie, als Logic, Metaphysic, Physic, Pneumatic, Ethic, natürlichen Theologie, und Rechts-gelehrsamkeit, [...], Gleditsch, Leipzig 1726, col. 1926. 119 J.F. BUDDE, Isagoge historico-theologica in theologiam universam singulasque ejus partes, Fritsch & Fickelscher, Lipsiae & Jenae 1727, reprint Olms, Hildesheim 1999, l. I, c. IV, § 28, t. I, pp. 252-261. 120 The title continues: h.e. historia philosophica, arithmetica, geometria, physica, pneumatica, theologia naturalis, ontologia, logica, critica, didactica, ethica, iurisprudentia naturalis, prudentia publica et privata / XXXVII. tabulis iisque paulo plenioribus et II. tabulis figurarum aenearum in usum auditorum delineatae, Engelbrecht, Altdorf & Nürnberg 1727. 121 Altdorf, 1728. The Rise and Early History of the Term Ontology (1606-1730) 207 46. Christian Wolff (1728; 1730) In 1723 Christian Wolff became professor of Mathematics at the Philipps-Universität of Marburg, after he had been sent away from the University of Halle due to clashes with the Pietistic wing of the faculty (Hermann Franke [1663-1727], Daniel Strähler and Joachim Lange [1670-1744]). In these years, Rudolph Goclenius’ influence at the University of Marburg was still strong, even though he had died almost a century before (1628). Both in his Philosophia prima sive ontologia (1730)122 and Psychologia empirica (1732)123, Wolff often cites Goclenius and the Lexicon philosophicum, using the reverential expression «Noster Goclenius». Following Goclenius, Wolff called ontology the first philosophy (prima philosophia), i.e. the science that deals with being in general and its determinations: «Quoniam Ontologia de ente in genere agit [...]; ea demonstrare debet, quae entibus omnibus sive absolute, sive sub data quadam conditione conveniunt. E. gr. Duo quaecunque entia A & B vel similia sunt, vel dissimilia. Notiones adeo similitudinis & dissimilitudinis in Ontologia explicandae & generalia similitudinis ac dissimilitudinis principia exinde deducenda»124. Wolff is probably referring to Goclenius, among other philosophers, when he asserts in his Ratio praelectionum: «Tenendum itaque, mihi Metaphysicam potissimum vocari scientiam de Deo & mente humana rerumque principiis, unde ista pendet; scientiae vero entis, qua ens est, Philosophiae primae nomen servari: id quod etiam ab aliis fieri solet Philosophis»125. Ontology reached Wolff after more than 120 years of history and debates within the Schulmetaphysik. His task was to set, once and for all, the disciplinary 122 «Sane Goclenius noster, qui seculo superiori Professoris philosophiae primarii munere in hac Academia fungebatur, in Lexico philosophico hos duos confusi significatus tanquam diversos distinguit». C. WOLFF, Philosophia prima, sive Ontologia, methodo scientifica pertractata, qua omnis cognitionis humanae principia continentur, Prostat in Officina Libraria Rengeriana, Francofurti et Lipsiae 1736, § 485, and also §§ 488, 502, 567, 712. 123 Cf. C. WOLFF, Psychologia empirica, methodo scientifica pertractata, Prostat in Officina libraria Rengeriana, Francofurti et Lipsiae 1732, in part. §§ 93, 205, 231, 232, 257, 258, 479, 480, 653, 660, 678, 696, 760, 770, 933. 124 WOLFF, Philosophia prima cit., § 8. 125 C. WOLFF, Ratio praelectionum Wolffianarum Mathesin et philosophiam Universam et Opus Hugonis Grotii de Jure belli ac pacis, Halae 1735, repr. Olms, Hildesheim-New York 1972, c. III (De lectionibus metaphysicis), § 2, p. 141; with regard to the first identification of the two terms of prima philosophia and ontologia in Wolff, see also C. WOLFF, Philosophia rationalis sive logica, methodo scientifica pertractata, Francofurti & Lipsiae 1740 (first ed. 1728), § 73, p. 34, reprint Olms, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York 1983. 208 Michaël Devaux • Marco Lamanna separation of metaphysics according to genus and species, to confirm general being as the subject of ontology and to divide metaphysical sciences into theology, psychology and cosmology: «Ego Metaphysicam ex Philosophia prima seu Ontologia, Cosmologia, Psychologia & Theologia naturali componere soleo»126. This was the standard that would dominate German Universities in the first part of the German Aufklärung, the so-called “Age of Wolff”, until reaching Kant. Conclusions In the first years of its appearance, the term ontologia was often used with a simple etymological valence and without the problematic background related to the status of metaphysics, its subject matter or the denomination of the sciences. In many of the authors who first used the term, ontologia only occurs occasionally. However, the term undoubtedly enjoyed a great success among those authors who in whom we can find this problematic background, i.e. when behind the history of the concept there is also the history of a problem. This is the case of authors such as Goclenius, Alsted, Calov, Clauberg, Micraelius and Wolff. In conclusion, and daring to make a synthesis, it may be useful to summarize Leibniz’s position. In two out of the three occasions on which he uses the term, ontology represents a scientia generalis. On the one hand it is «nihil aliud est quam Scientia de Cogitabili»; on the other hand, as ontology, it is the science «de Aliquo et Nihilo, Ente et Non ente, Re et modo rei, Substantia et Accidente». According to Leibniz, ontology includes all the subjects on which Timpler, Lorhard, Goclenius, Calov et al. had held diverging opinions. Ontology is the science of the pure intelligible, or cogitabile, while it is also the science of aliquid, of being and of res. All this occurs at a general level, i.e. without dealing with a particular being or a particular object. Since Leibniz confirms ontology as a general science which differs from the other particular sciences, he overcomes and synthesizes all the positions on the subject of ontology on which his predecessors had held different views. According to Leibniz, there is no longer a conflict between being and the intelligible: behind being there is only the pure intelligible, and behind ontology there is only the scientia de cogitabili. In Leibniz’s synthesis, ontology can be said to have been mainly a noetic science in the first years of its rise. 126 WOLFF, Ratio praelectionum cit., § 2, p. 141.